Forum menu
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/north-sea-oil-money-uk-norwegians-fund ]Oil oney frittered away according to The Guardian[/url]
The key part is in this paragraph
So where did our billions go? Hawksworth writes: "The logical answer is that the oil money enabled non-oil taxes to be kept lower." In other words: tax cuts. When the North Sea was providing maximum income, Thatcher's chancellor, Nigel Lawson slashed income and other direct taxes, especially for the rich. The top rate of tax came down from 60p in the pound to just 40p by 1988. He also reduced the basic rate of income tax; but the poor wouldn't have seen much of those pounds in their pockets, as, thanks to the Tories, they were paying more VAT.
So for me successive UK governments failed to distribute the oil money fairly among the whole population.
The original report quoted in the article is Dude Wheres my Oil Money by John Hawksworth of PriceWaterhouseCooper and came out in 2008 but I cant find it online
FWIW the folk I know in the oil business don't give a lot of weight to Wood's opinions or reports given that they're a services company and not a drilling or exploration company. They reckon he's mostly just in it for himself and the figures and numbers used are chosen to further what ever the company is seeking to do at that point in time.
y. I laugh when fellow Scots wish to end the class system, and I imagine wealth inequality by distributing oil wealth amongst a smaller percentage of the UK population
At the end of the day we're too small an amount of people with not enough influence to make changes to the rest of the UK so might as well start with Scotland. I would the rUK follows suit but there's not a lot we can do about it up here.
If, as expected the Scots return a NO vote, then all this will have achieved is to sour relations (even more?) between Scotland and England & possibly even sour relations between Scotland & Wales/N.I.
Not a happy state of affairs really.
Well you know who to blame.....
...the real negativity has come from yS all along with the scare stories on the NHS being the final salvo. So Alex what has happened to NHS spending this decade in real terms? How has this been affected by "austerity" (sic)? How much autonomy over health policies are already devolved? How many Scots eat their five a day? Which UK parties are promoting the end of free at the point of use? Hmmmm.......
Can't see where the various reports on Scottish health point the finger at English Tories, but it's a suitably deceitful tag line to finish with. Blame Thatcher for the lack of cauliflower in Cowdenbeath.
the real negativity has come from yS all along
A quick list of headlines, just running from April 2014:
“Yes vote risks foreign aid”
“Yes vote is threat to freedom”
“Scots would lose access to BBC shows after independence”
“Independent Scotland’s viewers must pay extra for BBC”
“Alex Salmond’s currency Plan A would collapse within a year”
“Independent Scotland’s economy would crash if it tried to use sterling”
“Go-it-alone Scotland ‘defenceless’: Nation will be left without weapons”
“Mortgages up £1600 if Yes”
“Scottish yes vote could lead to currency limbo, say MPs”
“Postal costs in Scotland could rise after independence, say MPs”
“Scotland and the UK will separate geographically, as well as politically”
“Yes could be catalyst for sterling crisis”
“Yes will send shares crashing”
“Labour claim 1m may lose jobs after independence”
“Darling: Independence could cost Scotland £8bn”
“700,000 to Leave if Union is Broken”
“Yes vote would lead to economic crisis worse than the crash”
“UK split to set back cure for cancer”
“Gordon Brown raises organ-transplant fears ahead of referendum”
“Alex Salmond Is A ‘Prototype Dictator’ And ‘Master Of The Borg’”
“Juncker Ends Salmond’s European Dream”
“Scotland’s tourism industry is threatened by independence”
“Split ‘may cost Scots £400m for welfare IT’
“Yes vote pension cost warning“
“Vulnerable people could lose benefits in an independent Scotland“
“Bank bailout doubt if Scots vote to quit UK“
“Independent Scotland Could Suffer Iceland-Style Financial Collapse“
“Consumers would snub separate Scotland’s brands“
“Scottish independence ‘would harm world’s poorest’”
“Go-alone Scotland faces threats from space”
“Scottish Independence Will Lead to Soaring Energy Bills”
“Scotland faces £143bn debt after independence”
“Fears for fishing in breakaway Scotland”
“Thousands of defence jobs will be at risk if Scotland votes Yes”
“Scottish independence will cause civil war in Africa”
“Scottish independence would be cataclysmic for the world”
Only THM in this thread could argue that "scare stories on the NHS" are just scare stories. Everyone I know, where ever they are from, is worried about how the NHS will be in 10-20 years time after the changes kicked off by the current government and the increasing role of private healthcare companies. To think think changes to the NHS in England wouldn't have any sort of knock on effect is naive as well.
Quoting headlines from the Weekly World News isn't adding a lot of authority to your argument !
Adn you missed the one about how we would all have to drive on the right hand side of the road, under an Independent Scotland.
Adn you missed the one about how we would all have to drive on the right hand side of the road, under an Independent Scotland.
Apparently that one was meant to be a joke. I don't think the rest of these were meant as jokes.
“Alex Salmond Is A ‘Prototype Dictator’ And ‘Master Of The Borg’
Scottish independence will cause civil war in Africa”.
I hate to be the one to have to tell you this - but Star Trek was just a TV show - it wasn't real. And the White Paper is just a book of ideas.
So how will Scotland be immune from the same pressures WNB? Which rUK party is talking about the end to free at the point of use?
In the meantime, forget the actual reasons behind Scoltand's poor health record and blame the English. Do we stop all fruit at Carlisle? Did John Major insist that you eat more takeaways and drink more alcohol than France? Has CMD ruled that more Scots should skip breakfast?
So is Scotland unable to manage its own health policy or does it have to follow the rUK one (perceived or otherwise)?
Ben you forget the central theme of portraying one of the most successful examples on economic and political union are almost entirely negative for one party. That is (unfounded) negativity of the highest order and a little bit more relevant than lists of headlines (designed to sell papers).
I wonder if there is any measure of how effectively the various Westminster governments shared oil wealth among the whole UK population?
@gordimor its impossible to trace directly, it all just goes into a big melting pot. Over the decades we have had oil revenues we have had governments of every colour so there has been plenty of opportunity to allocate resources differently.
On specific rates we have had lower VAT for many years than say France (17.5 VAT vs 19.6 TVA) and also much lower taxes for average working people. So you could argue if you wished that the oil revenue has been distributed evenly particularly in reference to VAT
@ben, its easy to throw rocks at the No campaign for being "negative" as the primary argument is that Scotland will be worse off
o Scotland’s economy represents a significant share of Sterling Area output -approximately 10% of current UK GDP or around the same size as the entire UK financial sector.
So what?
“Alex Salmond Is A ‘Prototype Dictator’ And ‘Master Of The Borg’
That was Scotland's only UKIP MEP, and he's a fruitcake, but they've not disowned him yet: https://archive.today/ZDrT6
Scottish independence will cause civil war in Africa”.
That was an Oxford professor writing in the FT: http://archive.today/ojIXJ
keeping this on topic
I'm still waiting for a Yes supporter to state convincingly why CU is in the interest of rUK
Junkyard did a BoD cut and paste, anyone got any real reasons?
That'd be the vague ideological reason(not explained particulay well. It's late!)
I think it's refreshingly honest and nothing wrong with it, you just need to settle with the fact that a large proportion of the Yes vote is based on keeping the oil wealth for a smaller group of people
In the meantime, forget the actual reasons behind Scoltand's poor health record and blame the English.
I stopped reading at this petty jibe. No one is doing that.
So how will Scotland be immune from the same pressures WNB? Which rUK party is talking about the end to free at the point of use?
As for this, the fact that we're unlikely to vote in a party that favours the privatisation of public services is a decent start. And of course the Tories aren't admitting that's their plan, but there's a whole host of things they said they wouldn't do, but did anyway.
You can apply "so what" to many such points kona!
They are not designed for the discerning audience as the book of dreams illustrated.
It's not a jibe WNB it's the sad reality. I can't see let's blame the Tories in many of the reports commissioned by the DO. They tend to focus in the real threats to Scottish health not the made up ones.
As for this, the fact that we're unlikely to vote in a party that favours the privatisation of public services
Apart from the one you have voted in which has increase expenditure on NHS use of private health care year on year since gaining power.
The whole NHS argument is a an attempt by the yS to raise the tensions. The UK Government is aiming to reduce public spending. Regardless of which mainstream political party you support, they are all committed to it it. As Scotland's block grant is worked out from Government spending, then any reduction will also impact money handed to the Scottish Government. How the Scottish Government spends that money is upto them, in fact they could increase Income Tax in Scotland with powers already granted to them if they wanted more money.
The current funding model for the NHS is probably unworkable in the long term, and compared to some social models used in other European countries, quite inefficient. No party (including mainstream Tories) is advocating a move to the US model of private healthcare - for slightly better results in outcomes it spends as vast amount more.
And just to point out (in the name of fairness) NHS Scotland spent about £1 Bn last year on private healthcare.
Jambalaya VAT is a regressive tax and under the coalition the standard rate has risen to 20%. Whilst the higher rate of tax has fallen 43 % from 83% to 40% since Thatcher became pm and the basic rate has fallen by 13% from 33% to 20% over the same period.(HMRC) When you combine this with increases in national insurance (see the guardian article) and the regressive nature vat it means that the already well off have benefited disproportionately from tax cuts funded partly by north sea oil revenue.
The whole NHS argument is a an attempt by the yS to raise the tensions. The UK Government is aiming to reduce public spending. Regardless of which mainstream political party you support, they are all committed to it it.
I think that's the Yessers' point, isn't it?
Yip, I'm under no illusions that independence is only a starting point and that scotland has it's fair share of shysters..big_n_daft - MemberI think it's refreshingly honest and nothing wrong with it, you just need to settle with the fact that a large proportion of the Yes vote is based on keeping the oil wealth for a smaller group of people
The whole NHS argument is a an attempt by the yS to raise the tensions.
Doesnt mean it isnt happening though
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28522286 ]Andy Burnham thinks it should be stopped[/url]
Increasing income tax would be slow and ultimately not raise enough money as I said a few pages back
gordimhor - MemberLast year the Scottish Govt spent 11.9 billion on the NHS and brought in 10.8 billion in income tax. The current power allowing tax variance of upto +/-3% would be ineffective for at least a year as the cost of setting up a system and collection would be greater than the amount raised. Even with the powers from the 2012 act the Scottish Government could only raise less than 10%of it's spend on the NHS through raising income tax. That's assuming that Westminster doesn't change the tax thresholds as that power remains with Westminster.
Quoting yourself ....is never a good look 😳
I wonder if there is any measure of how effectively the various Westminster governments shared oil wealth among the whole UK population?
Quite badly I imagine gordimhor. I am not here to defend all the actions of the UK government, also spreading the oil wealth over so many means the effect is smaller, but I think it is still worth trying. Wealth inequality will still be an issue in an independent Scotland.
And just to point out (in the name of fairness) NHS Scotland spent about £1 Bn last year on private healthcare.
Rubbish:
Recent figures showed NHS spending in Scotland for independent healthcare in 2012/13 was about £28m, which is 0.8% of the overall budget.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25795582
I've seen slightly different figures elsewhere, but it's still a lot, lot less than £1bn:
The amount spent by NHS Scotland on private sector involvement in 2012/13 was £80 million – that’s less than 1% of the total amount spent in Scotland on front line NHS services. To put it in a slightly different context, that £80 million is much less than the £220 million a year in charges the Scottish Government has to shell out for PFI contracts. If anyone has allowed the private sector into our NHS in Scotland it’s been Labour – the Scottish Government is locked into these contracts and has no choice about paying out these funds, thanks to Labour bringing private firms into our health service. The accumulated £400 million spend over six years quoted by the No campaign has been massaged to include the use of locum doctors and agency nurses – temporary staff brought in to cover shortages, holiday periods and the like.
burdzeyeview.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/why-voting-no-threatens-scotlands-nhs/
There's also a fundamental difference in how private companies are used in Scotland. They're not contract holders. Private companies are not bidding for health services. They're only brought in for specific issues in some healthcare regions.
Jambalaya VAT is a regressive tax and under the coalition the standard rate has risen to 20%. Whilst the higher rate of tax has fallen 43 % from 83% to 40% since Thatcher became pm and the basic rate has fallen by 13% from 33% to 20% over the same period.(HMRC) When you combine this with increases in national insurance (see the guardian article) and the regressive nature vat it means that the already well off have benefited disproportionately from tax cuts funded partly by north sea oil revenue.
Taxes are lower in the UK than they are in left learning France, wages are higher too. We are much better off as a result. VAT is a very sensible tax as it's paid by all including by visitors/tourists and those who are able to dodge PAYE. UK VAT is lower than most of the rest of Europe (certainly was at 17.5%). TPlus we have VAT excempt or low rates on other specific items. Food is subject to VAT in France FYI. here is lots of evidence that higher tax rates lead to lower tax takes, the penal tax rates of the 70's where demonstrably negative for the economy and France is discovering that too with its 66% rate laughably which does not apply to footballers !
If we do see an independent Scotland or at least one with tax setting powers then you can observe what AS/SNP do to make the country "more fair"
big_n_daft - Member
...the question is whether the "marriage" is over or do we just need counselling, but as with any separation, if it ends up with a divorce both parties will look to their own future
Sadly it's now too late. Even if there is a No vote there is a very large percentage of Scots unhappy.
So unless Westminster changes its spots, that will keep festering away. I don't know where that will lead.
We needed a renewal of the vows of marriage after the '79 referendum, an adjustment of the govt structure.
I'll happily admit to being a Scottish nationalist (NB small "n"), but I also think that it's possible to be that in a United Kingdom, just as there is room for English, Welsh and Northern Irish nationalists, with an overall pride in British nationality.
However for that to work there needed to be a fairer distribution of power and resources, and a more federated structure. It's been left too late.
It's not just Scotland that thinks it is not getting a fair go, there's also rumblings in the rest of the country. Our govt has become too centralised and top heavy with unelected "representatives" who stay in power regardless of who we have voted for. The city state of London looks like a black hole sucking up resources.
I can't speak for England (obviously) but I believe real power needs to be delegated to regions, and a new capital city in the north of England to reduce the London bias.
Most of the Yes voters I know would have voted for more devolution rather than a separation, but we were not offered that. There is no choice for us now but to vote Yes.
This is made more necessary because English politicians are lining up to say how much the Scottish budget needs to be cut - if we vote NO, we are going to be punished for our temerity, not rewarded for saving the Union. Ironically this has converted the last No voter in my immediate family.
And really, if you think we are sucking up your taxes and getting more than our share, you should be delighted to see us go.
^ What he said.
I'd also add that it's odd to see so much complaint about higher public spending in Scotland, when the public spending per person is even higher in London. Why isn't there more complaint about that?
This is made more necessary because English politicians are lining up to say how much the Scottish budget needs to be cut
it's just the usual London idiots who think the rest of the country freeload off the centre of the universe given air time by London based media outlets because it gets headlines
- if we vote NO, we are going to be punished for our temerity, not rewarded for saving the Union. Ironically this has converted the last No voter in my immediate family
is this not the Yes campaign version of project fear?
the three main parties agree on more devolution, there is no momentum for a "punishment" of the Scots in fact the reverse to build on what has already been done, the welsh want it the NI probably want it and other than idiots in the SE bubble I believe England wants more devolved power
FTFYIf we do see an independent Scotland [s]or at least one with tax setting powers[/s] then you can observe what[s] AS/SNP[/s]future Scottish Governments do to make the country "more fair"
big_n_daft - Member
t's just the usual London idiots who think the rest of the country freeload off the centre of the universe given air time by London based media outlets because it gets headlines
"- if we vote NO, we are going to be punished for our temerity, not rewarded for saving the Union. Ironically this has converted the last No voter in my immediate family"
is this not the Yes campaign version of project fear?
No it's not the Yes campaign version of Project Fear.
We have no control over the press, hence the almost 100% support of the press for the No position.
Indeed if Alex Salmond is controlling the English press to that extent, he should be PM of the entire country. 🙂
We do not believe the 3 parties about further devolution - they have lied to us before about this. If they hadn't, that "promise" would be more believable.
it's just the usual London idiots who think the rest of the country freeload off the centre of the universe given air time by London based media outlets because it gets headlines
If only that were true - sadly the Future of England survey showed that it's ordinary English people who want to punish the Scots for even trying to get independence:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/leader-comment-english-opinion-on-independence-1-3514693
I'd also add that it's odd to see so much complaint about higher public spending in Scotland, when the public spending per person is even higher in London. Why isn't there more complaint about that?
Because you've just made that ‘fact’ up? (Public spending per capita Scotland £10152, London £9435)
the three main parties agree on more devolution
What they agree on is "more powers" for Scotland. Those powers come down to greater control over income tax, but a corresponding reduction in the block grant.
This will mean a huge reduction in the Scottish budget. At the moment Scotland gets a contribution back via the block grant, but we contribute even more because of the oil revenues. But if we lose the block grant we'll only have the income tax to make up the shortfall - we won't have control of the oil revenues to do that, they'll stay with Westminster.
So that extra £1400 per year that every Scot gets will be gone.
"So that extra £1400 per year that every Scot gets will be gone."
Yes but Ben it's not about money and economics is it?!?! 😉
Because you've just made that ‘fact’ up? (Public spending per capita Scotland £10152, London £9435)
Those aren't the figures I've seen. The killer is infrastructure - infrastructure spending per head in London is around £5000, and that's not quoted in the normal public spending figures.
Yes but Ben it's not about money and economics is it?!?!
No it isn't, but it's worth countering the lie that what the three main parties propose is a good thing for Scotland - it isn't.
So the three main parties are proposing greater devolution (essentially what most people want) and that is a bad thing. There is some real confusion up north of the border. We want what the no camp are offering but we can't vote for them because they are not the yes camp. Too much irn bru and vodka....
Can we just put this one to bed? There is [b]no[/b] agreement for additional devolution. Some senior party bods are suggesting that some powers might be available, but these don't have agreement of their parliamentary colleagues, so they 'd first have to be agreed party-wide, then there would have to be legislation passed through Westminster. All of this would be happening while the parties are preparing for a 2015 UKGE and they would all be under pressure from the majority of their voters (i.e. in England) not to "placate" those in Scotland (see recent press articles).the three main parties agree on more devolution
This isn't about honesty (or otherwise) from the likes of David Cameron, it's about him making promises he is unable to fulfill.
Exactly. No-one is proposing more devolution other than of income tax which is, as I've detailed, a poisoned chalice.
Can we just put this one to bed? There is no agreement for additional devolution.
nor is their any agreement on a "punishment" for Scotland post "no" either, but don't let that get in the way of "project feart" 😉
The killer is infrastructure - infrastructure spending per head in London is around £5000, and that's not quoted in the normal public spending figures.
Those figures are meaningless until you know what the histrorical and future infrastructure plans are for the various regions. FWIW I do think spending should be more widely spread, I thought the new 'Wembley' should have been built in the midlands for example.
But the whole topic is whataboutery really.
big_n_daft - Member
project feart
Haha, surprised it's took 2 years for someone to come up with that, very good! 😆