It’s just our queen who is German

Isn’t she half-Scottish?

The Falklands voted to stay British by something like 99% IIRC. The votes for Argentinean equated to 3 people ISTR! (Jose, Manuel and Pedro)

Denmark has plenty of advantages that Scotland doesn’t, of course, like geography; it’s at the centre of Europe, rather than the periphery. CBA checking, but I bet their tax rates aren’t that different to Germany, because of the other problem Scotland would face with a high tax differential with the UK, capital flight. Nuclear and “foreign wars”: IIRC the white paper identified about £500m savings on defence off your current £3bn share, some way short. You don’t pay for things like Crossrail, covered here.[/url] Grow the economy, laudable goal but if it was that easy, why isn’t it happening already? How is an economically poorer performing Scotland in the UK Govt’s interest? Hinkley, not looking great admittedly, but you’ll be needing some sort of base load in that green mix. You wouldn’t have thought the national grid would split on separation, so maybe you end up paying for it anyway as your existing nukes go offline?
It sounds eerily similar to the Brexit arguments pre-referendum to me, it’ll all be fine because xyz. Xyz often seems doubtful at best!

A better NHS my employer. A greener energy policy. No fake Austerity.

Think all those cost money! Tough to square that with an acceptable deficit for EU entry.

Late coming back to this but:

airtragic – Member

Might this be something to do with Scotland having had far less inward migration

I know that immigration is a net positive etc etc, but you’ve got plenty of, shall we say, less enlightened folk up there who wouldn’t see it that way in the event of a big influx, just as we do down here.

That’s a nonsense argument. The most anti immigration parts of england are the part with the least immigration. Attitudes and levels of immigration in cities like glasgow, liverpool, manchester etc isn’t all that different, neither are the attitudes in the cities.

Places with most immigration ae generally the most accepting of immigrants, imo. Obviously not always the case but it’s a general trend.

That’s debatable at least. Plenty seem to think it’s the rate of change that’s important.

Joseph Rowntree Report

Quote from it: “Even though areas with relatively high levels of EU migration tended to be more pro-remain, areas that had experienced a sudden influx of EU migrants over the last 10 years were often more pro-leave. This finding is consistent with the argument that when it comes to the effect of immigration on the referendum what appears to matter the most is the experience of sudden population change rather than the overall level. Indeed, as Geoffrey Evans and Jon Mellon show, public concern about immigration as a political issue over time in Britain strongly tracks actual levels of immigration.”

Plenty of areas of Scotland that would be analogous to Peterborough etc, if Scotland had had the same level of immigration.

Openness is the dividing issue of our time. Scotland is on one side of that divide and England is on the other. It was the same thing when the divide was labour vs capital.

Might this be something to do with Scotland having had far less inward migration than England over the past few years? The Brexit vote seems to have been driven largely by immigration; if Scotland had seen the same levels, that egalitarian attitude might slip a tad, no?

I know that immigration is a net positive etc etc, but you’ve got plenty of, shall we say, less enlightened folk up there who wouldn’t see it that way in the event of a big influx, just as we do down here. Unless you think that Scots are inherently more outward looking and less parochial than their English neighbours? Having grown up there, I’d struggle with that!

I can imagine you connecting with posh middle-class people like yourself better. Despite your protestations of being some sort of working class hero who despises the middle-classes

#prolierthanthou

When I refer to 50% I wasn’t talking about the tax rate, but about the tax take (so tax and NI).

The tax rates are now too high, you’ve people working pretty standard jobs who’ve income that puts them into 40% tax.

To put it into perspective, my parents bought their first house in the late 60’s when only my Dad worked and they had two young children and my Dad didn’t earn enough to pay income tax (in those days you got a tax deduction for both mortgage relief and children). Impossible now.

b r – Member

Northwind – you’ll find that is ‘income, and includes pensioners – actual is almost £30k and if you take out p/t then there are a far greater than 15% on higher rate tax, and higher number in the public sector than many realise.
Posted 3 hours ago # Report-Post

Both of these. I’m a junior officer in the RAF, top pay increment. I pay 40% tax. I realise this is massively selective, but looking around at friends and peers I don’t feel “rich”, though I acknowledge I’m comfortable, have lots to be thankful for, many cleverer folk earn less money etc. The 50% thing b r refers to chimes with me; if I get promoted more than half goes straight back to the Treasury, something of disincentive to putting the extra work in to get there, especially viewed alongside the other disincentives! I can make a lot more renting my spare room! I’m just one person, but viewed across the whole economy…
Trouble is, what’s the solution? We need to spend less or take more, not easy!

Earn more than that but I’m a public servant, so all debit from me I’m afraid!

Actually think Jamby’s on to something there. Anecdotally, there was a lot of messaging on fb in the run-up to the EU referendum about the possibility of a second indyref in the event of Scotland voting to stay in in the event of Brexit. Whether it’s enough to explain a 15% swing from the rest of the UK I don’t know, but plenty of the 45 never gave up the fight! I don’t really think the Scots are inherently any more pro-European than, say, the Welsh, but I think the SNP tap into the anti-establishment mood and blend it with nationalism/latent anti-English sentiment, which is why they’re so popular.

And this:

Economist

His comments on McCain. What a c***.

This lady sums it up from the Islanders’ perspective:

copa – Member

Any “real world” examples of limitless public funds being made available?

Here’s another one. Commitment to spend two percent of GDP on military toys. Currently around £40 billion but no limit on what it could rise to:
Defence spending commitment

The UK government couldn’t give a toss about manufacturing. The only things they’ll fund in Wales are roads to England and the military:
RAF Valley future secured
Posted 1 hour ago #

Copa, your hatred of the military doesn’t half make you post some twaddle. On the points above:

1. Don’t you think that a commitment to military spending might be good for UK manufacturing?
2. The 2% commitment was wrung out of the government by the Americans, and even then it employs some smoke and mirrors to allow them to claim 2%. Why would you think they’ll increase it further?
3. The RAF are shutting bases. Is keeping Valley open and shutting Linton-on-Ouse in (Tory) North Yorkshire a dastardly plan to see off the Welsh? Where do you think Valley’s (predominantly civilian) workforce live?

ISTR Keynesian economics suggests state spending in recession to keep the economy going, then cuts in periods of growth to get spending back under control. The folk loudly decrying austerity tend to forget the second bit. Arguments over the rate and targeting aside, isn’t that pretty much what the government’s doing? Happy to be corrected!

@slimjim…you can’t have it both ways…first you say..

Stop for one minute to imagine where we could be if labour had continued to run the figures. I’m certain of nothing in politics other than being convinced that labour budgeting is suicide.

Then you say..

He didn’t hit his quoted targets, but I’m pretty sure the economic shower of shit he inherited was even worse than first predicted. IMO it’s too easy to just spout ‘he missed his target he missed his target!’

So you think missing missing targets is ok and that it’s the world econonmy that has been the problem. (Which is also what many economists agree was the issue with the ecomonic problems for Labour i.e. not their fault, world economy issues at play)

What exactly is it that you think Labour would do that’s so different from the excuses you make for Conservative?

Appears to me that your a typical voter who has a (strong) allegiance to a political party without thinking critically what’s going on.

It’s a question of priorities; Labour went into the 2010 election looking to cut more slowly, something Osborne had to do halfway into his first term anyway. They would probably have focused slightly more on taxation rather than reducing spending. Both parties are ideologically hamstrung, but in different directions. Would the deficit and hence debt be higher if Labour had won in 2010? Would it matter? Difficult question!

Grum, Yunki, I’m not saying don’t criticise. I’m saying don’t demonise. I think the Government’s actions are worthy of grown-up criticism. As soon as you do this:

Savage murderous bastards don’t like being called names. It makes them have a sad

You sound like this:

And lose credibility. Withdrawing funding isn’t really the definition of murder, is it? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Un were/are savage, murdering bastards. David Cameron isn’t. Didn’t Michael Foot ask people to stop calling the Thatcher Govt fascist, in case they didn’t recognise the real thing? FWIW I have no problem with criticism or “political correctness”, it’s mostly just not being a dick, isn’t it?

Shame that the one thing you are certain of in politics is nonsense slimjim.

The Conservatives have been the biggest borrowers over the last 70 years

And hilariously hypocritical that Osbourne is now blaming global financial conditions (as well as Labour, obviously) for failing to meet virtually all of his targets for balancing the books when they’ve spent the last few years castigating Labour for happening to be in power when a worldwide financial meltdown happened.

In the interests of balance, might that be attributable to them tending to take over from a high spending Labour administration? Saying “Osbourne has borrowed more than Brown” is factually correct but very misleading, classic politicking!

Who’s being demonised?

Jambalaya tory fanboi
Drinking from the poisoned cup
Writing facts like fairy tales
You really couldn’t make it up

Suckling from the demon’s teat
Mind and soul awash with greed
Writhing debauched, entranced, ecstatic
Drunk and high on Satan’s seed

Prostrate before the foulest alter
Vows taken, dedication whole
Wealth and death and no compassion
For lower tax he sold his soul

Take me up oh wondrous leaders
To join you in your golden beds
Feasting on the poor and needy
Midst lusty trysts with porcine heads

Deluded, rapturous believer
Sacrifice the lesser man
Some of us were born more equal
To take all things since time began

Who will stop these pompous pirates?
Lacking will and weak of chin
Pathetic mewling grasping monsters
Braying waltzing, utter sin

Probably quite a few, if they lose their jobs. Being a higher rate taxpayer doesn’t make you rich (my definition of that being someone who isn’t immediately in trouble if they don’t get paid at the end of the month!).

But haven’t the poor and disadvantaged reaped the benefits of the “elite”‘s actions in better times? Are the poor and disadvantaged worse off if the “elite” are punished, ie banks allowed to go bust etc? That’s the judgement the Govt have to make. Is it even a valid comparison? By dint of being poor and disadvantaged, their mistakes are less likely to have a knock on effect on others, whereas with great power comes great responsibility.
I also find the scapegoating of the poor and disadvantaged distasteful btw, but it’s not just the Govt, it’s the print media and even TV, with stuff like benefit street. Plays on the old confirmation bias that everyone else has it easier than you!

My name’s Paul and I’m a 40% taxpayer. But only just. I’ll try not to get too vulgar when spending my £11 a month extra. As jamba and stumpyjon have said though, very rich people/companies have options. If you keep squeezing them, a significant number will avoid harder/go elsewhere, especially when you’ve got near neighbours who will tout for their patronage. You can pass judgement on this all you want, but it’ll still happen. ISTR that the City accounts for something like 10% of the Treasury’s tax take. So, are Britain’s poor better or worse off for it’s presence? Take squeezing the rich to its logical conclusion and you get communism, which has a much poorer track record than capitalism for lifting people out of poverty, because of that basic human instinct to do the best for oneself and one’s family.
I get that it’s a sliding scale, and there are successful examples of sliding it further left, like Nordic socialism. FWIW I think that cutting disability benefits at the same time as higher rate taxes is wrong, but the general direction of travel of shrinking the deficit is a good thing. Demonising anyone who takes a different viewpoint seems to be an increasing problem in modern politics, from the US elections to the Scots’ indyref. Maybe it’s the decivilising influence of the internet?

@airtragic

it belies the anti-Englishness that a lot of the vote is founded on.

Any evidence or links?

Nope, hence the prefix “I think” 😉

However, born in Kent to Scottish parents, lived there till age 2, moved to Glasgow area and hence went to school with a slightly non-regulation accent. So I know that a significant section of the populace get anti-English sentiment with their mother’s milk. I’m not saying it’s the sole driver for indy, or that it’s a factor for everyone, but I think it’s a bigger one than people care to admit.

You don’t buy a 13 year old car and not expect there to be issues.

Unless you’re one of that shower at webuyanycar!

Very few folk have the same view on both unions – I think THM Is the only pro person on both unions but there may be others.

On this thread maybe, I reckon there’s a lot of us out there. It’s an intellectually consistent view. The Scottish nationalist position of wanting away from corrupt, undemocratic, bureaucratic Westminster and wanting to stay in the EU has always been a puzzle to me. I think it belies the anti-Englishness that a lot of the vote is founded on. Same applies to the anti-EU crowd, except substitute the English with Johnny Foreigner in general. Suspect their numbers will stand up to scrutiny about as well too.

It’s usually better to be in the tent, pissing out IMO.

It does seem to have something to do with the countries general culture though.

This is much more important than the religion imo. Islam is a part of the culture, but you can find pretty bonkers stuff in any religious texts. Lots of these guys will have grown up in a culture where it’s OK to treat women this way. Yes, they’re adults, and responsible for their actions, but deep-seated beliefs like this take some changing, especially if you’re not the thinking type.

A deficit isn’t a binary thing though. There’s a question of scale!

And this has nothing to do with our intervention in the region?

Why would you want to get to the UK specifically, if you hated it so much?

It is a pyramid scheme – though of course whilst the top has fewer numbers it also has more wealth than the bottom – This is true and its morally unjustifiable hence you have to avoid discussing it or accepting it yourself and just claiming that the raison detre of capitalism is poverty reduction.

JY, I think you’ve summed up the difference between socialism and capitalism there. Proponents of socialism argue that the state should engineer wealth redistribution from richer to poorer, fair enough. Capitalists would argue that the second-order effect of exploiting human ambition/striving/greed, whatever you want to call it, is that everyone gets richer, to a far greater extent than under socialism?

Socialism always seems to me like it would be a great idea, if only people would stop being people.

I’m not suggesting that Labour or the Conservatives fully reflect either ideology btw, just separate points on the spectrum.

Surely this is a spoof of the recent Maxxis calendar thread? Do I win anything?

Chap on R4 was saying that checks are ongoing between your visa issuance and your flight. I don’t know why they were refused, and there might be good reasons for withholding the reason. It’s hard to imagine it’s anything to do with a tubthumping loony-right would-be presidential candidate though!

^This. Hopefully the conclusion that everybody’s jumping to is wrong! There was some interesting chat about it on PM on R4 just now.

I think it’s helpful to think about why the powers are limited in this way. What productive reason could there be? As I’ve mentioned, it’s not a limitation Westminster would accept, or as far as I know one you find in use in any other progressive tax system in the world. It’s just a weird artificial restriction that only limits the usefulness of the powers. I’ve never seen any attempt to argue that it wasn’t added for political reasons. And it seems very much to me that the point I’m arguing is exactly the same point they were making when they wrote the Act

No doubt there was a bit of politicking around SRIT, although the desire t avoid too big a skewing of tax rates within one country may also have been a factor. Do you think there’s any politicking around the SNP’s decision not to use the powers, despite their demonstrable progressiveness, and just stir up some more grievance against big bad Westminster, in line with the ultimate goal of separation? Had you gone independent/FFA, it seems likely that the SNP would be implementing rather more austerity than Westminster are. The Westminster govt isn’t the only one that takes cynical politically motivated decisions.

Someone else has done the sums/graphs:

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/srit-blunt-but-undeniably-progressive.html

But you were arguing for using % rather than absolute figures before. I don’t object to the progressive tax system per se, and I agree that higher earners should pay more, but I think the important thing is the size of the take to the Treasury, rather than the principles. I think that squeezing high earners more risks more capital flight/aggressive avoidance, particularly if you have a lower-taxing neighbour as Scotland does or iScotland would, reducing that take to the Treasury. The take-home is the important bit because that’s what you’ve got to spend after tax and therefore, how well-off you feel.
Incidentally, I don’t consider £60k to be some kind of rock-star wage. It’s nowhere near the point where you wouldn’t have to budget and think about money. So I don’t think it’s a safe assumption that the 60k earner will have a spare grand to splash around more than the £20k earner can afford £200.

Northwind – Member

airtragic – Member

Northwind, you’re still ignoring the personal allowance I think

Nope, it’s in there in both mine and Ox’s calculations.

Well in that case, I make a 2% tax rise for your 20k earner 2% of 20k-£10600=£188 on top of their existing £1880, a 10% tax rise but only a 1.03% drop in their disposable, which is the important bit, ignoring NI.
The 40k earner has 2% more on £29400, so still 10% more tax, but a 1.72% drop in their disposable. The 60k earner has 2% more on the 20% band (an extra £635) and 2% more on the 40% band (an extra £364) so they’re taking a 2.75% hit on their disposable. Looks quite progressive to me?

Northwind, you’re still ignoring the personal allowance I think, although don’t have a calculator handy:

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/swinney-confused-or-aiming-to-confuse.html

Ben, no second chamber is a good thing? Most countries have one.

Yep, that’s exactly what it is

Or alternatively, most people think it’s wrong to increase tax more for lower earners more than twice as much as you do for higher earners. A 2% increase on base rate is 10%, a 2% increase on higher rate is 4.44%. A 5% increase is 25% and 11.1%.

This isn’t the politics of envy, it’s the politics of sanity. The taxation powers were designed to be crippled and unfair, and to be unused by any of the feasible governments of scotland. It’s a silly artificial restriction that served no other purpose- and if Westminster thought it was such a good idea to tie increases, why was it not introduced nationally?

TBF I’ve never seen anyone seriously dispute this; people make political capital off it by ignoring the reality of the powers but who thinks it’s a good idea to use it?

Those numbers ignore the personal allowance, which has a pronounced mitigating effect. To give them their due, the coalition and the Conservatives have raised the allowance:

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/swinney-confused-or-aiming-to-confuse.html

I do think the SNP are painted into a corner in that their rhetoric of greater equality etc doesn’t match the likely effects of them squeezing the rich, creating a skewed tax rate within one country. This is partly of their own doing as they promised the Scots the moon on a stick in the event of a Yes vote, but are now being bruised by fiscal reality I think.

How long is the commute from Newcastle to Edinburgh/Glasgow these days for all those financiers, lawyers and doctors who would be squeezed by higher taxes on the wealthy but probably aren’t quite wealthy enough to employ accountants to tax dodge for them? In that circumstance, do you pay your taxes in your country of domicile or employ? Serious question. Same question for an iScotland with a Schengen-style open border?

I was on the same station (RAF, not space) as Tim for a while. Always seemed a nice bloke, glad to see him doing so well!

So you’re absolutely tumescent at our warplanes with all their civilian missing missiles, but you still want to whinge about refugees. Honestly, I know you once excused killing children as justifiable collateral damage, and I’ve yet to see you stoop so low, but our obligation to take refugees is now stronger than ever as we’re adding to the firestorm around them.

Agreed.
Another common misunderstanding about air strikes is that the intent is always to destroy. Modern operations are about achieving effects, in this case perhaps to deny an oil refinery by attacking a critical element of it but not destroying the whole thing. So you reduce risk to noncombatants and you make the facility easier to fix post-conflict. Comments about weapons being able to discriminate are a bit misguided too. As others have said, maybe the pilot can’t engage if there is anybody who might be a bystander about? Can’t go into too much more detail unfortunately.

dragon, you mean the bit where it says “The use of high precision Paveway bombs, rather than the Brimstone missile, suggests they were hitting static rather than moving targets.”
Oil refineries aren’t known for being fast-moving, yes. Do the Paveway 500lb high explosive bombs wait for anything that can move to get out of the way before they explode?
Or do they just blow up, incinerating anyone who happens to be in the large blast radius?

Ben, like they said, Brimstone can track a moving target, and Paveway has a bigger payload, yes. Weapons are chosen as a best fit for the target. No, the bomb doesn’t discriminate, but the operator does.

Might not be a bomb, hence umbrella term.