Seil Chat

jimcee wrote:This debate will probably continue until the referendum takes place, at the present rate, but very little new is being said.
Here is a point for consideration.
Mrs Thatcher's Poll Tax was unpopular because a large proportion of the population were being asked to contribute to the services they receive ( a burden that was being shouldered and still is, by a property tax which has no bearing on occupancy or income)
Naturally anyone who has not made any contribution to all that the state provides, is going to be vociferous in opposition to being made to pay their share.
However, this democratic and fair reform foundered on outcry from those opposed to contributing.
Then along came the SNP with a majority government in Holyrood who tried to introduce Local Income Tax, which was virtually the same as the Poll Tax. Again this democratic reform got nowhere, despite the SNP majority. So if SNP supporters deride Mrs Thatcher this is purely the pot calling the ketle black.

A couple of corrections.

Local income tax is based on an ability to pay. The poll tax wasn't. It was not a 'democratic and fair' reform. If it had been then 1.5 million Scots would not have refused to pay it. Your suggestion that every one of them had 'made no contribution at all' does not bear examination.

The SNP tried to introduce a local income tax during its period of minority government from 2007 - 2011, when it would have required the support ofa substantial number of members of the other parties. This was not forthcoming, so the proposal was dropped - along with plans for an independence referendum. Now with a majority in Holyrood the SNP could bulldoze a local income tax bill through, but I suspect they will wait until after the referendum.

The poll Tax was based on individuals who were earning money and who benefitted from Council Services.
The current system is based on the notional value of your property, and takes no account of the number of occupants, or of the disposable income of those occupants.
Under the present system you can have a semi-detatched house (both with the same rateable value) and in one house you have a widow pensioner. In the other is a family with both parents working, and two sons also in employment.
Yet both households pay the same amount towards all the services they receive.
If that is considered fair then I will withdraw from this discussion.

No it's not fair, nor is the basis of personal tax as I indicated above. As you rightly say, the fact the 'poll tax' was rejected by so many had nothing to do with it not being a fair tax, it was purely because people selfishly resented paying their contribution to community costs. The fact that 1.5 million in Scotland refused to pay a fair tax is not a good omen for an independent Scotland.

.
The poll tax meant you could have a family of four adults living in a council house paying four times as much as a single millionaire living in a mansion.

At least with council tax, you can extrapolate certain generalisations - eg people in big houses tend to be in a position to pay more. Of course there are exceptions and neither system is perfect - but overall the current council tax system is certainly percieved by its 'victims' as fairer and we don't have 1.5 million refusing to pay it!

A local income tax would obviously be better than either, and has been the SNP's preferred option for some considerable time - though none of the other parties will support it.

The main problem with the poll tax is that it was foisted on an unwilling Scottish population by a Tory Government with no democratic mandate in Scotland. It was a politically disastrous decision, made worse by Thatcher's inability to ever back down over anything. The Scottish people never forgave them. This is one of the reasons that the Tories lost every single seat in the 1997 general election and today they have just one MP at Westminster.

Condemning 40% of the Scottish adult population in 1989/1990 as making no contribution to society and being unwilling to pay their way is a travesty of what the poll tax protest was about and is an insult to most of those people.

Do single people in mansions create more rubbish than a house hold of four 'poor' people? Does a millionaire use the library, parks and police, fire brigade, buses, schools more than a household of 'poor' people? In reality the millionaire probably uses these services less than one of the four people in the 'poor' household.

You know, Thatcher and all that was a generation ago. Like McV you're still banging on about it. She did alot of good. The Labour council in her home town even wants to erect a statue to her. You're stuck in a time warp like so many of the Yes campaigners. Bannockburn is 'now, for them.

This whole attitude of some Scots, thankfully a minority, that they are downtrodden, poor, second class citizens is just such rubbish. It's just that they are so collectively miserable and negative, they will have no future. They need to change their attitude and get on with their lives without blaming everyone else but themselves...The Tories, Thatcher, The Poll tax, Westminster, Whitehall, The Clearances, the lack of fairness.

Condemning 40% of the Scottish adult population in 1989/1990 as making no contribution to society and being unwilling to pay their way is a travesty of what the poll tax protest was about and is an insult to most of those people.

Is that what I said or are you twisting things again?

.

.
Tomorrow's Sunday Herald front page:

An unbiased piece by Nicola Sturgeon as she joins this weekends' blame game. Prepare yourselves for a depressing day reading how you are all down trodden, poor, second class citizens.

But after Eastleigh, "Westminster is moving further and further away from the interests of the Scottish People" she says. Really? I would have thought she would be jumping for joy that the Conservatives and Labour were sidelined by The Libdems and UKIP. Or does she mean that growing support for an independent UK, perhaps separated from Scotland too, might really scupper her plans for an independent Scotland too.

Oh, no, it couldn't be that. She and Alex haven't been able to come up with any plans yet. Better just keep telling everyone they are all down trodden, poor, second class citizens. That is a good plan.

Are things that quiet in Congelton........

.
Scottish postal workers hope to deliver Yes vote for independence

Hopefully this is just the first ripple in a rising tide of trade union support.

At the very least it is a rebuttal to those who say that the YES movement is no more than a vehicle for the SNP.

Noooo! don't tell me 'oor Jim' is a 'yes' voter and prepared to drag us all in?

Postal workers have pledged to play an active role in the campaign for Scotland to become independent

Are they suggesting that those who vote 'Yes' by postal vote might have their vote go missing? Is it just an unfortunately worded statement or a veiled threat? Who wants an independent Scotland where unions blackmail and bully fair government? Unions are dinosaurs of free thinking tarde and industry. Scotland needs to move to the right to become a better place.

.
The GERS figures published today show that the Scottish economy is in better shape than the UK economy as a whole.

John Swinney commented:

"In 2011/12, Scotland generated 9.9 per cent of UK revenues with 8.4 per cent of the population while only receiving 9.3 per cent of UK public spending back from the UK Government. . . . over the last year our stronger fiscal position, would have seen Scotland better off to the tune of £824 per person, or £4.4bn in total."

But only because it didn't have to bail out RBS and HBOS. What would the deficit have been then? At least 10 times as much.

Pentlandpirate wrote:But only because it didn't have to bail out RBS and HBOS. What would the deficit have been then? At least 10 times as much.

Having 'Scotland' in the name it does not mean they were exclusively Scottish banks. Existing banking conventions mean that debts incurred by failed financial institutions fall proportionately on the jurisdictions within which those institutions trade.

For example, in the bail out of the Fortis and Dexia banks in 2008 France, Belgium and the Netherlands each took a proportion of the cost based on the amount of trading within their respective jurisdictions. And of course the US Federal Reserve contributed to the bale out of RBS and HBOS to the tune of $600 billion because the banks traded there.

In the case of the RBS, approximately 90% of its operations were in England and 10% in Scotland. This means that Scotland would have been liable for only 10 percent of the total liabilities and not 100 percent as some politicians have claimed. Far from being a crippling burden on an independent Scotland the cost could have been comfortably dealt with.

These are not my views, these are the views of some eminent economists, namely:

• ~ Andrew Hughes Hallett, Professor of Economics at St Andrew’s University
  ~ George Walker, Professor of International Finance Law at Queen Mary University, London
  ~ Andrew Campbell, Professor of international and finance law at Leeds University

SOURCE

Scotland is a wealthy country, no doubt about it.

NickB wrote: Existing banking conventions mean that debts incurred by failed financial institutions fall proportionately on the jurisdictions within which those institutions trade.

For example, in the bail out of the Fortis and Dexia banks in 2008 France, Belgium and the Netherlands each took a proportion of the cost based on the amount of trading within their respective jurisdictions. And of course the US Federal Reserve contributed to the bale out of RBS and HBOS to the tune of $600 billion because the banks traded there.

If you two are going to have a public "debate" about Independence you both must ensure that your facts are correct.

There are NO "existing banking conventions meaning that debts incurred by failed financial institutions fall proportionately on the jurisdictions within which those institutions trade." The Fortis/Dexia example quoted is unique, caused by the unique circumstances prevailing with those two banks. In none of the many other global banking bailouts did that principle ("debts incurred by failed financial institutions fall proportionately on the jurisdictions within which those institutions trade") apply. NOT ONE !

The US Fed DID NOT contribute to the bail out of RBoS nor of HBoS. That assertion is plainly ridiculous !

The absolute stupidity of the statement can be seen in the claim that "the US Federal Reserve contributed to the bale out of RBS and HBOS to the tune of $600 billion because the banks traded there." Good grief. The total cost of the bail out was 'only' $100 billion (£66 billion).

I have ploughed though this thread now and I must say that a stranger to Seil peeking in on it must leave with a very low opinion of the level of debate round here. It seems to vary between slinging insults and making things up. Very poor.

Shanks (Yes by choice, not by Goebbels)

"In 2011/12, Scotland generated 9.9 per cent of UK revenues with 8.4 per cent of the population while only receiving 9.3 per cent of UK public spending back from the UK Government. . . . over the last year our stronger fiscal position, would have seen Scotland better off to the tune of £824 per person, or £4.4bn in total."

[/quote]

While I'm at it (railing against disinformation) this is yet another example; SNP/Yes Scotland painting false pictures to make it all seem wonderful and rosy for us.

Sure, to the untutored these two quotes look as though we're going to be rolling in it.

BUT both, conveniently, totally ignore the fact that the "9.3 per cent of UK public spending back from the UK Government" does not take into account the massive UK expenditure on Defence, Diplomacy etc (ie non-devolved matters) which we benefit from and which we would have to stump up for ourselves.

Take that into account and you get a VERY different picture of our finances.

I take everything put out by the Yes and the No campaigns with a huge dose of cynicism.

I suggest that, in the interests of a fair, unbiased, and unpropagandised debate here that people refrain from quoting from either Yes or No propaganda.

If that happens more, like me, might join the discussion here which at the moment is little more than a slanging match between a Scotsman living in England and an Englishman living in Scotland.

Speaker Shanks (Missus in the jungle by choice)

.
Many sources agree that RBS did receive money from the US Federal Reserve:

RBS, which is 82pc state-owned following a £45bn taxpayer bailout, said that next week it would pay back the last of the £163bn of bail-out loans it received from the UK and US taxpayers.

The lender received £75bn from the Treasury’s credit guarantee scheme and the Bank of England’s special liquidity scheme. It was also handed £36.6bn in emergency liquidity assistance from the Bank and about $84.5bn (£52.2bn) from the US Federal Reserve.

Telegraph article.

Is that an outright lie in the Telegraph, a misunderstanding or what?

I also refer you to the original article I linked to by Joan Macalpine, where the three respected economists I named backed up what I said. Are they all wrong?

And - re. the GERS figures - I think you will find that they do take defence expediture into account.

Lets get things right.

The outright lie, as you called it, was yours ie “And of course the US Federal Reserve contributed to the bale out of RBS and HBOS to the tune of $600 billion because the banks traded there.”

Quite simply it did NOT, and none of your sources (Daily Telegraph and SNP MSP Joanne MacAlpine’s blog) mention your $600 billion figure.

The lack of understanding, see I’m being polite, was yours ie. The US Fed did not bail out HBos nor BoS. What it did was provide emergency liquidity of about $84.5bn (£52.2bn) directly to US operations linked to RBS and HBOS.

You do now understand that providing an emergency liquidity facility on U.S. soil only is not the same as a “the bale out of RBS and HBOS to the tune of $600 billion” I hope ?

Regarding the views on who is responsible for RBS debts. The view you quote is that of Alex Salmond’s economic adviser, Andrew Hallett.

The other two do not support him on the grounds of his non-existent “banking convention “ but on the grounds of pragmatism ie UK would have had to step in to rescue RBoS because Scotland alone could not have afforded to, and the contagion of an RBoS bankruptcy would have shaken the global financial system.

So. Lets stop quoting from dubious Yes camp and No camp propaganda. Perhaps then facts rather than “misinterpretations” might inform a debate here.

Shanks

.
The 600bn was wrong by a factor of 10 - mea culpa, not sure how that number crept in. Thanks for pointing it out. Nonetheless, the US Federal Reserve did help bail out RBS, and calling it an 'emergency liquidity facility ' doesn't really change that fact.

Ignoring the Fortis/Dexia example and assuming you are right that there is no 'convention' (precedent would perhaps have been a better word) the fact remains that, as you point out, in the event of Scotland being independent in 2008 the UK would have probably had to step in to rescue RBoS because Scotland alone could not have afforded to, and the contagion of an RBoS bankruptcy would have shaken the global financial system. then whether it is pragmatic, convention or even (unenforceable) international law the end result is the same - the collapse of RBS would not have bankrupted Scotland as the Irate Pirate suggested.

One thing I think it is important to remember is that that the activities which led to the collapse of the Scottish banks mostly took place outside the country. There is an interesting Westminster parliamentary publication HERE which includes the following paragraph:

. . . the central point is that a calculation that treats the liabilities of banks whose head offices are in Scotland as liabilities of the population of Scotland cannot be appropriate. There is no possible explanation of why a Scottish taxpayer should pay off foreign institutions which made loans to ABN-Amro. The size of the liabilities of the Scottish banks makes the absurdity of such an assertion particularly clear. But it does not matter whether the denominator of the calculation is the population of Scotland, the population of the UK, or the population of Edinburgh. The liabilities of Scottish headquartered banks are not liabilities of the Scottish people, either morally or legally.

Only a totally mad or suicidal Scottish government would have accepted 100% of the liability. I suspect that we would rather have taken the Icelandic route. But then, as you say, the UK would have felt obliged to step in anyway. Anyway, all rather hypothetical - or a hypothetical bullet dodged. A lesson learnt though . . . surely one thing a newly independent small country with major banks headquartered on its territory will have learned will be to keep a very close eye on them.

Thanks for raising the level of the discussion a little. However, the 'what if' banking crisis scenario (raised by PP of course, not you) is a fantasy argument when it comes to discussing the financial viability of a Scotland newly independent in 2016.