The General Election Thread

[Norgethistle]

 

 

IIRC, Norgethistle tried to argue against Scottish independence by warning that we could end up like Norway. Thank f*ck we dodged that bullet, eh?

Our economy and currency is nose diving at the moment, government has mentioned at least 20% jobs are on the line.

The previous governments put the oil fund into stocks whilst raising taxes to pay for the economy, with an unhealthy reliance on oil.

The oil fund has never been invested in alternative industries or infrastructures, the tax rate has driven the wages up unhealthy to compensate, which has put our property prices umongst the highest in the world.

The whole country has become so uncompetitive and reliant on oil that this crisis will cripple it, add to that the social welfare payments (70% of a wage for a year +) and they believe 10% job losses could wipe the oil fund out in a few years.

The ethos for independence was to copy the Norway model (benefits, oil fund) yet drop the tax levels which never made sense. Fortunately Scotland and the UK only employ a fraction of the people employed in the oil and gas sector that Norway does

[north stander]

So, in summary, Norway is in trouble because:

• Oil is its main industry
  
• It cranked up its Tax levels and syphoned off ALL of its oil fund for rainy days, and not reinvestment.
  
• The country has "an unhealthy reliance on oil".
  
• Its massive tax hikes drove "the wages up unhealthily to compensate", and this had a imbalancing knock-on affect on property prices.
  
• It is so "uncompetitive and reliant on oil that this crisis will cripple it".
  
• Social welfare payments which (I assume have no tax deductions) mean citizens earn virtually same out of work as in work.
  
• Compared to Norway, Scotland (and rUK) "only employ a fraction of the people employed in the oil and gas sector that Norway does".
  

 

So, would Scotland have been as rookit and up shitcreek as Norway is, if it had gained independence?

 

The answer is, clearly No, it wouldn't have been.

 

An Independent Scotland would be better protected against such a crisis scenario because:

• Oil is not its main industry - and has a multitude of other industries and talented entrepreneurs.
  
• It wasn't planning to crank up its Tax levels and syphon off ALL of its oil fund for rainy days, only what was affordable year on year.
  
• The country would not have "an unhealthy reliance on oil".
  
• Its avoidance of any massive tax hikes would avoid driving wages up unhealthily to compensate, and similarly would avoid any further imbalancing knock-on affect on property prices.
  
• It would be much more competitive and unreliant on oil, that a similar crisis to that which Norway is facing, wouldn't cripple it, as Scotland would be much better protected due to the diversity of its revenue streams..
  
• Social welfare payments would have risen in an independent Scotland but nowhere near the level that meant its citizens earn virtually same out of work as in work.
  
• Compared to Norway, Scotland (and rUK) employ the majority of the people outwith the oil and gas sector.
  
• In an independent Scotland, there would not be 10's upon 10's of billions pissed down the drain on Nuclear weapons, thus freeing up billions to be channeled into health, education, housing, welfare, etc, to improve the quality of life in the country.
  

[Blues Brother]

Great post North Stander.

[Norgethistle]

The point I was trying (& failing) to make was so much was being made of the oil, we had wee Ec stating we should be like Norway and their oil, we had the white paper explaining how they were going to spend it and base budgets on it, we had the SNP re-butting experts in the field over the value and quantity left, and YES campaigners bringing up the secret Claire Ridge field that Cameron went to see secretly on Shetland (The field was announced 5 years ago, by BP with several promotional videos on line) as a conspiracy.

If you read back on the various threads I have always stated the value was unstable and output dropping drastically and was crazy for Scotland to believe it could set up a oil fund like Norways now with less output, less income, not owning the oil outright (like statoil) and being 30 years behind the pack, all whilst dropping taxes.

The oil money helps off set some of the taxes in the UK, put that £5 billion straight in a fund and you have a shortfall, drop taxes and that short fall increases, boost benefits and you then have the perfect storm for an economy crashing.

 

The so called 45ers make a big deal over the vow stating that they were lied to, well Salmond lied to you's over the income and stability from the oil which was meant to prop up the economy for generations

[Pinhead]

Again you peddle lies about the oil being used to prop up the economy - nowhere in the white paper or anywhere has it ever said this other than unionist propeganda !

 

Also wee eck was right there is over 100 years left when we were told we had about 15 at most, some also claim the price crash on oil is some sembelance of snp lies but who controls the oil now westminster and what is the real reason it is crashing ? USA/European pressure to try de-stabalise Russia. Give it a year and it will be silly prices again.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Pinhead

[Norgethistle]

Again you peddle lies about the oil being used to prop up the economy - nowhere in the white paper or anywhere has it ever said this other than unionist propeganda !

 

Also wee eck was right there is over 100 years left when we were told we had about 15 at most, some also claim the price crash on oil is some sembelance of snp lies but who controls the oil now westminster and what is the real reason it is crashing ? USA/European pressure to try de-stabalise Russia. Give it a year and it will be silly prices again.

 

The oil fund was brought up by Salmond, the proposed income was brought up by Salmond, the quantity left is not the issue, extracting it at a profit is an issue, remember the UK governement (or an Independent Scotland) would only get the TAX on it. not the re-sale value

[Pinhead]

I am not talking about anything other than the lies you keep peddling about oil being used to prop up the economy, the oil was never going to be used for that ! Just because Salmond brought up an oil fund that was rubbished by all unionists doesn't mean it was a bad idea or that it was going to change the nation into Norway. Funnily enough that same oil fund that was rubbished 6 months ago by all unionists, the Labour party are now having a go at the Scottish Government for not setting one up - you couldn't script it !!

Edited January 11, 2015 by Pinhead

[Norgethistle]

I am not talking about anything other than the lies you keep peddling about oil being used to prop up the economy, the oil was never going to be used for that ! Just because Salmond brought up an oil fund that was rubbished by all unionists doesn't mean it was a bad idea or that it was going to change the nation into Norway. Funnily enough that same oil fund that was rubbished 6 months ago by all unionists, the Labour party are now having a go at the Scottish Government for not setting one up - you couldn't script it !!

 

Norway

High Taxes allow for the oil fund to operate

Pay for all our health care etc

Higher pension age (67 rising to 69 when I retire)

Massive spending cuts, road toll increases, council tax increases, hospitals closing etc

Oil is solely owned by Statoil (The government) so all profit goes to the company and in turn the government, plus the tax on the sell-able asset

 

Scotland (Proposed)

Lower taxes (Less income)

More benefits (Higher expenditure)

Lower pensionable age (Higher Expenditure)

An oil fund (So no oil income or less oil income)

Oil is owned by non-state owned companies, so only the tax (which was getting cut) goes to the government

 

For an oil fund to work, that revenue that would have been spent on the economy needs replacing, or you cut services.

Benefits and spending were proposed to go up, taxes were proposed to go down, the oil fund would have taken (Depending on %) up to £5 billion out the economy (Although with oil half the price that value is less), Scotland has ran at a deficit for many years, under the proposals the books would never have balanced and there would be no Bank of England, no European Central Bank to bail us out

[Guy Incognito]

Norgethistle, I am not sure where you are getting your information from. The ethos of the independence campaign wasn't to 'copy the Norway model', it was simply for Scotland to become an independent country. The only similarity with Norway was the oil fund idea, which, I think, is a pretty sound idea in principle.

 

As for 'higher benefits', other than a bit about asking the UK government to halt the roll-out of UC and PIP in Scotland I cannot remember the white paper going into any specific detail about social security provision. I would imagine each party standing in the general election in 2016 would set out its stall regarding policies.

 

I cannot remember it mentioning lowering the stage pension age either. I think it said the state pension age was to remain frozen at 67. Since the average life expectancy in Scotland is slightly lower than the rest of the UK (tragically) then I don't think that policy was unachievable.

 

Regarding taxation, the SNP suggested lowering business tax but they didn't suggest the same with income tax. Personally, while I understand the logic behind lowering business tax - that a reduced rate will encourage companies to set up base and create jobs here - I don't agree with the policy. I am not convinced it would encourage the creation of high value jobs, I feel the shortfall in revenue could result in public spending cuts in order to balance the books and unless the minimum wage is raised in tandem to a adequate level I feel that there is a real risk that the gap between the richest and poorest in society could widen further. Consequently, I most probably wouldn't have voted SNP in the first post-independence GE, as I don't see eye to eye with them on this or several other current policy issues. All immaterial now, however.

[Norgethistle]

Norgethistle, I am not sure where you are getting your information from. The ethos of the independence campaign wasn't to 'copy the Norway model', it was simply for Scotland to become an independent country. The only similarity with Norway was the oil fund idea, which, I think, is a pretty sound idea in principle.

 

As for 'higher benefits', other than a bit about asking the UK government to halt the roll-out of UC and PIP in Scotland I cannot remember the white paper going into any specific detail about social security provision. I would imagine each party standing in the general election in 2016 would set out its stall regarding policies.

 

I cannot remember it mentioning lowering the stage pension age either. I think it said the state pension age was to remain frozen at 67. Since the average life expectancy in Scotland is slightly lower than the rest of the UK (tragically) then I don't think that policy was unachievable.

 

Regarding taxation, the SNP suggested lowering business tax but they didn't suggest the same with income tax. Personally, while I understand the logic behind lowering business tax - that a reduced rate will encourage companies to set up base and create jobs here - I don't agree with the policy. I am not convinced it would encourage the creation of high value jobs, I feel the shortfall in revenue could result in public spending cuts in order to balance the books and unless the minimum wage is raised in tandem to a adequate level I feel that there is a real risk that the gap between the richest and poorest in society could widen further. Consequently, I most probably wouldn't have voted SNP in the first post-independence GE, as I don't see eye to eye with them on this or several other current policy issues. All immaterial now, however.

 

The idea of an oil fund is a sound idea, but by removing that revenue (£5 billion) from the budget whilst it is put to a fund it needs replacing or there is a massive shortfall.

Pension age was to freeze, child support and unemployment benefit was to rise in the white paper so benefits rise

Corporation tax was to be halved, and VAT lowered (both to make an iScotland more attractive) so income dropped significantly.

 

That doesn't balance, the reason Norway has the oil fund, is it offsets the taxable income diverted to it by increasing its VAT and income tax to prevent the shortfall. The SNP could never explain how they could drop the taxes, increase benefits and have an oil fund whilst balancing the books, the only feasable way would be forced nationalisation of the oil so the whole revenue is owned not just the tax on it.

[north stander]

The idea of an oil fund is a sound idea, but by removing that revenue (£5 billion) from the budget whilst it is put to a fund it needs replacing or there is a massive shortfall.

Pension age was to freeze, child support and unemployment benefit was to rise in the white paper so benefits rise

Corporation tax was to be halved, and VAT lowered (both to make an iScotland more attractive) so income dropped significantly.

 

That doesn't balance, the reason Norway has the oil fund, is it offsets the taxable income diverted to it by increasing its VAT and income tax to prevent the shortfall. The SNP could never explain how they could drop the taxes, increase benefits and have an oil fund whilst balancing the books, the only feasable way would be forced nationalisation of the oil so the whole revenue is owned not just the tax on it.

 

1, Oil fund would not have hoovered up all of the revenue every year, as I stated before, so not a shortfall of £5b per year.

2. Any potential shortfall would have been covered by savings (such as no contribution to nuclear weapons as I stated before).

3. Scotland is one of the wealthiest nations in the world. In terms of our total economic output per head we rank eighth out of the 34 developed countries in the OECD. We raise more tax (per head) than rUK and our public finances have been stronger than the UK as a whole over the past 30 years.

4. With independence, money that we currently have in past and currently send to Westminster that is spent in other parts of the UK – or on things we in Scotland do not want, or benefit from - would be channeled back into Scotland. Think of the multitude of white elephants, large infrastructure projects, overburdened services requiring colossal funding that are south of the border, that Scotland has in past, or under future union, will have to contribute to through its taxes sent to Westminster - all money that would have been better staying in Scotland to be invested in a modern and efficient newly independent country, and to pay for things that we do want, with an economic policy aimed at economic stability and job security in Scotland that would have replaced an economic policy which disproportionately benefits London and the South East of England.

5. Scotland is a rich country but does not have a prosperous society, especially when compared to per head of Scotland v rUK. Independence would have helped tackle that imbalance.

6. For every one of the last 32 years figures show Scotland has generated more tax per head than the UK as a whole. With independence, decisions about the level and allocation of public spending would have been taken here in Scotland.

7. "Corporation tax was to be halved" is yet another lie - the white paper clearly stated there would be "a timetable for reducing the rate of corporation tax by up to three percentage points to counter the gravitational business pull of London".

Edited January 14, 2015 by north stander

[jaggybunnet]

1, Oil fund would not have hoovered up all of the revenue every year, as I stated before, so not a shortfall of £5b per year.

2. Any potential shortfall would have been covered by savings (such as no contribution to nuclear weapons as I stated before).

3. Scotland is one of the wealthiest nations in the world. In terms of our total economic output per head we rank eighth out of the 34 developed countries in the OECD. We raise more tax (per head) than rUK and our public finances have been stronger than the UK as a whole over the past 30 years.

4. With independence, money that we currently have in past and currently send to Westminster that is spent in other parts of the UK – or on things we in Scotland do not want, or benefit from - would be channeled back into Scotland. Think of the multitude of white elephants, large infrastructure projects, overburdened services requiring colossal funding that are south of the border, that Scotland has in past, or under future union, will have to contribute to through its taxes sent to Westminster - all money that would have been better staying in Scotland to be invested in a modern and efficient newly independent country, and to pay for things that we do want, with an economic policy aimed at economic stability and job security in Scotland that would have replaced an economic policy which disproportionately benefits London and the South East of England.

5. Scotland is a rich country but does not have a prosperous society, especially when compared to per head of Scotland v rUK. Independence would have helped tackle that imbalance.

6. For every one of the last 32 years figures show Scotland has generated more tax per head than the UK as a whole. With independence, decisions about the level and allocation of public spending would have been taken here in Scotland.

7. "Corporation tax was to be halved" is yet another lie - the white paper clearly stated there would be "a timetable for reducing the rate of corporation tax by up to three percentage points to counter the gravitational business pull of London".

 

 

Scotland runs at a deficit, (last year £8.6bn, snps own numbers) and that's including all the oil income from that the snp/yes camp think they would get.

 

the savings year on year from getting rid of trident would have been around £500 mill (and that's without going near our share for moving them so only £8.1 bn to find.

 

add to that the loss of tax take due to the halving of the price of a barrel and the chunk taken off for the "fund", we would have been massively worse off. none of the above even touches the side when you include the share of the UK debt, the fall out from losing the EU subsidies/grants when we would have left the EU and the problems and costs from starting a new currency.

 

yes Scotland may take in more tax that the rest of the UK but if you are spending more than you take in its irrelevant. basically if you earn 100 grand a year people will think you are rich but if you are spending 150 grand you are still screwed ask sevco, Scotland with the issues above would struggle massively to service that especial as the wanted to stop the cut and spend even more money.

Edited January 14, 2015 by jaggybunnet

[Pinhead]

The entire world runs at a defecit ! Defecits are pretty much the norm in the modern world. Our defecit is £8.6 billion from a uk defecit of about £179 billion so pretty small fry overall. Also who runs our country and is in charge of creating this defecit, Westminster ! Can Scotland fix it and lower the defecit, no we cannot as we are slaves to our masters !

[jaggybunnet]

The entire world runs at a defecit ! Defecits are pretty much the norm in the modern world. Our defecit is £8.6 billion from a uk defecit of about £179 billion so pretty small fry overall. Also who runs our country and is in charge of creating this defecit, Westminster ! Can Scotland fix it and lower the defecit, no we cannot as we are slaves to our masters !

 

oh dear, the UK gov is trying to sort the issue with the deficit down by half which will mean the debt will reduce in years to come, Scotland on the other hand wants to stop the cuts and spend which means a higher deficit which along with all the rest of the issues i posted before means we would be screwed. add to that that Scotland isn't owed money from other countries to off set this and well, blame Westminster all you like but the yes camp could not come up with a plan that would in anyway make things better.

[Pinhead]

Down by half ?? Don't talk so much rot ! It is down by about a third and that is being generous. Did you pluck that doozy straight from a tory handbook ? The claims of it being down by half have been well debunked by every news outlet and anyone with their fingers on the pulse - the tory figures released failed to include certain figures. Scotland as part of the uk will be owed a certain percentage unless you think we just take the debt as being part of the uk and are not allowed any benefits of being part of it. Of course westminster get's the blame, who should we blame ? Does someone else control the uk's purse strings ?

Edited January 15, 2015 by Pinhead

[Blackpool Jags]

Presumably, any money which other countries owe to the UK would be proportionally shared with Scotland, in the same vein that Scotland would have to chip in its share of the UK debt at the point of independence?

 

ETA didn't see the above post before putting my two bob's worth in.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Blackpool Jags

[The Devil's Point]

Presumably

 

Exactly. Too much uncertainty and why the 55' won. The referendum is over.

 

What's opinion regarding the leadership debates? I'm not a great fan of them in general, and I think we could do without them. In saying that, I'll watch if they are on.

 

Not sure they change results much though. If they did then Clegg would have won far more seats last time as he seemed to win them according to the polls.

 

For once I'd also agree with the SNP in terms of having a right to participate. There is a far higher chance of them holding sway in a hung parliament than even UKIP can hope for.

[jaggybunnet]

 

 

For once I'd also agree with the SNP in terms of having a right to participate. There is a far higher chance of them holding sway in a hung parliament than even UKIP can hope for.

 

why? they are Scottish only party while UKIP and the green party are UK, snp can take part in the Scottish TV debates

 

to be honest they are a waste of time so i would bin them.

Edited January 15, 2015 by jaggybunnet

[The Devil's Point]

why? they are Scottish only party while UKIP and the green party are UK, snp can take part in the Scottish TV debates

 

to be honest they are a waste of time so i would bin them.

 

I thought we just voted for Scotland to remain part of the UK? I doubt UKIP will be putting up candidates in every seat (apologies if I am wrong on that).

 

Surely Scottish MP's are just as important as any other ones, so, given that the SNP are likely to make some gains, and hold some influence, they have a right to set out their stall (and probably be taken to pieces) in the debates.

 

I'd love to bin the SNP, but if its a democracy we can't.

[jaggybunnet]

I thought we just voted for Scotland to remain part of the UK? I doubt UKIP will be putting up candidates in every seat (apologies if I am wrong on that). Surely Scottish MP's are just as important as any other ones, so, given that the SNP are likely to make some gains, and hold some influence, they have a right to set out their stall (and probably be taken to pieces) in the debates. I'd love to bin the SNP, but if its a democracy we can't.

 

the main debates are for parties that have mps or people standing as mp in the whole of the UK not just in Scotland, i wouldn't agree with any of the other countries doing it so why would i agree to Scotland doing it just because snp are having another hissy fit.

[The Devil's Point]

the main debates are for parties that have mps or people standing as mp in the whole of the UK not just in Scotland, i wouldn't agree with any of the other countries doing it so why would i agree to Scotland doing it just because snp are having another hissy fit.

 

But they want to have a hissy fit. Why play into their hands? If they are excluded from the debates they have another thing to whine about.

 

I say let them in. Sturgeon v Farrage would be superb entertainment anyway.

 

Just the same way they claim they would never go into coalition with the Conservatives, the truth is that the Nats want the Tories to win so they can keep moaning and blaming all ills on Westminister Tories. They want an in/out EU referendum in the hope the UK votes out. That is the only way to another Scottish referendum, and the only hope for Salmond and Sturgeon to finally be crowned to rule over us.

 

The SNP only care about themselves. We wasted a year listening to their ill informed, ill researched nonsense, only for them to refuse to accept the result in the end. It was not an engaging or constructive process, and the spiel about how it energised politics and so on is naieve in the extreme. It was deeply divisive and some still think 45% was some sort of victory.

 

I don't know why they are proud of the 45% tag. I seem to remember Scotland got an absolute doing in 45', Culloden and all that....

[jaggybunnet]

But they want to have a hissy fit. Why play into their hands? If they are excluded from the debates they have another thing to whine about.

 

I say let them in. Sturgeon v Farrage would be superb entertainment anyway.

 

Just the same way they claim they would never go into coalition with the Conservatives, the truth is that the Nats want the Tories to win so they can keep moaning and blaming all ills on Westminister Tories. They want an in/out EU referendum in the hope the UK votes out. That is the only way to another Scottish referendum, and the only hope for Salmond and Sturgeon to finally be crowned to rule over us.

 

The SNP only care about themselves. We wasted a year listening to their ill informed, ill researched nonsense, only for them to refuse to accept the result in the end. It was not an engaging or constructive process, and the spiel about how it energised politics and so on is naieve in the extreme. It was deeply divisive and some still think 45% was some sort of victory.

 

I don't know why they are proud of the 45% tag. I seem to remember Scotland got an absolute doing in 45', Culloden and all that....

 

ok then let them in BUT then you HAVE to invite EVERY other party.

 

it is rubbish and would be pandering to the snp again, they can be involved in the Scottish TV as they should be .

[The Devil's Point]

I agree, the logic of letting in the SNP means the Welsh and Irish parties have to get in too. Galloway must get in. Perhaps, the Loonies (as a UK wide party) should also be included. BNP, Anti-abortionists, the list could go on.........

 

Not fair to let UKIP in though to the exclusion to the Nats and Greens.

 

I'd agree with Cameron that logically it must be either everyone (impractical) or the potential Prime Ministers. But who is to say Farrage or Clegg are not potential Prime Ministers.

 

We should bin the debates IMO and leave it to social media where the arguments are happening right now anyway.

 

Bring on the first Liberal Democrat Government for the new century. I'm off to to Inverness to campaign for Danny (next leader) so get it up youse

[jaggybunnet]

I agree, the logic of letting in the SNP means the Welsh and Irish parties have to get in too. Galloway must get in. Perhaps, the Loonies (as a UK wide party) should also be included. BNP, Anti-abortionists, the list could go on.........

 

Not fair to let UKIP in though to the exclusion to the Nats and Greens.

 

 

 

I'd agree with Cameron that logically it must be either everyone (impractical) or the potential Prime Ministers. But who is to say Farrage or Clegg are not potential Prime Ministers.

 

We should bin the debates IMO and leave it to social media where the arguments are happening right now anyway.

 

Bring on the first Liberal Democrat Government for the new century. I'm off to to Inverness to campaign for Danny (next leader) so get it up youse

 

Ukip have mps?people standing in ALL the nations of the UK snp don't, its not rocket sience

[The Devil's Point]

Ukip have mps?people standing in ALL the nations of the UK snp don't, its not rocket sience

 

Don't give them ideas! They could put up token candidates to get round that.

 

My proudest moment as a political campaigner was being called a "wee ******' by George Galloway on Hyndland Road. He is an MP and would qualify with one seat just like the Tories would for a Scottish debate with their one seat in Scotland.

 

Its a fine mess we've got into. I think there should be no official TV debates, for the reasons we are essentially agreeing on. It would be chaos if done fairly, and its not for broadcasting authorities to decide who should be important enough to take part.

 

All hell is breaking loose!

 

Time for a cup of tea, and the last slice of christmas cake.