Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[DETTY29]

When can RBS stop offsetting corporate tax payments against previous losses?

Appls Geoff Kirkpatrick but as someone who I think understands economics / tax care to comment?

 

 

[john5698]

Whether people like it or not, Salmond is a decent orator and debater, Cameron isn't. Irrespective of the issues, the facts etc.. Salmond would probably crush him in a debate.

I disgree, Salmond shouts over people and is a bully, Cameron is used to the debates in the House of Commons, Cameron would raise the isuue of currency and destroy Salmond because he has not got a clue unless he raised the issue of 4 plan C's and 5 plan d's.

[DETTY29]

Said this in the vote thread yesterday but it was removed so sticking it in here, I think the BT parties have made a mistake in not allowing Devo Max to be on the ballot paper, their arrogance at that point that we'd not vote Yes might cost them.

 

Now they're scrambling to offer us more powers, if they'd offered these from the outset the Yes vote would be halved IMO.

What is the point of devo max, if you can't keep all your revenues?

 

Slight edit - I'd say a small amount should be retained to central government. To cover wars etc we can't be bothered with.

Edited September 11, 2014 by DETTY29

[Nookie Bear]

No, I love this country. However I would move all our savings , and the kids savings, and our pensions down south.

Its one thing hoping all will be well, its entirely another watching a lifetimes graft being eroded, and the funds to give our kids the best start we can being devalued is not something I would wish.

We would also keep our UK passports.

Many other middle class voters are feeling likewise but we are generally too embarassed to vocalise it - being middle class in Scotland is shameful- Scotland is left wing socailist, fair and just seemingly!

THere is very real risk of massive capital flight - and its not from big businesses either

 

Sadly, I agree with most of this, especially the bit about being middle-class in Scotland.

[jambo1185]

 

Said this in the vote thread yesterday but it was removed so sticking it in here, I think the BT parties have made a mistake in not allowing Devo Max to be on the ballot paper, their arrogance at that point that we'd not vote Yes might cost them.

 

Now they're scrambling to offer us more powers, if they'd offered these from the outset the Yes vote would be halved IMO.

 

Devo Max was not put on the paper partly because of the concern that it would allow 'independence by the back door' as a result of second preference votes even though more people had, as a first choice, Devo max or status quo.

 

I think what was needed earlier was more clarity from the unionist parties on the impact of a no vote. A united package at the outset would have been peerage but I suppose that's difficult when you have here parties with different outlooks (just like the White Paper is the SNP, and only the SNPs, vision for independence).

 

I suppose the other question is why was the SNP, who want independence, so keen to have a third option on the paper that was a half way house rather than a decisive yes/no question? Probably because they didn't think the would be a vote for independence and hoped to get enough second preference votes to sneak through or use Devo max as a building block to a straight yes/no in 5yrs time.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

Appls Geoff Kirkpatrick but as someone who I think understands economics / tax care to comment?

How do you pay corporate tax on losses?

[fabienleclerq]

Said this in the vote thread yesterday but it was removed so sticking it in here, I think the BT parties have made a mistake in not allowing Devo Max to be on the ballot paper, their arrogance at that point that we'd not vote Yes might cost them.

 

Now they're scrambling to offer us more powers, if they'd offered these from the outset the Yes vote would be halved IMO.

 

Exactly how I feel.

[missed98]

I disgree, Salmond shouts over people and is a bully, Cameron is used to the debates in the House of Commons, Cameron would raise the isuue of currency and destroy Salmond because he has not got a clue unless he raised the issue of 4 plan C's and 5 plan d's.

 

As i've just said to another post, your opinion on his style does not reflect the results of the poll.

 

Further, if Cameron would destroy Salmond why the refusal?

 

Lastly, how well did Cameron do in the general election debates?

 

It's clear many NO voters don't like Salmond, but surely no one can argue that Salmond has run a very effective campaign, even if No triumph next week with a narrow win, Salmond's campaign has been a success. It's disingenuous not to think Salmond has got his message over well and has resonated with the voters.

[Guest GhostHunter]

What i mean is that those are tendered contracts. they are not guaranteed scottish jobs. They could easily have been built at Portsmouth.

 

We have no guaranteed MOD jobs in Scotland. Not a single one.

 

Again, not quite..

 

A portion of the Babcock workforce are seconded Royal Navy Personnel.

[DETTY29]

 

How do you pay corporate tax on losses?

Exactly.

 

I was sure companies can offset corporate tax against previous losses when eventually profitable. I dont how far back companies can go.

 

So potentially short term, neither camp should be focusing on corporate tax income from RBS anyway.

 

RBS I think this year will record a decent profit for the first time since 2007.

Edited September 11, 2014 by DETTY29

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

Exactly.

 

I was sure companies can offset corporate tax against previous losses when eventually profitable. I dont how far back companies can go to back.

 

So potentially short term, neither camp should be focusing on corporate tax income from RBS anyway.

 

RBS I think this year will record a decent profit for the first time since 2007.

That would be a first for the zombie bank.

[Ulysses]

....Cameron would raise the isuue of currency and destroy Salmond because he has not got a clue....

 

Maybe people haven't noticed or don't realise, but the currency issue is not a winner for No; it's a winner for Yes.

 

It might sound illogical, but twice in 2014 the currency issue has been top of the debate agenda, and on both occasions there has been a step change upwards in the level of support for Yes.

 

Currency isn't primarily about economics, but about politics. That's why the rUK wouldn't want a currency union with an independent Scotland, why an independent Scotland shouldn't want one with them, why the UK is not part of the eurozone, why Iceland went one route to resolving the banking crisis but Ireland went another, and why Germany propped up the recovery efforts in Greece, Ireland and Portugal when all economic logic told them not to.

 

When you pull a twenty out of an ATM, that banknote has a meaning and significance that goes far beyond what it will buy you in the shops or the pub.

 

[jambo1185]

Sturgeon still refusing to take part in the debate on BBC tonight if Galloway is on yhe panel

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Maybe people haven't noticed or don't realise, but the currency issue is not a winner for No; it's a winner for Yes.

 

It might sound illogical, but twice in 2014 the currency issue has been top of the debate agenda, and on both occasions there has been a step change upwards in the level of support for Yes.

 

Currency isn't primarily about economics, but about politics. That's why the rUK wouldn't want a currency union with an independent Scotland, why an independent Scotland shouldn't want one with them, why the UK is not part of the eurozone, why Iceland went one route to resolving the banking crisis but Ireland went another, and why Germany propped up the recovery efforts in Greece, Ireland and Portugal when all economic logic told them not to.

 

When you pull a twenty out of an ATM, that banknote has a meaning and significance that goes far beyond what it will buy you in the shops or the pub.

You are correct but I think the vote winner was stereotypical Scottish thrawness as opposed to the political nature of the argument.

 

Most people don't try and even contemplate the rudiments of a monetary system but they hear people trying to take money out of their pockets, as they perceive it.

 

Now, I personally think that if Scotland uses the pound post-independence, people will learn PDQ about what a pound really means but if people vote for that it is their choice.

[Thunderstruck]

 

What i mean is that those are tendered contracts. they are not guaranteed scottish jobs. They could easily have been built at Portsmouth.

 

We have no guaranteed MOD jobs in Scotland. Not a single one.

 

In Scotland, as it stands, there is MoD presence in Prestwick, Beith, Faslane, Coulport, Crombie, Rosyth/Caledonia, Kirkliston, Penicuik, Edinburgh, Leuchars, Arbroath, Lossie/Kinloss and a host of smaller establishments. All of these will have a mix of service and civilian personnel. All of these will contract for local services. All will make use of local retail, accommodation and leisure services. All will make use of local companies for construction and maintenance.

 

There is the Army Pay Centre in Glasgow.

 

There are major defence contractors such as Selex at Crewe Toll.

 

There is naval shipbuilding at Govan, Scotstoun and Rosyth and that, in turn, supports an array of sub-contractors, many of them local. All of the money spent cascades into the community in one way or another.

 

Do you think that an independent Scotland with its "?2bn" of Defence spending could keep all of that going? Could it replace the order book to the extent that the yards could remain open?

Edited September 11, 2014 by Thunderstruck

[Brandt]

Sturgeon still refusing to take part in the debate on BBC tonight if Galloway is on yhe panel

 

Good on her. Horrible man. Cant debate with a man like him.

[doctor jambo]

Good on her. Horrible man. Cant debate with a man like him.

 

He is very similar in style to Salmond......

[BoJack Horseman]

You are correct but I think the vote winner was stereotypical Scottish thrawness as opposed to the political nature of the argument.

 

Most people don't try and even contemplate the rudiments of a monetary system but they hear people trying to take money out of their pockets, as they perceive it.

 

Now, I personally think that if Scotland uses the pound post-independence, people will learn PDQ about what a pound really means but if people vote for that it is their choice.

 

I think you're right in that the average person doesn't even know how currency in general works, never mind the consequences of a currency union, or the lack of one. So when I hear folk saying the reason they're voting No is because of the lack of transparency regarding currency, it just comes across as ignorance really.

[Brandt]

He is very similar in style to Salmond......

 

Yes, but Salmond can debate with Israelis.

[TheMaganator]

Good on her. Horrible man. Cant debate with a man like him.

Yes you can.

 

They hate Galloway because he will speak well to the working man. They are clamoring for the labour vote remember...

 

I think the BBC should tell Sturgeon that Galloway will be on the panel and if she doesn't want to join him she can stick bubbly.

 

This is typical SNP stuff - they wont answer the hard questions that Galloway will put (because they have no answers) so they will try and dictate the terms.

 

If the BBC has backbone Galloway will be on tonight and Sturgeon will have no choice but to join him.

[rossthejambo]

I read recently that the Edinburgh agreement stipulates that neither party can introduce potential changes that could influence voters within 28 days of the referendum. Is scrambling to offer us more powers not illegal at this point? Postal voters have already started locking their vote in.

 

The argument is that the "promise" of extra powers was on the table before the 28 day mark, they've not actually detailed what these powers are, they've just been re-emphasising that these will allegedly be delivered so they've not broken any rules.

[doctor jambo]

Yes, but Salmond can debate with Israelis.

 

Galloway would LOVE to debate with Israelis- it would totatlly float his boat

In the same way Salmond would love a pop at Cameron

NOw, Galloway vs Salmond I'd pay to see

[Brandt]

Galloway would LOVE to debate with Israelis- it would totatlly float his boat

In the same way Salmond would love a pop at Cameron

NOw, Galloway vs Salmond I'd pay to see

 

http://www.telegraph...li-student.html

 

"The Respect MP, who last year won a by-election to represent Bradford West, told students he was leaving because he does "not recognise Israel" .

Videos on the websites of Cherwell and the Oxford Student newspapers, show him marching out of the room during a speech by Eylon Aslan-Levy, a student.

The MP questioned why his opponent used the word "we" to describe Israel and then got up to leave when he found Mr Aslan-Levy was Israeli.

"I don't debate with Israelis. I have been misled," Mr Galloway said."

 

Anyway, back to the referendum debate

Edited September 11, 2014 by Brandt

[jambo1185]

If they refuse George id get that Keziah woman on. She was impressive on STV

[doctor jambo]

I digress- Sturgeon would have her arse handed to her on a plate by Galloway - hence the no-show

All is going well for the Yes, and the last thing she needs is a battering

[Nookie Bear]

In Scotland, as it stands, there is MoD presence in Prestwick, Beith, Faslane, Coulport, Crombie, Rosyth/Caledonia, Kirkliston, Penicuik, Edinburgh, Leuchars, Arbroath, Lossie/Kinloss and a host of smaller establishments. All of these will have a mix of service and civilian personnel. All of these will contract for local services. All will make use of local retail, accommodation and leisure services. All will make use of local companies for construction and maintenance.

 

There is the Army Pay Centre in Glasgow.

 

There are major defence contractors such as Selex at Crewe Toll.

 

There is naval shipbuilding at Govan, Scotstoun and Rosyth and that, in turn, supports an array of sub-contractors, many of them local. All of the money spent cascades into the community in one way or another.

 

Do you think that an independent Scotland with its "?2bn" of Defence spending could keep all of that going? Could it replace the order book to the extent that the yards could remain open?

 

As an aside, I am a NO voter but would prefer an Indy Scotland to keep well out of any foreign altercations. What is the minimum we would need simply to defend our shores?

[Gabriel]

Just watched Salmond deliver his speech on Bloomberg because BBC News and Sky were showing the Oscar Pistorius case.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Gabriel

[Brandt]

As an aside, I am a NO voter but would prefer an Indy Scotland to keep well out of any foreign altercations. What is the minimum we would need simply to defend our shores?

 

Dads army

[Hugh Phamism]

As an aside, I am a NO voter but would prefer an Indy Scotland to keep well out of any foreign altercations. What is the minimum we would need simply to defend our shores?

 

Smeato...

[Nookie Bear]

Dads army

Smeato...

 

Double lolz !!

[Thunderstruck]

 

 

As an aside, I am a NO voter but would prefer an Indy Scotland to keep well out of any foreign altercations. What is the minimum we would need simply to defend our shores?

 

?2bn

 

?3 to ?3.5bn (all costs are per annum) if the ambition to have "World Class" armed forces (a Salmond ambition) is to be realised. The latter would allow full participation in NATO and in UN Peacekeeping. (RUSI estimates from 2013).

 

[TheMaganator]

As an aside, I am a NO voter but would prefer an Indy Scotland to keep well out of any foreign altercations. What is the minimum we would need simply to defend our shores?

 

I don't know exactly - but if you watch the STV debate from last week where Davidson was on the panel with Dugdale and Alexander she explains why the amount as outlined in the White Paper is a nonsense. Various military types have confirmed this too. The SNP's proposals are woefully inadequate just for defence purposes.

 

That's before we even consider who will be in those positions. A lot of Scots in the military will want to remain in the British Army, RN or RAF. People join the military for action (not necessarily combative) - they'd get none of that in the SDF.

 

The RN spends a lot of time policing the seas stopping the illegal drugs trade - it also helps in the fight against piracy. If you were in that force - why would you want to give that up (issues of leaving those in your unit aside) just to patrol Scottish waters?

[Boris]

I don't know exactly - but if you watch the STV debate from last week where Davidson was on the panel with Dugdale and Alexander she explains why the amount as outlined in the White Paper is a nonsense. Various military types have confirmed this too. The SNP's proposals are woefully inadequate just for defence purposes.

 

That's before we even consider who will be in those positions. A lot of Scots in the military will want to remain in the British Army, RN or RAF. People join the military for action (not necessarily combative) - they'd get none of that in the SDF.

 

The RN spends a lot of time policing the seas stopping the illegal drugs trade - it also helps in the fight against piracy. If you were in that force - why would you want to give that up (issues of leaving those in your unit aside) just to patrol Scottish waters?

 

If current serving service personnel wish to remain with rUK forces then so be it. At a time where the MoD is pruning it's forces, surely Scotland would be doing the opposite?

 

Might offer careers for those who hadn't thought of joining UK forces, but happy to do so for Scotland?

[Thunderstruck]

 

 

I don't know exactly - but if you watch the STV debate from last week where Davidson was on the panel with Dugdale and Alexander she explains why the amount as outlined in the White Paper is a nonsense. Various military types have confirmed this too. The SNP's proposals are woefully inadequate just for defence purposes.

 

That's before we even consider who will be in those positions. A lot of Scots in the military will want to remain in the British Army, RN or RAF. People join the military for action (not necessarily combative) - they'd get none of that in the SDF.

 

The RN spends a lot of time policing the seas stopping the illegal drugs trade - it also helps in the fight against piracy. If you were in that force - why would you want to give that up (issues of leaving those in your unit aside) just to patrol Scottish waters?

 

A "run ashore" in Campbeltown or Antigua? Which would you pick?

[TheMaganator]

If current serving service personnel wish to remain with rUK forces then so be it. At a time where the MoD is pruning it's forces, surely Scotland would be doing the opposite?

 

Might offer careers for those who hadn't thought of joining UK forces, but happy to do so for Scotland?

Mibbies.

 

I am not sure how many, if any, would not be prepared to join the military now but would for iScotland.

 

Again though - it all seems a bit 'close eyes and hope for the best' to me.

 

A "run ashore" in Campbeltown or Antigua? Which would you pick?

 

[Nookie Bear]

?2bn

 

?3 to ?3.5bn (all costs are per annum) if the ambition to have "World Class" armed forces (a Salmond ambition) is to be realised. The latter would allow full participation in NATO and in UN Peacekeeping. (RUSI estimates from 2013).

 

Has Salmond said that? What has he said regarding Scotland's role in global conflict?

[Brandt]

Has Salmond said that? What has he said regarding Scotland's role in global conflict?

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-nukes-war-banned-1780288

[Thunderstruck]

 

Mibbies.

 

I am not sure how many, if any, would not be prepared to join the military now but would for iScotland.

 

Again though - it all seems a bit 'close eyes and hope for the best' to me.

 

 

 

 

There is a lesson from the Republic of Ireland where recruitment to UK armed forces has always been steady.

[The People's Chimp]

A good read. http://www.scottishreview.net/CarolCraig172.shtml

 

And for balance. http://www.scottishreview.net/RonFerguson172.shtml

[Thunderstruck]

 

 

Has Salmond said that? What has he said regarding Scotland's role in global conflict?

 

I didn't say "conflict", I referred to ambition to form part of NATO and to be a force for good which sometimes means getting involved in separating warring factions. Ireland does this with UN, The Irish Army was in Afghanistan.

[Greenbank2]

So RBS is the latest to say they will move their HQ to London.

 

So more excess and cost sunk into the melting pot of greed and debauchery that is the primary reason for UK PLC failing. Of course what they will so is relocate a brass plaque - even in their excess, the leaders of the bank that brought the country to its knees are not stupid enough to relocate jobs that will cost them more and have inferior talent competing for them.

 

But this will be enough to scare the many sheep who trust these people, to vote "no".

 

BTW what is not being reported is that Scottish companies will "move some business" to England because of a requirement to have a legal entity within the country in which they trade. HOWEVER ENGLISH companies who conduct significant business in Scotland will be required to MOVE OPERATIONS HERE!!!!!!

 

Now I'm not citing this is a reason to vote "yes" or "no" - but I am highlighting the lengths the establishment and media will go to manipulate the truth.

[westbow]

Being a business owner and posting over 500-1000 items a day, it was a concern to me but for the life of me i cant find the article which reassured me a bit regarding the renationalisation of RM.

 

Also, Amazon dont pay tax on the distribution centers as they are just 'storage centers'.

Sorry, couldn't reply sooner, but I would greatly appreciate the article also. I can only find information on the massive costs involved. Part of my business depends on equal access to 64 million UK customers as opposed to just 5 million Scottish. Not quite on your scale, but it still employs a couple of people. Privatisation of RM was not needed and a complete con, saying that, it is now in private hands so it would be expensive to re-nationalise.

Amazon still pay employers NI on around 1000 people in Fife, they do have unfair tax set-ups but Alex Salmond wasn't too fussed when he set them up here.

[TheMaganator]

So RBS is the latest to say they will move their HQ to London.

 

So more excess and cost sunk into the melting pot of greed and debauchery that is the primary reason for UK PLC failing. Of course what they will so is relocate a brass plaque - even in their excess, the leaders of the bank that brought the country to its knees are not stupid enough to relocate jobs that will cost them more and have inferior talent competing for them.

 

But this will be enough to scare the many sheep who trust these people, to vote "no".

 

BTW what is not being reported is that Scottish companies will "move some business" to England because of a requirement to have a legal entity within the country in which they trade. HOWEVER ENGLISH companies who conduct significant business in Scotland will be required to MOVE OPERATIONS HERE!!!!!!

 

Now I'm not citing this is a reason to vote "yes" or "no" - but I am highlighting the lengths the establishment and media will go to manipulate the truth.

I think the rule is that your HQ needs to be in the country that you do most trade in - hence RBS move to rUK.

 

I don't think its a reason to get polish the tinfoil hat.

 

p.s Salmond called for less regulation of that sector and congratulated Fred the Shred on the deal that eventually led to RBS's collapse. The idea that an iScoland would have behaved differently is a nonsense

[Brandt]

Sorry, couldn't reply sooner, but I would greatly appreciate the article also. I can only find information on the massive costs involved. Part of my business depends on equal access to 64 million UK customers as opposed to just 5 million Scottish. Not quite on your scale, but it still employs a couple of people. Privatisation of RM was not needed and a complete con, saying that, it is now in private hands so it would be expensive to re-nationalise.

Amazon still pay employers NI on around 1000 people in Fife, they do have unfair tax set-ups but Alex Salmond wasn't too fussed when he set them up here.

 

I'll hunt for it mate. It did actually say that postage may actually be cheaper but cant remember all the ins and out.

[pablo]

I was a disapointed with the visit from the Top Boys yesterday. Why don't they ever address the reason that we're where we are in the first place ? They fly up and tell us they want us to stay ( big deal ) , but why not tell us what they're going to do about the reason of why we're where we are in the first place? You've got a failing business model, people are flleing the Westminster model in their droves. Tell us what you're going to do to fix it. How do you plan to reform Westminster? I don't really care about how much you want us to stay or even what additional powers will be granted to Scotland. fix the feckin problem.

[Greenbank2]

Sorry, couldn't reply sooner, but I would greatly appreciate the article also. I can only find information on the massive costs involved. Part of my business depends on equal access to 64 million UK customers as opposed to just 5 million Scottish. Not quite on your scale, but it still employs a couple of people. Privatisation of RM was not needed and a complete con, saying that, it is now in private hands so it would be expensive to re-nationalise.

Amazon still pay employers NI on around 1000 people in Fife, they do have unfair tax set-ups but Alex Salmond wasn't too fussed when he set them up here.

 

No they don't. They have accountants and lawyers that make sure they operate within the law (primarily by utilising royalty and transfer pricing mechanisms). You may not like it but that doesn't make it unfair.

[westbow]

I'll hunt for it mate. It did actually say that postage may actually be cheaper but cant remember all the ins and out.

Ta. Cheaper in Scotland or all UK?

[Boris]

I was a disapointed with the visit from the Top Boys yesterday. Why don't they ever address the reason that we're where we are in the first place ? They fly up and tell us they want us to stay ( big deal ) , but why not tell us what they're going to do about the reason of why we're where we are in the first place? You've got a failing business model, people are flleing the Westminster model in their droves. Tell us what you're going to do to fix it. How do you plan to reform Westminster? I don't really care about how much you want us to stay or even what additional powers will be granted to Scotland. fix the feckin problem.

 

 

Boom!

[TheMaganator]

No they don't. They have accountants and lawyers that make sure they operate within the law (primarily by utilising royalty and transfer pricing mechanisms). You may not like it but that doesn't make it unfair.

Depends on how you define unfair - some would say it is pretty unfair that they pay minimal tax here.

 

It certainly isn't illegal though

[westbow]

No they don't. They have accountants and lawyers that make sure they operate within the law (primarily by utilising royalty and transfer pricing mechanisms). You may not like it but that doesn't make it unfair.

Morally it is unfair. They have never evaded tax, I would never claim that. But like Starbucks, they seem to be able to negotiate home much tax they pay with governments.