Independence SE Poll

[Mikie711]

I do my own tax every year, comes with being paid in USD, and I already know I pay a lot in tax and apparently receive very little back!

I'd bet you'd pay even more if you were paid in Stirling as a PAYE employee



Edit : Sorry mike not picking on you personally but it's an interesting point to contrast with the pride of being Scottish and voting yes as it's the thing to do etc etc. Ultimately people will do what's best for them. And I can't blame them for that.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I don't find paying tax, else I would have left long ago, but I would much rather see my tax pounds stay here in Scotland than head down south. Going by that calculator which is way out but never the less I am something north of my wife's salary in benefit to tax ratio as most guys in my position will be. Not getting into an arguments about what tax money goes where at the moment just rather pay it to Edinburgh than London.

Wouldn't it be great if we had greater clarity on issues like this, make things so much simpler. Aren't elected politicians supposed to work for us and not the other way round.

[j2 lot]

Is it not the case that if we vote YES, we enter into negotiations and could still potentially pull out if the deal is a load of rubbish?

Never ever going to happen- the Yes vote is for a lifetime and more.
A No vote on the other hand will result in future referendums, as long as the SNP exists they will push for referendums as often as they can.

[graeme]

Graeme, the radio 4 program took oil revenue and split the revenue over the entire UK, ie they added it to the tax per head for the entire country, the outcome being that it is very close but year on year.
However if you take the oil field and split them geographically and apportion the tax accordingly then the picture is markedly different. There is arguments for doing it both ways but given that we are talking about independence and the Northern fields (Auk, Clyde and Fulmar are roughly where the line falls) would fall under Scottish waters then taking the second set is representative of a post independence position.

That would be fine if there was any sort of agreement in place for a geographical split of oil fields post-independence. Can we guarantee it? No. Has the Geneva agreement which divides the revenues by geographic boundary been tested in a new boundary creation scenario? Not that I can find. What sort of portion of existing debt does it come tied to? No answers. How long will that take to pay off, and how will that be funded? No answers. Do we also then inherit the costs (tax breaks) for compulsory decommissioning of hundreds of rotting platforms within our boundaries? Yes, we do. Oh dear, how will that be funded? By contributions from the rest of the UK. Has that been agreed? No, we'll negotiate later. So, you don't want to negotiate on boundaries, but you do on the costs that come with them?

That's how it seems to me. Change the wallpaper indeed... no bank in its right mind would even give us a mortgage!

[Rosssco]

I'm not sure on the exact reason for the choice for the referendum date, but if there are many unanswered questions, why hasn't the Scottish Government proposed a date in 2015 or 2016 to allow more time to more completely answer some of these questions? Possibly because:

There might not be a Tory government in 2015 - major grudge points lost / "government we didn't vote for" stuff seems more limp
Economically we should have further recovered - less of a financial incentive. Much of the talk around a weathier nation is on the back of current spending cuts (which some how we can avoid almost completely, but the UK can't)
2015 - UK general election - less focus on the referendum potentially
2016 - SNP could loose their majority government in a strong Labour showing

Why much of what comes from the SNP seems opportunistic, and taking political advantage of a set of specific circumstances, all of which could change in ~5 years or less.. I'd wonder what level of support there would be back in say, 2005/6 with the Labour government in full swing, and the economy relatively strong (or so we thought). The SNP were on the rise, but as we know many SNP voters are not necessarily voting Yes.

[graeme]

Same reason as all their other dirty tactics... to swing the vote towards Yes. The more time they have to answer questions, the more answers they're going to have to admit they don't have. The Yes camp chose the date, so you can bet it's chosen to maximise their chances.

Similarly, lowering the voting age to 16 includes more passionate, less informed voters. Nobody cared about a teenager's right to vote until suddenly polls showed it could give the Yes campaign a few points, and then suddenly it's allowed. Total abuse of power.

The first attempt at the wording of the referendum question was loaded too. "Do you agree Scotland should be an independent nation?" Lesson 1 in data gathering is that to get a fair answer you need to ask a fair question. Unless of course you don't want a fair answer, in which case you load the question in your favour. That annoyed me probably more than anything else they've done, and I'm glad they didn't get away with it.

Filthy campaign, and just another few reasons why they can get tae fook!

[Ferg]

I would say my current position is NO, but being objective I considered what would move me to at least an undecided position. The issue that I find incompatible, which might be controversial or not, is that for some reason the SNP have introduce the anti-nuclear stance, notably one of their manifesto promises, into the list of independence promises.

This issue has two distinct facets, nuclear weapons of course is one, but also and not commonly discussed it would seem, Nuclear power.

On nuclear deterrent, I'm actually pro being a player in that space but that's just personal opinion, I do feel though that housing the deterrent pales into insignificance when related to our future power needs. Sure, weapons are a polarising subject that makes for good argument but I feel the subject of future energy requirements has been, somewhat intentionally, kept out of the limelight as it will muddy the waters for many.This statement is very clear, no nuclear power in the future for Scotland if independence was achieved. But if we're voting for the long term future I find this incredibly short sighted. Currently nuclear power generation technology is very far removed from what it was 20 years ago. The future in my opinion MUST involve some form for Nuclear power whether the technology available now or something not realised yet. Looking at this report it shows that nuclear still represents a significant part of our energy infrastructure, possibly as much as 30%. I know I'm not talking about currency or economics, but energy is among our basic needs. I'm disappointed there's not been more clarity on this as I feel it hugely important for the future of the country whether part of a union or not.

I'm interested in SE thoughts on this ..

[Mikie711]

Similarly, lowering the voting age to 16 includes more passionate, less informed voters. Nobody cared about a teenager's right to vote until suddenly polls showed it could give the Yes campaign a few points, and then suddenly it's allowed. Total abuse of power.

Had the same discussion on the rig about this and would have agreed until someone pointed out that at 16 you can go and get a job, pay taxes and NI but can't have a vote.

Your kinda mixing 2 issues. For either to happen SNP actually have to win the next/first Scottish Election, it's there manifesto nobody elses. And they did win the last with those issues, they have been very clear about their stance on Nuclear, both weapons and power. SNP's direction is clearly renewables, always has been, at least since the last election. However misguided that policy is, I am not suggesting I support it (I work in O&G, F5^k renewables, burn fossil fuels,keeps me in a job )
but they have never hidden the issue so not sure about the clarity thing. That said the energy debate rarely comes up, unless it's about more bloody windfarms and as we aren't experiencing any gray outs most people are blissfully unaware of the impending problem.

On the nukes issue, given the cost of the things versus the likelihood of ever actually using them I think the UK should leave that game up to the big boys. They are now really about status on the world stage, look at us we are a nuclear power. So what, we have no money, run a massive deficit, but still insist on playing world policeman.

Edit: Just checked their site and found the following:

"Scotland is on track to produce nearly a third of our electricity this year from clean green renewable sources. And we’re aiming for 80 per cent by 2020."

More bloody wind farms then

[Rosssco]

Sorry to sound like I'm constantly disagreeing with you Mike.

The renewables one is interesting, and does actually point to one of the main benefits of the UK - sharing of resources. Scotland doesn't need or want the amount of renewables capacity it currently has and will have in the future, but having an integrated system with rUK means the UK can take some (or most)of this green energy and use it towards their climate change obligations, and Scotland should never have the risk of brown / grey / pink or black outs

The policy of abandonment of nuclear power will not only potentially subject us to the costs and risks associated with decommissioning of existing plants, but make it no less reliant on power from south of the border.

The "80%" is a bit of a pie in the sky figure anyway. Most of that capacity will have to come from offshore wind farms, investment in which has slowed somewhat over the last few years, and the big projects that should be under construction have stalled. The SNP talk of all this renewables capacity is a bit like saying there's a pot of gold on the moon with our name on it - great, but it's going to cost billions to reach it. Scotland would neither have the capitial or political will (few hunner quid on yer bill misses?) to provide the subsidy levels to achieve this goal.

And if you take Salmonds old best pal Trump as a prospective example of muddled investment and shooting yourself in the foot, we have the floppy-haired whinger holding up the development of test and development site off the Aberdeenshire coast that might actually attract some real investment and skills.. If Salmond hadn't short-sightedly over-ruled the local planning commitee on another course for golfists, we might have something impressive and potentiall world leading to show for it..

[campbell]

Can renewable sources reliably provide the base load of electricity supply which Scotland requires?

[Mikie711]

And if you take Salmonds old best pal Trump as a prospective example of muddled investment and shooting yourself in the foot, we have the floppy-haired whinger holding up the development of test and development site off the Aberdeenshire coast that might actually attract some real investment and skills.. If Salmond hadn't short-sightedly over-ruled the local planning commitee on another course for golfists, we might have something impressive and potentiall world leading to show for it..

So that'll be what stopped the demonstration site in the Firth of Forth as well then. Must be a hell of a size if you can see them from Balmedie
Still going to be built btw. Trump lost the court case, spat the dummy and bought somewhere in Ireland and Turnberry.

Can renewable sources reliably provide the base load of electricity supply which Scotland requires?

No idea, all black magic to me mate, all I know is we have IOL

[Rosssco]

Can renewable sources reliably provide the base load of electricity supply which Scotland requires?

I'm not sure TBH. In theory, as we have a good energy mix of renewables consisting of wind, pumped storage / hydro and tidal potentially, maybe it would be possible with sufficient investment.

Wind is being pushed as its the best option as its the best understood and has the clearest investment potential
Hydro is good, but I understand many of the naturally suitable sites have been used, and planning for new sites would be difficult (unless we took the Chinese approach).
Tidal promises alot but makes wind and nuclear look cheap - difficult to install, maintain and creates hazards for things like fishing (dependant on location)
Wave has yet to pass the acid test as far as a device that you could stick out in the NS or Atlantic in the thousands and expect them to last.

As with many things, you need to pour investment into them to get a sustainable return. Small projects tend to be more expensive. Cost reduction reduction will come from "industrialising" the process and producing things (like wind turbines) in their 100's / 1,000's which takes alot of cash up front, hence easier for a larger economy like the UK to justify.

[Rosssco]

And if you take Salmonds old best pal Trump as a prospective example of muddled investment and shooting yourself in the foot, we have the floppy-haired whinger holding up the development of test and development site off the Aberdeenshire coast that might actually attract some real investment and skills.. If Salmond hadn't short-sightedly over-ruled the local planning commitee on another course for golfists, we might have something impressive and potentiall world leading to show for it..

So that'll be what stopped the demonstration site in the Firth of Forth as well then. Must be a hell of a size if you can see them from Balmedie
Still going to be built btw. Trump lost the court case, spat the dummy and bought somewhere in Ireland and Turnberry.

Can renewable sources reliably provide the base load of electricity supply which Scotland requires?

No idea, all black magic to me mate, all I know is we have IOL

No idea why the FoF site was binned. Probably a combination of concerns over total cost, shipping restrictions and spoiling somebodies view.. Trump lost his case for the objection to offshore phase of it, and recently the decision to reject the onshore phase application (its a split application) has been reviewed and is in favour of the project. I do work on it now and again, and hopefully should progress at some stage (well, it still is progressing, slowly)

Ironically, cheap oil would probably kill the offshore renewables thing dead for a while - expensive oil makes expensive renewables a feasible alternaitve..

[tut]

You can use this to get an idea of what you "get back" in the form of services vs. what you pay in..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966 quote]

This was precisely why Poll tax was introduced so that individuals paid their fair share not based on the value of the property they live in; but Scotland didn't like that.

Does not work for me as I do not pay tax or NI, and neither does Verian.

"What you pay and what you get back
These figures put all the households in the UK into one of ten equally-sized groups, or deciles.

On average, people with household incomes similar to yours have an annual balance of...£-27,220. Your household is in the tenth decile, where one has the least disposable income and ten has the most. Households from the 7th decile and above, on average, pay more in tax than they receive in benefits and services."

I was actually all for the Poll Tax as it seemed a fairer system, it would have hit the families that churn out children to get the maximum benefits, yet pay the same tax as an OAP in a one bedroom flat. It also benefited me as opposed to the Council tax that replaced it and the original Rates system, as I would have paid less.

tut

[Mikie711]

I can't foresee the oil price dropping any time soon. Contract rates for rigs have dropped but that is due in large part to over supply of new builds. 107 last year with 140+ this due out. Somebody, somewhere is banking on the oi price staying high as these things cost circa $600 million and take 2 years to build (ship) longer if it's a semi.

[Mikie711]

You can use this to get an idea of what you "get back" in the form of services vs. what you pay in..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966

Over a certain threshold you end up paying a not insignificnat amount in that you'll never see again.. As a single man, living on his own with a decent salary, it seems I contribute quite alot.

I do my own tax every year, comes with being paid in USD, and I already know I pay a lot in tax and apparently receive very little back!

This was precisely why Poll tax was introduced so that individuals paid their fair share not based on the value of the property they live in; but Scotland didn't like that.

We maybe didn't like it but South of the border they hated it with a passion. In theory it was a good idea but then one single tax system is a good idea that will never happen. If you actually found out how much tax you paid we would all be up in arms, what with VAT on pretty much everything you buy, fuel tax, savings tax, stamp duty, income tax, inheritance tax etc etc.
In fact the 2 worst ones are inheritance tax and land duty. WTF are they all about.