Adinnieken said:
| MikeRox said:
Does that include all the revenues that are generated as a result of "business" from south of the border? Including a disproportionate public sector and business that would need to have a presence south of the border if Scotland went independent?
I don't know if it does or doesn't, most people don't because there is nothing concrete. But you need to consider that all those public sector jobs for the UK would be placed elsewhere. Scotland would then need to set up it's own public sector and there would be massive military changes. Anybody thinking the status quo would remain post independence is severely deluded, especially as Salmond made it perfectly clear Trident wouldn't be welcome in Scotland, so all those jobs are clearly going south of the border.
The bedroom tax isn't a punitive tax, because it isn't a tax. It's a reduced payout. They are completely different. I can't say I agree with the way that it's been implemented, but I certainly agree with the principal for the most part.
I know a lot of Scotlanders have this believe that there will be a "progressive liberal haven" in independennce. But once the realities kick in, I really wouldn't be surprised if the outcome is worse than the worst that Thatcher ever imposed. Especially having had the bullyboy tactics of the SNP exposed in recent weeks threatening businesses to keep quiet on their honest opinions if they didn't tow the line. Scotland could well be sleepwalking into a dictatorship.
|
Revenue = taxes.
It's a tax. Any fee imposed by the government to pay for a good or service is a tax.
Revenue generated from south of the border (i.e. taxes on goods and services purchased in Scotland by businesses in England or Wales), would still be generated. Business between Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland isn't going to cease. Just like business between the US and Scotland won't cease if it gains independence. More than likely there would be few if any trade barriers between Scotland and England, Wales, or Northern Ireland. Why would there be? It would only negatively impact those countries as well as Scotland itself.
Conservatives can't call one thing a tax when it's perceived as a negative to them, then call it something else when it's perceived as a positive to them. The Bedroom tax is a ludicious proposition, that subsequently implies that the UK benefits from taxing families and individuals whose residence is underoccupied rather than potentially have unoccupied housing. The benefit to the GDP to generate more housing, is greater than the benefit to the GDP to cut-back spending, and impose a tax.
I do think councils should be putting a greater effort into multi-family dwellings, rather than single family or duplex dwellings. I think an effort has been made to get away from multi-story, multi-family housing developments and instead put more of an effort into single family, or duplex dwellings.
There will always be challenges to independence when one country splits from another. However, I believe if Scotland wants independence then they have a right to it. Do I think there are better ways to go about this? Certainly. I believe a federal system, like the US has, would help resolve many of the concerns all parties involved have. The existence of a federal government, with each nation/state having it's own government, and representation within the federal government solves the complaint and concerns about one nation/state having greater control over the other. Each nation/state would have a set number of representatives that had an equal vote on any issue, could draw up legislation and present it, or could speak on any issue. Effectively, the House of Lords would no longer exist and a Senate-like body would replace it. The House of Commons might be drawn up a little differently, but England would still have the majority representation because it has the majority of population. Legislation that the House of Commons brought up, the Senate-like body would vote on. In effect, the two houses of the legislative body would have to agree to pass legislation. Whether or not a PM would still have power or not, I don't know, but the more effective form of government would include a President that maintains a check & balance with executive power.
However, that isn't on the table. In fact, based on the suggestion by Conservatives, I don't believe much is left on the table for Scotland if the Independence Referendum doesn't get a Yes vote. Tories, it seems, want to punish Scotland for its attempt at Indpendence. That appears that way whether they fail or succeed. Which I don't necessarily understand.
I don't personally believe Scottish Indpendence is unjustified. As a non-Scot, who has never set foot in Scotland, it's my second home. My opinion is, based on historical record, that Scots have been hurt more by an association with the UK than they've been helped. Certainly, there has been mutual benefit, but I'm not sure that mutual benefit wouldn't have existed even if Scotland and England had never formed a Union. The close proximity of the two nations would have meant, much like with the United States and Canada or Mexico, that they trade and they each benefit from that trade relationship.
The people who benefitted in Scotland from the relationship between Scotland and England were not the poor and working class. The people that benefitted from the relationship between Scotland and England were the wealthy and eventually protestant reformists. The poor and working class just became pawns for those two groups.
Do I beleive Scotland will become a socialist Mecca? I hope not. Can it be a country that practices socialism, a regulated market economy, and be successful? Sure, I believe so. There isn't a market economy anywhere in the world that practices true capitalism and I doubt anyone would want to live in the country that does.
|
