Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat May 02, 2026 7:02 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Nine in ten Scots 'living off state's patronage'

Almost nine out of 10 Scottish households take more from the public purse than they contribute in taxes thanks to a “rotten system” of state patronage, the Tory party conference will hear on Monday.

By Simon Johnson, Scottish political editor

11:25PM BST 07 Oct 2012

Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, is to highlight official figures showing that only 283,080 households north of the border – 12 per cent of the total – pay more in tax than they receive in public services.

She will tell delegates that, because the public sector is seen as the key provider of everything from housing to employment, state spending now accounts for more than half Scotland’s wealth.

She will blame Alex Salmond, the SNP First Minister, and his Labour predecessors for nurturing a “corrosive sense of entitlement” among voters that has prevented her party making a comeback in Scotland.

Miss Davidson will argue this Left-wing “stranglehold” suits Labour and the SNP but has made it difficult for the Tories as so many voters are reliant on the public sector for their household income.

But the Nationalists described it as her “Mitt Romney moment”, in a reference to the Republican presidential candidate’s comments that 47 per cent of Americans pay no income tax and are dependent on the state.

According to the most recent figures, Scotland contributed 9.6 per cent of Britain’s tax take and accounted for 9.3 per cent of public spending.

Her strongly worded attack on state patronage follows David Cameron’s warning to the Scottish Tories last autumn that they had no excuse for their dismal election performances.

But Miss Davidson will tell the conference that Scotland’s “staggering” and “frightening” reliance on the public sector must be taken into account.

“The rotten system of patronage, which denies so many people real choices in their lives, has created a corrosive sense of entitlement which suits its political gang masters,” she will say. “Only 12 per cent are responsible for generating Scotland’s wealth. I wonder how many of them work on public sector contracts.”

Referring to her party’s dismal election record, the Scottish Conservative leader will conclude: “If the gang master state is the only provider people can see for their housing, education and employment, it’s no surprise those who seek to break the stranglehold find barriers in their way.”

Anyone who challenges the status quo is deemed an “enemy of the state”, she will argue, before claiming this is the real reason some political commentators have written off the Scottish Tories.

She will argue that Labour and the SNP still blame her party for problems that are their responsibility, pointing out that the former has been in control of some of Glasgow’s most deprived areas for decades.

Miss Davidson supported her claims by publishing figures from the Office for National Statistics, which showed the average Scottish household consumes £14,151 more in public services every year than it pays in tax.

Even the families in the middle income groups consume around £20,000 more in state spending than they contribute.

However, those in the top 10 per cent pay £17,205 more in tax than they receive in public services.

Kenny Gibson, a Nationalist MSP, described it as Miss Davidson’s “Mitt Romney moment”. He added: “At least Mitt Romney only insulted around half of Americans, while Ruth Davidson believes almost 90 per cent of Scots do not 'contribute’ to society.”

Miss Davidson will also tell English party colleagues that their support is required if the Unionist campaign is to win a decisive victory in the referendum on independence, something she will argue is necessary if the separatists are not to try to hold another vote soon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... onage.html

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 10591
Location: Scotland
Well the bint might be correct, but we are only getting our oil revenue back


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Quote:
Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, is to highlight official figures showing that only 283,080 households north of the border – 12 per cent of the total – pay more in tax than they receive in public services.


It would be interesting to compare the figures for the rest of the UK. (I have been told that the figure for London is 10% :shock: )

It would also be nice to know if these figures include hidden taxes such as fuel, alcohol, tobacco duties and VAT, or just income tax.

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
skippy41 wrote:
Well the bint might be correct, but we are only getting our oil revenue back


Or at least some of it. :wink:

Official government figures say Scotland contributes 9.6 per cent of UK public sector revenue and received 9.3 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure. Scotland’s population is 8.4 per cent of the UK total.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Release ... t-07032012

So yes, the average Scot does get more per head spent on them. This is in part due to the rural nature of most of Scotland.
More to the point, we still put more in the pot than we get back. A fact which seems lost on Ms Davidson, because it doesn't suit her agenda.

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
If you listened to them f*cking retards today they seem to be blaming the world economic collapse on low income families having too many children.........similar to a line they used during the great hunger of the 1800's.

They're f*cking scum who would stand on anyone to get to the top........Scotland will do well without them.....shame I dont really get a choice.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
captain cab wrote:
If you listened to them f*cking retards today they seem to be blaming the world economic collapse on low income families having too many children.........similar to a line they used during the great hunger of the 1800's.

They're f*cking scum who would stand on anyone to get to the top........Scotland will do well without them.....shame I dont really get a choice.


=D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

(You could always move, it's not that far :wink: )

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Scotland's Tory leader has got her sums very wrong on the economy | Stephen Boyd

The Guardian Monday 8 October 2012
Ruth Davidson's claim that only 12% of Scottish households 'make a net contribution' is grossly misleading and inaccurate

It is not uncommon to find statistics of dubious quality presented to party political conferences. However, even by the less than rigorous standards that seem to apply at these events, Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson's claim that only 12% of Scottish households "make a net contribution to the economy" is quite remarkable.

By way of supporting analysis, all Tory HQ have seen fit to publish is one brief Excel spreadsheet which desperately needs some narrative explanation. It is not an impressive document.

Let's start with the basics: all the information sources cited are out of date. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures from the Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income publication are drawn from the 2009/10 release; strange because the 2010/11 data have been available since June this year. Similarly, data from the joint Scottish government/ONS publication, Public Sector Employment in Scotland is taken from the Q1 2012 publication and not the Q2 data published a month ago. This explains why the figures for public sector employment used in the calculation are wrong; currently 22.2% (23.5% if RBS and HBOS workers are included) of all Scottish workers are employed in the public sector, not 23.8%.

Davidson's calculation also references the ONS data on income for all households. In doing so, she commits the Romney-esque error of failing to account for retired people. This is either lazy or deliberately misleading because the ONS provides such a breakdown in the very document she cites. The income of non-retired households is significantly higher than that for all households and would lead to very different findings.

Hilariously, at a time when Davidson's party is campaigning hard for an end to Scotland's universal benefits such as free bus travel for OAPs, free prescriptions and free personal care, the calculation assumes that the distribution in Scotland of "household income, benefits and taxes is the same as that of UK households". It isn't. In Scotland, those in the upper income brackets are recipients of additional spend that is lost in her analysis.

Also, the process by which Davidson's colleagues have tortured the Government expenditure and revenue in Scotland (Gers) data to settle on average benefits and public spend per household figures is, to put it kindly, somewhat vague. I could go on.

Of course all this is a helpful distraction from the economic and social devastation her Westminster colleagues are visiting on the Scottish and UK economies. It also reflects an embarrassingly naive view about the nature of economic development in any advanced nation where public and private sectors must interact to generate sustainable growth.

The facts of the matter are that Scotland's public spending to GDP ratio is only slightly better or worse than that of the UK as a whole depending on whether or not a geographical share of oil revenues is included in the calculation. Many of the most enduringly successful economies in the world manage to sustain public spending and public sector employment ratios at similar or higher levels.

Davidson's grand idea that removal of "government diktat" is necessary to unleash Scotland's pent-up private sector potential is simply risible. Labour and product markets are regulated on a UK-wide basis and the evidence is unequivocal; Scotland is a good place to do business. Which is why our banks were at the epicentre of the banking crisis. But that is another story.

https://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/c ... ng-economy

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
discussion at 1:09.50

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... h_heroin./

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/1 ... ndependent

The United Kingdom is Over: Scotland Will be Independent

by Ollie Garkey

It's not breaking up, it's broken. The UK is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired. It's a memory, bereft of relevance. It rests in peace. If it wasn't being propped up by circumstance it would be filling history books. It's governmental processes have ceased. The UK is an ex-country.

The Treaty of Union which created the United Kingdom in 1707 will soon be no more. An independent Scotland is inevitable.

For decades, centuries really, there has been a portrayal of Scotland and the Scottish people as poor, starving, sycophants who are mercifully granted funding from London and should be grateful for every penny of English charity they receive.

The Exchequer has generally not produced complete separate economic figures for Scotland, except for gathering the minimal data required to run the Barnett formula, the scheme by which Scotland is given an allowance from Westminster. At the very least, they have not released such information publicly. Rather, they have given figures for the whole of the UK, including Scotland.

As a result, without factual basis, it has long been argued that the Scots are "Subsidy Junkies."

A Daily Mail headline ran:

    A deeply divided kingdom: Scots each get £1,600 more state cash a year spent on them than the English

    Free Scottish services cost English families £420 a year

    Scots income tax would rise 11[%] to pay it themselves

A Tory Peer recently said of the Scots:

"The English have had enough of ­subsidising Scotland, only to be treated with discourtesy. The English are fed up because they have granted Scotland a pretty fair devolution with quite a lot of money from ­England and they just come back wanting more. A deal was done back in the 1700s which was of great benefit to Scotland. The Blair government did another deal and now they’re not happy with that. I suppose I am saying, beware Scotland, a majority of the English think you should get ­independence, which would not be very good news economically for you."

My ­practical view is that it would be a nightmare to break up the UK, ­incurring huge costs and posing all sorts of difficult questions. Even if ­Scotland deserves to be kicked out of the Union, I am opposed in ­principle.

"You Scots are living off of our charity, and should be grateful that we're not kicking you out!"

The truth is very, very different. According to the first figures showing the breakdown between spending in Scotland and the rest of the UK the following figures emerge:

A total of £53 Billlion was raised in Scotland in the 2010/11 fiscal year.

A total of £30 Billion was returned to the Scottish government in the same year.

A further £5 billion was raised by the Scots themselves in taxes.

Figures for all previous years on record show a similar multi-billion pound disparity in the amount of money raised in Scotland and the amount of money provided to the representatives of the Scottish People.

Who subsidizes whom, now?

Including the £5 billion raised by the Scots themselves, that's a £17 billion deficit, or about £3500 for every man woman and child in Scotland, raised in Scotland, that the Scottish Government doesn't see a penny of.

This has been going on for decades. But it isn't the release of this data that has killed the United Kingdom, oh no. What will kill the UK is that despite this obvious injustice, Cameron is planning to cut the Scottish budget even further.

The question of Independence for Scots has always boiled down to a question of economics. "Will the people of Scotland be better off on their own?" Now that we finally have the numbers showing the economics of the Treaty of Union, the answer is clearly "yes."

According to Ipsos/Mori, the fundamental question about whether to support independence or not is an Economic one.

Knowing what we know about what the English think of the Scots (that they're subsidy junkies), and knowing that the UK is in the midst of the most savage spending cuts since Thatcher, it is politically impossible that this injustice will be addressed any time before the referendum on Independence.

Follow me over the jump for the figures in detail.

The big question that I can't answer is "how much will the Tories cut from Scotland." The budget fight is going on right now is for Cameron's plan of 81 billion in cuts over four years. This is the number I've heard quoted while listening to the BBC.

If the cuts were distributed fairly in Scotland, it would result in £7 billion in cuts for Scotland. Being excruciatingly specific about what I mean by fair: it would be fair if the exact amount of money cut from the Scottish Government was equal to the percentage of the overall cuts package which equals Scotland's share of the population. (Ow, my readability hurts after that sentence. Don't worry, that's the worst part of this article.)

Getting down to brass tacks, the issue of the Scottish budget is incredibly complicated, but I'll try and break things down. (And I'll do a better job than I did with that last sentence.)

Scotland is funded in two ways. First, there is a limited allowance granted to the Scottish Government by the UK parliament. That amount has been around £30 billion , with the Scots raising another 5 billion themselves. Then, the government spends about £17 billion on behalf of Scotland. On Behalf of Scotland, but not necessarily in Scotland. This figure includes Scotland's share of things like the debts being run up by the rest of the UK (Scotland has actually been running surpluses for almost every year we have on record according to GERS) the war in Iraq, the London Olympics, Scotland's share of military bases outside of Scotland, Scotland's share of subsidies for the Falklands, that sort of thing.

An important point: because of a lack of oversight by the Scottish Parliament over the expenditures made by the UK parliament, there's no way to know how much of what's being spent by the UK government on behalf of Scotland is actually spent in Scotland. As I've already illustrated, much of it isn't.

Meanwhile, with an ever shrinking budget, the Scottish Government has managed to maintain and expand public sector services, including free college education fees, free prescriptions, and free long term care for the elderly, things which now cost hefty fees in the rest of the UK. If they were given access to the £17 billion spent (not necessarily in Scotland, and probably outside of it) on their behalf, they could do even more.

Scotland's equal share (by population) of the proposed £81 billion cuts package would be £7 billion over four years.

So that £17 billion per year (not necessarily spent in Scotland) over which the Scots have no control? In the same time period, that will grow from £68 billion over four years to just over £75 billion because of cuts to the Scottish Government. The amount of money given to the Scottish Government will drop, but the amount of money raised in Scotland will not.

That money, £75 billion, means that the total subsidy from Scotland to England under Tory Cuts might be as high as £15000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. That's the equivalent of $24,240. [Edit, to clarify, these figures are over the course of four years, as part of the package of Tory cuts.]

Cameron's cuts are beginning to affect Scotland now. In other news, this release of this data may as well be the first step in the official campaign for Scottish independence ahead of the 2014 referendum.

This information is going to be broken down and shown to the people of Scotland over, and over, and over again over the next two years. With these facts backing up the nationalists, there may be no effective unionist defense. There's no way to spin these numbers in favor of the Union.

Other fun facts revealed by the GERS:

While the UK was running massive deficits, the Scottish Government was running significant surpluses until 2009.

When you discount Scottish Oil, the total revenue raised in Scotland is still £45 billion, much higher than the £30 billion allowance granted by Westminster. It's percentage of the total UK GDP is still higher than it's percentage of population. That means: even without Oil, Scotland produces more per person than the rest of the UK, making it one of the richest parts of the country in terms of production.

Scottish Government expenditures are only 15% of its total GDP without oil. It's expenditures fall to only 7.5% of GDP when oil revenue is considered.

Quoting the GERS report's conclusions:

The total amount SPENT by the Scottish Government, Scottish Local Councils, and "on behalf" of the Scottish government by Westminster, "was £63.8 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure."

The total amount of revenue RAISED by the Scottish Government, Scottish Local Councils, and by the UK Government in Scotland, including Scottish Oil was "£53.1 billion, 9.6 per cent of UK total public sector revenue."

UK Total public sector revenue was £589 billion. Total government Expenditure was £711 billion. There is a .3% deficit between money raised in Scotland, and money spent in Scotland. The amount of money spent on England that should have, proportionally, been spent on Scotland?

That's and additional £8.4 billion, on top of the £7 billion in expected cuts over the next four years. Defecits are being racked up in Scotland's name, and Scots aren't even getting the full benefit of the reckless Cut-Taxes-And-Still-Spend Tory party called austerity.

The fact is that Scotland has been brutally used by the exchequer for years now. All the while lies have been told to the Scottish people about their wealth. Meanwhile the impoverished Glasgow is the most destitute place in all of Europe.

Scotland is a wealthy country with a GDP of over £144 billion for a population of 5 million, yet it's people are some of the worst off in the whole of Europe.

If this message is effectively communicated to the Scottish people, there's very little likelihood that the UK survives in tact. This is bad news for the Unionist parties. The only tactic they had left was fear mongering over economics. These facts completely destroy the effectiveness of that tactic.

Those who favor independence, The SNP, the Greens, and the SSP, have been consistent in using the language of hope in their campaigning. When combining that hope for a better future with these clear economic facts, I don't think the Union stands a chance.

There are two things which might save the United Kingdom. First, David Cameron should recognize the monetary disparity between what is raised in Scotland and what is spent in Scotland and increase Scotland's budget to it's appropriate share of UK expenditure, rather than cutting it.

Second, those within the English establishment who have been haughtily deriding the Scots for not showing proper gratitude for what they are given, who have been consistently insulting when they speak of Scottish culture and languages, must now recognize that their ostentatious way of life is in fact being subsidized by Scotland. They must now show Scotland and the Scottish people the same gratitude which they have themselves been demanding. A public apology would be a good first start.

These things might, and I again stress might, save the United Kingdom.

As for the likelihood of these things occurring, it is exponentially more likely that Y Brenin Arthur will return from the dead tomorrow to guarantee the independence of Cymru.

Unless the SNP manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the Treaty of Union will be dissolved, and Scotland will take its rightful place as an independent nation.

The full GERS data, compiled by a nonpartisan group working for the Scottish Government, and based on Data gathered by the UK Exchequer, is here. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/03/9525

The first news source to confirm what I've written here is the Wall Street Journal. Unfortunately, the article isn't available online, because the WSJ still thinks the Internet is a passing fad. Here's a Scottish Herald article talking about the WSJ article, because they can't be bothered to do any original reporting on a story which contradicts their "independence=doom" narrative.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/po ... ffef1883e3

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
If things are so damn good in Scotland, Why have so many Scots moved down to England? I assume that they will all move back if you ever get independance.

_________________
Grandad,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
grandad wrote:
If things are so damn good in Scotland, Why have so many Scots moved down to England?


They're following our money :wink:

Quote:
I assume that they will all move back if you ever get independance.


Who knows?

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 9170
gusmac wrote:
grandad wrote:
If things are so damn good in Scotland, Why have so many Scots moved down to England?


They're following our money :wink:

Quote:
I assume that they will all move back if you ever get independance.


Who knows?



There'll be more leaving after Independence..Just be the gullible and self delusionals that'll want to stay in Eckdom.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:15 am
Posts: 220
Location: Aberdeen
bloodnock wrote:


There'll be more leaving after Independence..Just be the gullible and self delusionals that'll want to stay in Eckdom.


Glad you agree we are ganna win :D

_________________
He's the slave of all slaves who serves none but himself.

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain


Alba Gu Bràth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
bloodnock wrote:
..Just be the gullible and self delusionals that'll want to stay in Eckdom.


You'll be staying then. :lol:

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 9170
gusmac wrote:
bloodnock wrote:
..Just be the gullible and self delusionals that'll want to stay in Eckdom.


You'll be staying then. :lol:


Of course I am...nowt's going to change :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sussex and 737 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group