Indyref 2

[Jonny Vegas]

46 minutes ago, David said:

This is a point that most people seem to be ignoring for whatever reason. Would the population be willing to accept a hike in taxes? Or a decrease in public spending? All in the name of being independent?

Let's be honest, Scotland has a pretty cushy deal at the moment. We enjoy the benefits of being part of the UK, but have a lot of autonomy to do things differently. 

Not only is it a huge question to ask whether the people clamouring for independence would be willing to accept a hike in taxes plus a reduction in public spending but also how do the SNP spin it? Those are measures that they've constantly criticised but would be absolutely essential to give things any hope of even being the exact same standard as they are now.

My position has always been the same, I am entirely on board with the IDEA of independence. In 2014 I didn't vote because I felt that I wasn't "for" the union but I also had not been convinced by their campaign that there was a good chance of things being better if we were independent. 

We're 8 years on without anyone really having addressed or answered any of the concerns or questions about how or why it would or could be better other than having full control in our own hands.

A large part of me cant help but feel its exceptionally sneaky as well to try and capitalise on the whole of the western world hitting the shits to hope people here attribute all of that on being under westminster control rather than something that seems to be effecting everyone, everywhere to similar levels just in some places the people in control aren't as much of a cock.

[Guest]

@RedRoosterdont wanna mega quote you, but I’m 6 years on waiting list for braces and oral surgery and 6 months for physio. Waiting list stats aren’t worth the spin out on them 

[RedRooster]

1 hour ago, David said:

Apologies for the double post, but I don't think they would. Quite simply because if they did recognise a Scottish vote carried out in that way, there would be a danger of separatism popping up all over Europe, and that wouldn't be allowed.

Yeah, I think you're spot-on here. What's the benefit to legitimising a vote like that?

2 hours ago, HarmonicGenerator said:

I'm not sure about that, given the rhetoric in 2014 that we weren't going to get a second one in our lifetimes. I get the impression that as long as the SNP's in power, they'll keep trying until they get the result they want. 

You might be right, but the third referendum would almost certainly be decades away. 

1 hour ago, David said:

This is a point that most people seem to be ignoring for whatever reason. Would the population be willing to accept a hike in taxes? Or a decrease in public spending? All in the name of being independent?

Let's be honest, Scotland has a pretty cushy deal at the moment. We enjoy the benefits of being part of the UK, but have a lot of autonomy to do things differently. 

52 minutes ago, Jonny Vegas said:

Not only is it a huge question to ask whether the people clamouring for independence would be willing to accept a hike in taxes plus a reduction in public spending but also how do the SNP spin it? Those are measures that they've constantly criticised but would be absolutely essential to give things any hope of even being the exact same standard as they are now.

This has been said, but I think it's fair to say the sources have been questionable. One study, for example, was from the Institute for Government , which is a "think tank" which claims to work to make the government more effective. I think it's fair to be suspicious about the motivations of any "think tank". Academics, for the most part, don't seem to be painting a picture of doom and gloom, nor are they painting the picture of a land of milk and honey. Ultimately, I imagine, it would depend on the taxation system put in place. A rise in taxes doesn't necessarily mean a rise in taxes for everyone, for example. 

I genuinely could go either way as far as a second referendum goes. The current Tory government won't last forever, but I do fear the direction the UK is heading, even after they're gone. If Keir Starmer is our next PM, who will the next right wing government be, and what might they do? I don't think there's much danger of Scotland veering down a path of far-right politics, so for that reason I think, on balance, that independence is the better option. Even if it doesn't end up being smooth sailing, I'd sleep much better at night knowing I'm not part of a country that is forcing vulnerable refugees on to planes and sending them to a country with a questionable human rights record. 

EDIT: @Louch - I'm really sorry to hear that. 

Edited June 30, 2022 by RedRooster

[David]

1 hour ago, RedRooster said:

A rise in taxes doesn't necessarily mean a rise in taxes for everyone, for example. 

This is another thing I've heard a few times. The idea that it's as simple as hiking up taxes for the wealthy and those who earn higher salaries. I'm not quite sure that works to be honest, especially with another country literally only a few hours car journey away down south where that government would absolutely look to cash in on those disenfranchised higher earners and businesses who would likely face the tax increases to support the idea of independence.

I know that's a threat that was used by the EU to combat Brexit during the run up to the referendum, and pretty much everyone I know agreed that big business would basically take its ball and bugger off to Ireland or another EU nation if Brexit made their lives too difficult. Why wouldn't that happen to Scotland? Considering that Scotland really doesn't have much to offer that England doesn't.

1 hour ago, RedRooster said:

Even if it doesn't end up being smooth sailing, I'd sleep much better at night knowing I'm not part of a country that is forcing vulnerable refugees on to planes and sending them to a country with a questionable human rights record. 

I think this is the key part here. If you end up being one of those people employed by a company that is pinpointed to pay the higher tax to find the gap in finances, will you really sleep easier at night knowing that you're not part of the UK, but also knowing that your job isn't as secure as it once was? 

I think, when it gets right down to the crunch, while most people will champion those things you mention, such as not forcing refugees to countries that aren't safe, will they do so over they and their families own financial security?

[RedRooster]

28 minutes ago, David said:

This is another thing I've heard a few times. The idea that it's as simple as hiking up taxes for the wealthy and those who earn higher salaries. I'm not quite sure that works to be honest, especially with another country literally only a few hours car journey away down south where that government would absolutely look to cash in on those disenfranchised higher earners and businesses who would likely face the tax increases to support the idea of independence.

I know that's a threat that was used by the EU to combat Brexit during the run up to the referendum, and pretty much everyone I know agreed that big business would basically take its ball and bugger off to Ireland or another EU nation if Brexit made their lives too difficult. Why wouldn't that happen to Scotland? Considering that Scotland really doesn't have much to offer that England doesn't.

"Wealthy people will leave" is always wheeled out as an excuse not to introduce a fairer system of taxation, but is there any evidence of this happening at any significant level in a country that has introduced a system like this. 

As far as what we can offer, presumably one thing we can offer would be closer links to the EU and potentially access to the single market. That's a pretty big tick in the "pro" column. There are loads of industries suffering UK-wide right now, because of the sanctions we've imposed on ourselves through Brexit.

It would be silly of me to suggest that there aren't companies who would rather we remained in the UK, but there are clearly significant industries within Scotland that would benefit from a reimagined relationship with the EU. Either way, there's not really evidence to suggest there would be a massive upheaval in terms of businesses. 

50 minutes ago, David said:

I think this is the key part here. If you end up being one of those people employed by a company that is pinpointed to pay the higher tax to find the gap in finances, will you really sleep easier at night knowing that you're not part of the UK, but also knowing that your job isn't as secure as it once was? 

I think, when it gets right down to the crunch, while most people will champion those things you mention, such as not forcing refugees to countries that aren't safe, will they do so over they and their families own financial security?

I think people will want answers to questions relating to this, of course. While I think your point on job security is overblown, people will clearly want to know how this will affect their savings, and the value of the pound (or equivalent) in their pocket. Even if they get credible answers, that doesn't necessarily override the doubt that people may feel. 

[David]

28 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

"Wealthy people will leave" is always wheeled out as an excuse not to introduce a fairer system of taxation, but is there any evidence of this happening at any significant level in a country that has introduced a system like this.

You think wealthy people and companies who live and operate in Scotland will just suck it up, and pay higher taxes to basically maintain the same standard of public services we see right now? Bear in mind, this isn't a situation where Scottish people and businesses would be asked to pay more tax in order to improve those public services to a standard similar to that which we see in some Scandinavian nations. They'd be paying more just to maintain the status quo, which, if I'm honest, isn't all that great. 

I don't know how many would go along with that. I know I certainly wouldn't. If Scottish independence was achieved and the tax rates were cranked up on those who earn more and it effectively took food off my families table? I'd move. England is only a few hundred miles down the road. I can drive back to Scotland to visit extended family as and when I like.

It's also worth remembering that wealthy people don't accumulate that wealth by paying more than they have to. Wealth preservation is priority number one for most people in that bracket.

I guess it comes down to a simple question: Is the Scottish population willing to pay a higher premium for what they currently get just so they can say they aren't part of the UK. 

36 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

As far as what we can offer, presumably one thing we can offer would be closer links to the EU and potentially access to the single market. That's a pretty big tick in the "pro" column. There are loads of industries suffering UK-wide right now, because of the sanctions we've imposed on ourselves through Brexit.

We wouldn't be any closer to the EU than the UK though, would we? We could certainly apply, and look to be added to the candidate county list, but I don't see why we'd be fast-tracked for membership. We'd just be another small nation looking to sit at the big boys table.

Albania have been on the list since 2009, The Republic of North Macedonia since 2005, Montenegro since 2008, Serbia since 2009, and Turkey applied way back in 1999 I think. Will Scotland be taken to the front of the line? 

Basically, there's a ton of shit we'd need to go through, financial criteria we'd need to hit, conditions to be met, before we're anywhere near membership. 

Not to mention that Spain would be hellbent on making sure we face real issues, as a Scotland that forces independence and joins the EU will simply ignite the fires of Catalonia, and they won't allow that to happen. 

[RedRooster]

13 minutes ago, David said:

You think wealthy people and companies who live and operate in Scotland will just suck it up, and pay higher taxes to basically maintain the same standard of public services we see right now? Bear in mind, this isn't a situation where Scottish people and businesses would be asked to pay more tax in order to improve those public services to a standard similar to that which we see in some Scandinavian nations. They'd be paying more just to maintain the status quo, which, if I'm honest, isn't all that great. 

I don't know how many would go along with that. I know I certainly wouldn't. If Scottish independence was achieved and the tax rates were cranked up on those who earn more and it effectively took food off my families table? I'd move. England is only a few hundred miles down the road. I can drive back to Scotland to visit extended family as and when I like.

Again though, is there actually evidence that wealthy people would flee the country to any significant degree because they're asked to pay more tax? Has this excuse for not taxing wealthy people more ever actually happened? You're saying you think it would happen, but where's the proof?

16 minutes ago, David said:

I guess it comes down to a simple question: Is the Scottish population willing to pay a higher premium for what they currently get just so they can say they aren't part of the UK. 

Except, it doesn't. The claims you cite are from shaky sources at best. The idea that all you get from independence is "not being part of the UK" is hugely simplifying things. It's about different things to different people, including retrieving powers which aren't currently devolved, leaving a flawed - and sometimes corrupt - Westminster system, leaving a UK political scene which is dominated by the influence of right wing newspaper owners, potentially rejoining the EU, forming a country that is more welcoming to immigrants and, yes, for some people it's simply about being able to wave a saltire and scream "FREEDOM!" I don't exactly endorse that, but there are flag-shaggers in Scotland just as there are elsewhere in the UK. 

24 minutes ago, David said:

We wouldn't be any closer to the EU than the UK though, would we? We could certainly apply, and look to be added to the candidate county list, but I don't see why we'd be fast-tracked for membership. We'd just be another small nation looking to sit at the big boys table.

Albania have been on the list since 2009, The Republic of North Macedonia since 2005, Montenegro since 2008, Serbia since 2009, and Turkey applied way back in 1999 I think. Will Scotland be taken to the front of the line? 

I didn't say "EU membership" - I said "closer links with the EU". For example, membership of the single market. That said, the likes of Guy Verhofstadt have indicated that the process behind Scotland rejoining the EU, since we've already been a member, would be more straightforward. That obviously doesn't mean it would be instant. 

[David]

10 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

Again though, is there actually evidence that wealthy people would flee the country to any significant degree because they're asked to pay more tax? Has this excuse for not taxing wealthy people more ever actually happened? You're saying you think it would happen, but where's the proof?

We've seen it happen recently, with companies leaving Silicon Valley and heading to the likes of Nevada and Texas. In my line of work I see wealthy tech types leave the UK and head for places like Estonia for a better quality of living and a proportional tax rate. Especially now, when we live in a world where the high earners tend to be in jobs that can be done remotely, why would anyone choose to live in Scotland and get rinsed for tax with no uptick in benefits, when they can move to somewhere new and continue doing the same job there? Not even somewhere with a different language or different culture. They can literally move down the road and enjoy the same lifestyle except with less tax burden.

The idea of Scottish independence at the best of times has me wary of how it would affect the general population financially, but in the middle of a financial shitstorm like we're seeing now, a slow recovery from Covid and Russia waging war on Ukraine? Can anyone honestly tell me that now is the best time to be looking to break away from the UK?

Another factor to consider is that the Scottish government, whoever it may be post-independence, likely will not go after the really wealthy. No government ever really does, simply because it's those wealthy people who back their campaigns, contribute to the worthy causes and so on. They tend to have the ear of the politicians in power, and have the financial clout to launch legal challenges to changes in legislation.

No, it'll be the middle classes who get hit hardest no doubt. And I have no interest in that. 

20 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

Except, it doesn't. The claims you cite are from shaky sources at best. The idea that all you get from independence is "not being part of the UK" is hugely simplifying things. It's about different things to different people, including retrieving powers which aren't currently devolved, leaving a flawed - and sometimes corrupt - Westminster system, leaving a UK political scene which is dominated by the influence of right wing newspaper owners, potentially rejoining the EU, forming a country that is more welcoming to immigrants and, yes, for some people it's simply about being able to wave a saltire and scream "FREEDOM!" I don't exactly endorse that, but there are flag-shaggers in Scotland just as there are elsewhere in the UK. 

Okay, well, you tell me what we actually get from leaving the UK. Powers that aren't currently devolved? The current government have, for the most part, made a bit of a mess of wielding the powers they do have, as has been highlighted by others in this thread. Do I want those same people having even more powers? I'm not so sure. 

As I mentioned previously, Scotland gets a pretty good deal when it comes to our relationship with the rest of the UK. We have our own parliament, and whoever is in power can simply blame the British government for any of their own shortcomings. It's a win/win all-round really.

We get benefits that the English population don't, such as free prescriptions, yet we enjoy the financial benefits of being attached to London. 

Whisper it, because it's not the done thing, but we actually have it pretty good up here.

29 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

I didn't say "EU membership" - I said "closer links with the EU". For example, membership of the single market. That said, the likes of Guy Verhofstadt have indicated that the process behind Scotland rejoining the EU, since we've already been a member, would be more straightforward. That obviously doesn't mean it would be instant.

We've not already been a member. The United Kingdom was a member, not Scotland. There's a huge difference there. The UK brought with it the financial powerhouse of London and a population to match. Scotland is a relative backwater in comparison. The likes of Guy Verhofstadt will make positive noises when he's asked, just like the EU powers-that-be do whenever they're asked about most of the nations I listed above. But that has meant nothing for them, and it will mean nothing for us. We're not bringing anything to the table that sets us apart. 

[Keith Houchen]

6 hours ago, HarmonicGenerator said:

I'm not sure about that, given the rhetoric in 2014 that we weren't going to get a second one in our lifetimes. I get the impression that as long as the SNP's in power, they'll keep trying until they get the result they want

In fairness, they said once in a generation unless there’s a significant change. Brexit is that significant change, so they haven’t been clandestine in their bid for a second. 
 

Regarding the “Wealthy people and their companies will leave”. Isn’t that called holding the country to ransom or is that rhetoric only reserved for trade unions?

[Jonny Vegas]

Regarding taxation I've always thought the fairest way would be to massively simplify the system. Let's come up with a figure where we're not going to tax anyone earning less than that, then let's have everyone else pay 20% on all income regardless of income and take away all the loop holes and means to avoid doing so.

I don't earn, won't ever earn and don't personally know anyone who earns £100k a year however them paying £40-50k a year in tax to me is absolutely wild.

I think the number of wealthy people using various loopholes or tax avoidance methods is all the proof you need as to whether they'd be likely to leave altogether if those methods were removed or their tax was dramatically increased. The wealthy rarely NEED to live or operate anywhere, they can pick and choose where to go.

Inflated tax also in my opinion causes people to question what level of earning they need to reach to make it worth passing certain thresholds. My annual wage means that if I were to take a role paid higher than mine in the same company or work any overtime it would push me over the threshold and mean any extra earnings would fall into the 40% tax bracket. 

I make career based decisions not to do so and dont do overtime unless I need the money for something specific as I feel its not worth the extra work, pressure, stress, responsibility to pay 40% of the money I get for that to the government for no change to mine or my families situation or quality of life whatsoever.

I'd need to make huge sacrifices to time spent with my family and personal life to try and reach a level in the company that would pay a wage high enough to even consider it then being financially beneficial enough after giving 40% of that away on top of the income tax I already pay.

[sevendaughters]

if you're earning 100k in Scotland you're paying about 37k tax, which I don't think is unreasonable at all.

[RedRooster]

29 minutes ago, David said:

We've not already been a member. The United Kingdom was a member, not Scotland. There's a huge difference there. The UK brought with it the financial powerhouse of London and a population to match. Scotland is a relative backwater in comparison. The likes of Guy Verhofstadt will make positive noises when he's asked, just like the EU powers-that-be do whenever they're asked about most of the nations I listed above.

That's not my words - it's Verhofstadt's. And what you're saying isn't exactly true, pre-2014, we were not hearing positive noises as far as potential EU membership goes. There has definitely been a shift in attitude. 

36 minutes ago, David said:

Okay, well, you tell me what we actually get from leaving the UK. Powers that aren't currently devolved? The current government have, for the most part, made a bit of a mess of wielding the powers they do have, as has been highlighted by others in this thread. Do I want those same people having even more powers? I'm not so sure. 

There are plenty of things which aren't devolved, such as immigration and the majority of taxes. But you know that, otherwise you wouldn't have made your second comment about the Scottish Government "more powers". However, it's just nonsense to factually suggest that the SNP have "made a mess" wielding the powers they have. There are positives, and there negatives, and whether you're happy with their overall performance is entirely subjective. And fuck, the alternative, right now at least, is that Boris Johnson's Tories hold these powers. Is that a preferable option to you?

Having said that, this is a thread about independence, and not the SNP. While the SNP would inevitably form the first government of an independent Scotland, it's far from a given that it would stay that way. I'd be stunned if there wasn't a Labour First Minister in the following decade. Heck, I'd put money on the first elections in an independent Scotland resulting in a coalition government. 

[David]

32 minutes ago, Jonny Vegas said:

Regarding taxation I've always thought the fairest way would be to massively simplify the system. Let's come up with a figure where we're not going to tax anyone earning less than that, then let's have everyone else pay 20% on all income regardless of income and take away all the loop holes and means to avoid doing so.

I'm personally a fan of the type of proportional tax rate that we see used in the likes of Estonia. I mean, 20% of £100,000 is still more than 20% of £30,000. 

12 minutes ago, sevendaughters said:

if you're earning 100k in Scotland you're paying about 37k tax, which I don't think is unreasonable at all.

It's usually the people who aren't earning that £100,000 that don't have an issue with the higher tax bill though, isn't it? For me, it's not a case of what is reasonable, but more about asking where the incentive is for people to progress and earn more when they know they'll just lose it in tax? 

In Scotland you can earn £40,000 and you fall under the 21% tax rate, but if you earn £3,000 more per year your rate of tax goes from 21% to 41%, which is a bit crazy.

[David]

15 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

That's not my words - it's Verhofstadt's. And what you're saying isn't exactly true, pre-2014, we were not hearing positive noises as far as potential EU membership goes. There has definitely been a shift in attitude. 

I'm meaning that you'll hear positive noises about any nation on the candidate list. These candidates have all had similar things said about them, and they've all languished on the list for years. 

15 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

There are plenty of things which aren't devolved, such as immigration and the majority of taxes. But you know that, otherwise you wouldn't have made your second comment about the Scottish Government "more powers". However, it's just nonsense to factually suggest that the SNP have "made a mess" wielding the powers they have. There are positives, and there negatives, and whether you're happy with their overall performance is entirely subjective. And fuck, the alternative, right now at least, is that Boris Johnson's Tories hold these powers. Is that a preferable option to you?

 

23 hours ago, David said:

The problem is, if anyone dares raise those points they're met with "and the Tories are any better?" followed by insinuations that because you dare question the Peoples Front of Scotland you're unpatriotic and clearly voted for Brexit.

 

[RedRooster]

I've addressed your points, but it's entirely valid to bring up the role of the Tories in the context of your prior statement. You said that you don't want the SNP to have more power - the simple truth is that the alternative, at the moment, is that the powers in question are held by Boris Johnson's disaster of a Conservative Party. This Tory government won't be in charge forever, but neither will the SNP.