tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post8729296669131083107..comments2024-01-12T01:56:21.933-08:00Comments on chokka blog: Barnett Fair?Kevin Haguehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-42971810812989971212016-03-28T15:31:54.133-07:002016-03-28T15:31:54.133-07:00Dear Anon @ 15:20 26/03/16
If you hadn't inclu...Dear Anon @ 15:20 26/03/16<br />If you hadn't included the "(first)" in your opening paragraph, I would have just thought your divorce metaphor was just clumsy, rather than a bit spiteful. However, you're the one that has to look in your mirror, so let's go with it - <br /><br />"did you base how you and your spouse would manage on what was in the joint current account at the time?" I wouldn't expect so, but I think we would be smart to base it on an allocation of joint annual income, or some reasonable estimate of expected income. That would be GERS for an independent Scotland. GERS is what Kevin and the SNP's White Paper use for illustration. Maybe there's a factor that would make a significant difference. Can you suggest anything?<br /><br />"..Did you imagine one or the other would always do things the same way?...". I'd imagine not, but in the near future things would seem likely to be similar.<br /><br />"...one partner's earning power had possibly been disadvantaged...". Possibly, but - in the case of Scotland - almost certainly not. Scotland's contributions to the world before the Act of Union? Hmmm..Duns Scotus? St Patrick (perhaps)? After the Act of Union? How much time do you have? I'm pretty confident wealth increased as well as culture - judging by the vintage of our cities and grand architecture (granted the latter is affected by natural decay). I'm prepared to look at any facts to the contrary though.<br /><br />"..not your figures that are wrong it is your entire premise... you cannot seem to understand." I can't understand either. The existing finances would seem to be the best premise for inferring/guessing future finances. What premise do you think would be better?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-10103405598240264052016-03-26T15:20:27.761-07:002016-03-26T15:20:27.761-07:00Kevin
when you were going through your (first) d...Kevin <br /><br />when you were going through your (first) divorce did you base how you and your spouse would manage on what was in the joint current account at the time?<br /><br />Or did you look at what joint assets you had and how circumstances would change as earning power and dependencies also changed? Did you imagine one or the other would always do things the same way? Or have the same income and outgoings?<br /><br />Did you look at what each of you had put into the union and how one partner's earning power had possibly been disadvantaged at the expense of the other's?<br /><br />If you think this representation of what a separation agreement entails is inaccurate then think how economists are looking at your simplistic assessments?<br /><br />It is not your figures that are wrong it is your entire premise and that is what you cannot seem to understand.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-8687250000955200372016-02-18T13:40:13.498-08:002016-02-18T13:40:13.498-08:00Sorry Anon @ 16:41, I still find it hard to square...Sorry Anon @ 16:41, I still find it hard to square your comment: "No one has yet suggests an explanation for Scotland's relative population decline that doesn't involve the management of its economy by the UK government.", with this:<br /><br />http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/27/scottish-independence-scotland<br /><br />from the SNP.<br />If you want to say that you don't want transfer of funds to the Scottish Government to be disadvantaged because of it's declining population, why not just say that?<br />Trying to blame that decline on the Government just seems tendentious.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-80957919804155193602016-02-18T01:58:45.202-08:002016-02-18T01:58:45.202-08:00Points intelligently and courteously put. Apprecia...Points intelligently and courteously put. Appreciated.<br /><br />RocohamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-42220749190962918362016-02-17T16:41:20.596-08:002016-02-17T16:41:20.596-08:00Anonymous 15 Feb 12.53 - the reason I mention popu...Anonymous 15 Feb 12.53 - the reason I mention population is that we're talking about the fiscal framework, which relates (primarily) to determining Scotland's block grant following the Scottish government's acquisition of power to levy income tax. It seems to me that population is one important element in the tax base for income tax. Wealth is another, and I did mention that too. I think relative population change at least in Europe isn't a bad proxy for relative wealth, and I had wanted to point out the historical change in Scotland's position since the rise of the powerful state in the early 20th century. No one has yet suggests an explanation for Scotland's relative population decline that doesn't involve the management of its economy by the UK government. Yes - it would be good to grab this chance to shine, but we need to be realistic: the UK government will still have a far greater influence over Scotland's income tax base than Scotland will. If Scotland's population continues to decline it will largely be a consequence of the U.K. Government's management of the Scottish economy, not the Scotish government's. <br /><br />RJL 1: i think you're approaching this from the wrong end. You're correct that what's proposed isn't a pooling and sharing arrangement, but nobody's proposing it should be - the UK government isn't either. A pooling and sharing arrangement would make sense if it was being negotiated with other self governing units within a federal system, but there doesn't seem much prospect of that.<br /><br />I don't actually think it's true that other parts of the UK haven't enjoyed a special policy advantage over Scotland. Your discussion of the point suggests you don't think government influences the development of an economy significantly. The concentration of wealth in the south east of England is very much a consequence of government policy, even if it wasn't necessarily a conscious aim. I quoted several examples above where Scotland was put at a disadvantage by a policy conceived as good for the UK as a whole. However, the relative change in population must speak for itself: Scotland has generally lost ground as compared with all its neighbours. In the absence of any other explanation, that seems to suggest UK policy has historically not favoured Scottish economic growth at the same rate as the UK as a whole.<br /><br />You also refer to fairness to individual income tax payers. It's an interesting argument, but I don't think it works. Individual English income tax payers are not impacted by Scotland's fiscal framework. The U.K. Government will continue to draw its revenue from a wide range of sources, and will pay the Scottish block grant from that wide range of sources of revenue. There is no direct subsidy from one payer of income tax to another.<br /><br />RJL 2 - I apologise and withdraw unreservedly. I certainly didn't intend to suggest that anyone in this discussion hated Scotland. I had intended to suggest an inclination to diss the SNP that caused other matters not to be examined in an entirely neutral way. Reflecting on what you say, even that goes too far - I'm sorry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-37486033829407238792016-02-15T12:53:31.142-08:002016-02-15T12:53:31.142-08:00Why have you chosen to use population size as a me...Why have you chosen to use population size as a measure of prosperity? That's a bit strange. Traditional economics uses productivity - GNP and GDP.<br />If we're dependent on a subsidy per head from rUK, I suppose would matter, but are you saying that? If you are, what's all the complaining been about? If you're not, why not grab this big chance to shine?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-73709564960622073592016-02-15T09:49:35.964-08:002016-02-15T09:49:35.964-08:00Anon. Somehow "I am not manufacturing a griev...Anon. Somehow "I am not manufacturing a grievance" sits rather uneasily with your final paragraph! People arguing that Scotland's interests are not automatically pre-eminent in an issue that concerns the whole of the UK are not wanting to see Scotland suffer, just the matter addressed with proper fairness towards all. <br /><br />I think we'd all prefer to stop fighting the referendum; however, since the SNP have neither accepted it as resolving firmly the issue of independence nor tabled any more credible economic case for considering it again than did the ludicrous white paper, here we still are. <br /><br />Rocoham<br /><br />Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12043169948404920679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-49249191566496610922016-02-15T04:59:06.403-08:002016-02-15T04:59:06.403-08:00Thanks Kevin. Great blogging by the way!Thanks Kevin. Great blogging by the way!RJLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-23895760779149219092016-02-15T04:57:40.652-08:002016-02-15T04:57:40.652-08:00Also the point about 'wanting to see Scotland ...Also the point about 'wanting to see Scotland suffer' is insulting and stupid. It's going down the same line of thinking of accusing people realistic about Scotland's prospects as an independent country as 'talking Scotland down.' Basically if you don't want independence and you're not willing to hold the rest of the UK to ransom in the event of not getting it, you must just hate Scotland! . . .Pathetic!<br /><br />I'd suggest we, in the main, are against independence, as you can probably tell but equally we don't seek additional powers that could potentially undermine Scotland's fiscal position. But if we are to gain additional powers in Scotland, we who disagree with you on these points, do so because any deal has to be fair to all parties within the United Kingdom, 1) because that's obviously what fair-minded people would want anyway and 2)since we are minded to want Scotland to remain part of the UK, the last thing we want is an embedded framework which could cause acrimony with the rest of the UK and threaten the Union even more. As long as it's fair in principle, we can all get behind it and make it work.<br /><br />A fair agreement can be reached and the one proposed by Greg Hands which has a Barnett Formula equivalence in it seems the fairest to me. <br /><br />The last thing I want to do is fight the referendum incidentally. It would be my great preference to not see another one in my lifetime! <br /><br />RJLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-9532465178435504862016-02-15T04:57:14.467-08:002016-02-15T04:57:14.467-08:00Nothing sinister - when I saw this I checked and i...Nothing sinister - when I saw this I checked and it had been automatically filtered as spam! Kevin Haguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14587343060415859159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-48716114668007731602016-02-15T04:16:55.427-08:002016-02-15T04:16:55.427-08:00Not sure why my response hasn't been published...Not sure why my response hasn't been published yet - it wasn't rude although it was perhaps a bit long! I will keep it brief. <br /><br />The UK Govt will not cease to act in the interests of, and have a policy remit for all of the UK in terms of immigration and macroeconomic policy following implementation of the Scotland Bill. As such, Scotland's ability to grow its population is no more or less hampered or helped than any other part of the UK either now or following the passing of the legislation. However, Holyrood will have almost full control over income tax and full entitlement to the revenues produced by this tax in Scotland. There is no requirement to top up the rest of the UK's income tax revenues whose income taxpayers enjoy no special policy advantage over Scotland when it comes to population growth. They happen to have higher projected population growth rates but this is not through any govt policy specifically designed to generate greater population growth rates in rUK relative to Scotland. <br /><br />In light of the above, there is potential detriment to the citizens of rUK as taxpayers in the long term if they are required to safeguard against any fall in Scottish income tax revenues but no such detriment to Scottish taxpayers who are not required to contribute to the rest of the UK's income tax revenue under the Scottish Govt's proposal and in line with the Smith Commission's proposal to devolve income tax (I accept that in practice this would work on a pre-arranged indexation basis rather than a more crude 'we've just checked this year's figures and we haven't got as much money as we used to get, now give us £xxx billion!!' but nevertheless it's potentially detrimental to taxpayers in the rest of the UK and a no win situation for them, in terms of keeping income tax revenues accrued by them, if they grow their population, which, of course, they are perfectly entitled to do, as is Scotland). <br /><br />So whilst there may disparities in governmental power, the issue of fairness to payers of income tax in different parts of the UK is brought into question. That's why the case for taking on the risk is far from unanswerable. Yet again, there is too much reference to 'government' and not taxpayers. Taxpayers pay for the government and those in the rest of the UK are in no better baseline position to grow their population in any part of the UK as far as immigration or macroeconomic policy (taken as a whole) are concerned. So why should they contribute their personal taxes to Scotland whilst Scotland's taxpayers don't contribute towards them, and in fact be 'penalised' for relative population growth, as would be the case in the Scottish Govt's preferred formula? It's not 'pooling and sharing' if one side isn't sharing its revenues with the other.<br /><br />I think the fair solution is the one currently proposed by the UK Govt and Treasury:<br /><br />http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/greg-hands-scottish-government-is-getting-a-fair-deal-1-4029599<br /><br />https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chief-secretarys-initial-response-to-the-scottish-affairs-committee-report-revising-scotlands-fiscal-frameworkRJLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-28948629408443365332016-02-14T17:06:51.971-08:002016-02-14T17:06:51.971-08:00Actually, if you take the population stats back to...Actually, if you take the population stats back to 1707, I think you'll still find a substantial relative decline in Scotland's population as compared with that of England - In 1707 there was one Scot for every five people in England and Wales, in 1900 one Scot to every eight or so, and now one Scot to every twelve. This has not been the experience of our neighbours. Scotland's relative population decline accelerated in the 20th century as the state became a more important economic actor.<br /><br />Anonymous 11.08 - you (perhaps rightly) suggest I haven't produced proof that it's the UK's management of Scotland that has caused the relative decline. Well, if there is a factor in Scotland's relative decline other than its economic management by the UK, please say what it is. <br /><br />I am not manufacturing a grievance. I'm not even saying that relative population decline is necessarily a bad thing - though it does suggest some underlying economic malaise. The debate on whether or not there should be a union has been settled,as far as I can see. The point at issue at present is the fiscal arrangements for the future government of Scotland and who should take the risk of a relative decline in the tax base, both by a decline in the population and a decline in its wealth.<br /><br />I only mention the point on relative population growth because it's fundamental to this fiscal framework. I suggested above that the Scottish Government doesn't have the powers either over immigration or the economy to grow Scotland's population. No one's sought to contradict that. If that's the case, it seems to me that the Scottish government's case that it should not bear the risk for a relative decline in its tax base is unanswerable. <br /><br />I'm rather left with the feeling that other contributors want to see Scotland suffer in order that they can prove a point against the Scottish government. It really is time to stop fighting the referendum.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-83523502772334610842016-02-14T11:08:13.997-08:002016-02-14T11:08:13.997-08:00Annoymous, if you conclude that "the relative...Annoymous, if you conclude that "the relative decline in Scotland's population is a consequence (I'm not suggesting it's deliberate) of the U.K. Government's management of the economy", then presumably you also believe that partition, civil and emigration caused Ireland's population to grow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-76764283083644810282016-02-14T09:37:39.547-08:002016-02-14T09:37:39.547-08:00Though, of course, Scotland experienced a massive ...Though, of course, Scotland experienced a massive population expansion during the Industrial revolutions. <br /><br />Perhaps it's not unusual that that reached a plateau.<br /><br />I'd bet good money you would find it harder to contrive a grievance if you compared the modern day with 1707 - surely a more meaningful comparison.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-43187613913985089202016-02-14T00:29:08.947-08:002016-02-14T00:29:08.947-08:00RJL - I'd be happy with mutual transfers betwe...RJL - I'd be happy with mutual transfers between constitutional units of equal status, but the Scottish Government and UK government are not of equal status, but that's not what the debate is about. The U.K. Parliament remains legislatively supreme and has chosen to devolve some fairly limited economic powers to the Scottish Parliament and Government. However, the U.K. Government retains immense influence over what happens economically in Scotland. The Scottish Government is not asking that the UK Government should make up its income tax shortfall. It is asking that, in the calculation of the deduction from its block grant as a consequence of the devolution of income tax, the U.K. Government's economic power should be recognised, and it should take the risk of a relative decline in Scotland's tax base that arises mainly as a result of the UK government's management of the economy. <br /><br />It's already been acknowledged in this debate here that economic policies that benefit the UK as a whole may not benefit one particular part. I'd go slightly further and say that much of the U.K. Government's management of the economy is directed towards promotion of the financial institutions of the City. Be that as it may, there is clearly a nexus between governmental power, economic power and population that hasn't favoured Scotland since the rise of the powerful state in the early 20th century. If there is any doubt about this, note:<br /><br />U.K. Population growth since 1900 from 36 million to 65 million at present<br />Norwegian population growth since 1900 from 2.2 million to 5.1 million at present<br />Danish population growth since 1900 from 2.4 million to 5.6 million at present<br />Irish population growth (whole island) from 4.5 million to 6.5 million (despite partition, civil war and emigration) at present<br />Scottish population growth since 1900 from 4.5 million to 5.3 million as part of the U.K. <br /><br />The relative decline in Scotland's population is a consequence (I'm not suggesting it's deliberate) of the U.K. Government's management of the economy - the limited devolution to Scotland can do only relatively little to change that - so I'd suggest the UK government should take on the risk of relative population decline in ScotlandAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-915849232792842492016-02-13T16:00:43.693-08:002016-02-13T16:00:43.693-08:00Devolution is IMO a pigs ear and this excellent ar...Devolution is IMO a pigs ear and this excellent article makes it quite these changes amplify its botched nature (not a comment on the public servants implementing the bidding of their masters best they can).<br /><br />Seems every few years the constitutional ball is going to be picked up and kicked a bit further down the field. WM will give ground and hand out yet more party bags and the scope for cranking up division, grievance and inequity between the people in this small island has more life breathed into it.<br /><br />On a positive note I expect there are now many more salaried politicians and public sector bureaucrats than there were pre-devolution.bucksboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666422208089564579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-32387308898961249982016-02-13T03:57:03.313-08:002016-02-13T03:57:03.313-08:00Anonymous 16.35 - that would have to work both way...Anonymous 16.35 - that would have to work both ways for it to be fair. If the rest of the UK had an income tax shortfall, Scotland would have to make up the difference. 1) Such a scenario is unlikely anyway given the demographics; 2) Scotland would in that case not be able to have income tax fully devolved as it would be required to contribute to the overall pot of money, or at least be ready to. The proposal from the Scottish Govt is that whilst income tax collected will go only to Scotland (as per Smith)to be spent only on Scotland, if this isn't enough, rUK has to cover the shortfall in x years time. It does not offer to pay any share of what it collects to rUK to cover rUK's spending to return the favour. If rUK's income tax receipts go up in relative terms, it has to use some of this to pay for Scotland whilst getting nothing in return. If Scotland's income tax receipts go up, it doesn't have to contribute a penny of this to rUK. This is about fair distribution of taxpayers' money, not which govt sets macroeconomic policy. RJLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-66759461199238528402016-02-13T03:09:38.552-08:002016-02-13T03:09:38.552-08:00I agree. This isn't a one-sided affair. The de...I agree. This isn't a one-sided affair. The desired outcome here should feel like (even if it can't precisely be) win-win, and sadly the position adopted by the SNP all but assures it will not be. The asymmetry in these negotiations is that one side is working in the interests of the whole UK, including Scotland, while the other is working only in the interests of Scotland. One side appears prepared to make concessions to reach an agreement, the other does not and treats anything less than 100% of its demands as unreasonable. One side parent, the other child. It was this self-interested, "f**k the rest of you, we're off" attitude that antagonised a great many people south of the border in the run-up to the referendum. It looks set to do so yet again if the Scottish Government, so clear in 2014 that the nation could stand proudly and independently on its own two feet for ever, ends up now hogging considerably more than its fair share from the UK teat. Frankly, I'm hoping that Westminster sets out its final position and then says, if you don't accept it we'll introduce the FFA you've always wanted. That would get some SG panties in a twist..... RocohamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-34710796346206750352016-02-12T17:39:20.047-08:002016-02-12T17:39:20.047-08:00Garve Scott-Lodge, the average salary in Inverness...Garve Scott-Lodge, the average salary in Inverness is over £27K. If your son had the skills to get a visa to work in America, and is not moving back, I seriously doubt that it is the inability to find a job paying £18,600 in Scotland that is the problem.<br /><br />Anecdotes make a poor basis for policy decisions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-3448275066808247442016-02-12T16:35:01.213-08:002016-02-12T16:35:01.213-08:00No, I'm not suggesting independence is the ans...No, I'm not suggesting independence is the answer to all my "grumbles". Independence brings its own problems. What I was trying to say is put well by the ambler - a policy that benefits the whole may not be suited to a part. It remains the UK government that is in control of macro-economic policy, subject to some tax varying powers Scotland will acquire. If the UK government is responsible for the macroeconomy, should it not take the risk of a shrinkage in the Scottish tax base, rather than the Scottish Government?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-41147145831079195042016-02-12T15:58:28.024-08:002016-02-12T15:58:28.024-08:00Perhaps the Scottish govt could try to be construc...Perhaps the Scottish govt could try to be constructive. That would be fresh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-26766865312411759502016-02-12T15:35:46.217-08:002016-02-12T15:35:46.217-08:00Come on, Anon.
If you're trying to insinuate ...Come on, Anon. <br />If you're trying to insinuate that Scottish independence is the answer to your grumbles, you'll have to spell it out.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-27591395847976523622016-02-12T14:30:03.346-08:002016-02-12T14:30:03.346-08:00Garve - yes they should argue for the best deal fo...Garve - yes they should argue for the best deal for Scotland. But they have to be realistic and negotiate in good faith with a reasonably held position. The more they argue for rUK to cover any shortfall in what Scotland can itself raise, the more it seems they are trying to hold rUK to ransom and to deliver independence by annoying rUK so much that there is an anti-Scotland backlash and we all decide to part ways far from amicably. We don't need this sort of division any more than we needed the division within Scotland brought about by the referendum. RJLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-578327150626831862016-02-12T14:21:34.885-08:002016-02-12T14:21:34.885-08:00Garve Scott-Lodge, and one of the Anonymouses abov...Garve Scott-Lodge, and one of the Anonymouses above . . .<br /><br />You point out certain aspects of the UK system, which, taken on their own, point to a (slight) disadvantage to some or all parts of Scotland. That's fair enough. Very few have argued that all policies create universal advantage (on that point, people should read this article on the BBC website about the EU and how this has impacted cities in Britain in different ways - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-355391700). However, some of the points made about wind farms and HS2 are wide of the mark - renewable subsidies from a large domestic market wouldn't exist in any form under independence. And HS2 has Barnett Consequentials. Unfortunately the business case doesn't allow for Scotland to be connected up first (for obvious reasons, it's got a smaller population than London, the Midlands or the North of England and therefore the cost/benefit analysis is less attractive). It will be connected eventually. In the meantime, the Barnetted monies from the approved spending on HS2 can be spent any way the Scottish Govt like. <br /><br />There was also a comment about the City's interests not being Scottish interests. Notwithstanding close links in financial services between Edinburgh, Glasgow and London, the City is a far bigger contributor to the UK'S balance of payments than most Scottish-based industries. It is a far bigger generator of direct and indirect tax revenues than most businesses in Scotland and therefore affects the UK'S fiscal outlook. This affects Scotland directly as it determines how much is available to spend for one thing. So the City's interests are Scotland's interests. <br /><br />The same goes for the Scottish Government at Holyrood - not all policies benefit all of Scotland. There was mention of historic monetary policy decisions being less beneficial to Scotland than the South East of England. I suppose that's much like the ECB making monetary policy decisions which benefit German exports but are to the detriment of Greece within the Eurozone. That can only change if the Scotland (or Greece) come out of their respective currencies. But since, on the whole (and the SNP seem to admit this) being part of pound sterling benefits Scotland (for reasons of our trading relationship with rUK), it has to accept some decisions aren't made solely with Scotland in mind. <br /><br />There are other arguments when taken individually, again point to Scotland potentially being better off with a tailored policy to suit itself. The point of the devolution of income tax (amongst other taxes) is to put a measure of control of revenues, which it can then spend how it wishes, in to Holyrood's hands. This is a greater degree of autonomy in Scotland than is enjoyed at present. Autonomy comes with inherent risks. It could refuse the autonomy and be more dependent on a block grant which requires the whole of the UK to ultimately foot the bill of Scottish spending or it can take the risks on. What it cannot legitimately do is say we would like to have control over income tax and control over how it's spent but if it doesn't amount to the same level we enjoy now, the rest of the UK will have to make up the difference, without any sort of reciprocal arrangement. Either Scotland pays into the UK pot and gets a commensurate share or it doesn't contribute and it doesn't take from it. Otherwise, this is just a ransom demand by the SNP - pay us to stay or we'll argue for leaving again. <br /><br />There is no policy in place to specifically hamper immigration to Scotland compared to the rest of the UK so it must bear the same demographic risks as the rest of the UK. It's just that its population trajectory happens to be slower. <br /><br />RJLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1603438996450817644.post-79067528156424382282016-02-12T10:27:33.195-08:002016-02-12T10:27:33.195-08:00Thinking on possible scenarios, one springs to min...Thinking on possible scenarios, one springs to mind with a possible increase of the top rate of tax from 45p to 50p.<br />Estimated to bring in an extra £60-£100 million.<br />This may lead to high earners moving South and so benefitting rUK tax receipts, with "behaviour responses" a guess. <br />As I understand the "No detriment" rule will not apply as this is a policy decision by which you reap the rewards or failures.<br />As a policy decision it may affect inward investment given the higher rate of tax unless a carrot is dangled in mitigation.<br />It could in a sense, only marginally, affect population growth. <br />We can only suppose until the detaisl of any deal is published.ron Sturrocknoreply@blogger.com