Households 'face £2,700 tartan tax'

[Beorn]

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/getEdFrontImage.aspx?ImageID=451367



SCOTTISH households would each have to pay an extra £2,700 a year to maintain current benefits levels if welfare was paid through taxes raised by the Scottish Parliament, the Scotland Office has claimed.

The figure has been calculated in a paper looking at the cost of welfare spending if more tax-raising powers were devolved to Holyrood. Currently, welfare and benefits are paid by the UK Treasury and administered by the department for work and pensions.

But the Scotland Office's analysis was disputed by the SNP, which claimed the figure was "dodgy" and did not take into account revenue from North Sea oil, which would amount to £20,000 per household.

The cost of devolving welfare to Holyrood has been included in the Scotland Office paper Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland, which examined what "full fiscal autonomy" would mean for Scotland.

Under that scheme the Scottish Parliament would receive taxation raised in Scotland rather than being financed by a block grant from Westminster.
In Scotland, 60 per cent of government spending is by the Scottish Government and 40 per cent by Westminster.

The biggest overall expenditure by either government is on welfare spending, which includes pensions, disability allowance, Jobseekers Allowance, Child Benefit and tax credits.

According to the Scotland Office, in 2007-08, the Scottish Parliament spent £32.3 billion, while the UK government spent £12.6bn on social protection payments in Scotland.

This comes to £44.9bn, while total tax receipts in Scotland that year (including non-domestic rates) were £38.7bn.
The paper said this gap equated to £2,700 for every Scottish household.
Scotland Office minister Ann McKechin said fiscal autonomy would mean "massive new burdens" for Scottish businesses.

She went on: "Those pressing for fiscal autonomy because they want power for power's sake have some difficult questions to answer. UK government spending to protect the most vulnerable people in Scotland is not something to be discarded lightly.

"Fiscal autonomy would mean massive new burdens for Scottish businesses and it would also mean public expenditure in Scotland would be drastically reduced. The fiscal autonomy sums simply don't add up."
A spokesman for finance secretary John Swinney said: "
Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) is the official report … it contains the real figures for 2007-08 – not this drivel from Ms McKechin.

"Unlike this Labour dodgy dossier, GERS includes all revenue from Scotland, including North Sea oil, and all spending in Scotland – devolved and reserved – including social security.
"The GERS report demonstrates that Scotland recorded a current budget surplus over the three years to 2007-08 of £2.3bn, while the UK ran up a deficit of £24bn over the same period."



Source (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/politics/Households--39face--2700.5988897.jp)

[nisse]

No point in looking for easy ways out. If Scotland became independent, it would be hard, but at the end the people would probably be better off for it.

[Skandi]

Scotland wants to become independent, but still receive aid from the rest of the UK. Even if their sums do add up, what happens when the oil goes? stupid thing to pin your entire budget on.

[Wulfhere]

They want to have their cake and eat it. Leaving the UK they would immediately join the EU and receive money from the UK again (along with the other net contributors to the EU budget).

Mercia, on the other hand, has enough natural resources and sufficient economic infrastructure to feed all its people and provide them with a good standard of living. We would have nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.

[Murphy]

Quite frankly, the Scots should stick with the UK as long as they can and grab as much cash as they can as well. Either the SNP will run the country into the ground, or the English will get rid of the Scots and then the country will run into the ground.

At least if they wait, it wont happen so fast.


Mercia, on the other hand, has enough natural resources and sufficient economic infrastructure to feed all its people and provide them with a good standard of living. We would have nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.

Well aint Mercia just fucking brilliant, eh?

Regards,
The Papist.

[Wulfhere]

Well aint Mercia just fucking brilliant, eh?

Yes.

[Murphy]

Yes.

I read the link in your signature. It's quite amusing. Especially the Religion part. You know J. R. R. Tolkien would have actually laughed in your face at such a notion? Well, actually, I am sure he was too much of a gentleman for such an act. Though he would have gently set you straight I am sure :).

Regards,
The Papist.

[Wulfhere]

I read the link in your signature. It's quite amusing. Especially the Religion part. You know J. R. R. Tolkien would have actually laughed in your face at such a notion? Well, actually, I am sure he was too much of a gentleman for such an act. Though he would have gently set you straight I am sure :).

Regards,
The Papist.

Tolkien knew quite a lot more than he let on, you know, and I think you might be wrong. I know someone who knew him.

[Murphy]

Tolkien knew quite a lot more than he let on, you know, and I think you might be wrong. I know someone who knew him.

He was a very intelligent man. He was also a very devout Catholic. He had a healthy respect and interest in pagan mythology, but I think it's a fact as plain as day he would have opposed the measures that web page advocates.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Wulfhere]

He was a very intelligent man. He was also a very devout Catholic. He had a healthy respect and interest in pagan mythology, but I think it's a fact as plain as day he would have opposed the measures that web page advocates.

Regards,
The Papist.

In your opinion. As I've said, I have reason to think differently. He is known to have studied Theosophy for example, even though he never gave any hint of this to anyone. http://www.angelfire.com/rings/three/chrono.htm

[Murphy]

In your opinion. As I've said, I have reason to think differently. He is known to have studied Theosophy for example, even though he never gave any hint of this to anyone. http://www.angelfire.com/rings/three/chrono.htm

He may have indeed studied it. It does not mean he believed in it. I studied Islam for a while. It does not mean I am a Mohammedan.

Even then, Chesterton and Belloc once dabbled in the occult. Does that mean they were Satanists? No. They were also devout Catholics.

All documentation, and all first ahnd accounts agree with the fact that Tolkien was a Catholic and very devout. He has said so himself many time, and his works (Lord of the Rings) is riddled with his Catholicism.

So I am sorry, but I will take the accounts from the likes of his own children, over an unnamed source from yourself.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Wulfhere]

He may have indeed studied it. It does not mean he believed in it. I studied Islam for a while. It does not mean I am a Mohammedan.

Even then, Chesterton and Belloc once dabbled in the occult. Does that mean they were Satanists? No. They were also devout Catholics.

All documentation, and all first ahnd accounts agree with the fact that Tolkien was a Catholic and very devout. He has said so himself many time, and his works (Lord of the Rings) is riddled with his Catholicism.

So I am sorry, but I will take the accounts from the likes of his own children, over an unnamed source from yourself.

Regards,
The Papist.

You are, it goes without saying, free to believe whom you like. Catholicism, however, has never been so averse to incorporating Pagan elements as other, more recent forms of Christianity.

[Murphy]

You are, it goes without saying, free to believe whom you like.

This is a matter of pure fact my friend. To deny it is to deny reality and logic.


Catholicism, however, has never been so averse to incorporating Pagan elements as other, more recent forms of Christianity.

Of course Catholicism has incorporated pagan traditions etc., nothing wrong with this. However, the Church Christianised the pagan traditions, the pagans did not paganise the Church. Very different things.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Wulfhere]

Of course Catholicism has incorporated pagan traditions etc., nothing wrong with this. However, the Church Christianised the pagan traditions, the pagans did not paganise the Church. Very different things.

Regards,
The Papist.

That's a matter of opinion. Since the entire dying-and-rising-saviour-god idea was lifted directly from Paganism in any case, with just a thin veneer of Judaic elements thrown into the mix, it is arguable who assimilated whom.

[Murphy]

That's a matter of opinion. Since the entire dying-and-rising-saviour-god idea was lifted directly from Paganism in any case, with just a thin veneer of Judaic elements thrown into the mix, it is arguable who assimilated whom.

Show me one valid source of a pagan god putting on human flesh and dying and then returning to life, I might consider this a valid opinion of yours. Until then, I don't think so.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Wulfhere]

Show me one valid source of a pagan god putting on human flesh and dying and then returning to life, I might consider this a valid opinion of yours. Until then, I don't think so.

Regards,
The Papist.

Try Osiris. Or Serapis. Or Mithras. To name but three.

[Murphy]

Try Osiris. Or Serapis. Or Mithras. To name but three.

Don't just name them. Show sources and evidence that Osiris, Serapis or Mithras took on human flesh, died and came back to life.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Wulfhere]

Don't just name them. Show sources and evidence that Osiris, Serapis or Mithras took on human flesh, died and came back to life.

Regards,
The Papist.

Just type their names into Wikipedia and follow the sources they cite. I honestly can't be bothered to give sources for common knowledge.

[Murphy]

Just type their names into Wikipedia and follow the sources they cite. I honestly can't be bothered to give sources for common knowledge.

Not good enough.

http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusMithra.html This is a response against the claims of Mithras being the basis of Jesus.

http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusOsiris.html This is a response against the claims of Osiris being the basis of Jesus.

In fact, here is a whole list for you: http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.html

Regards,
The Papist.

[Wulfhere]

Not good enough.

http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusMithra.html This is a response against the claims of Mithras being the basis of Jesus.

http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusOsiris.html This is a response against the claims of Osiris being the basis of Jesus.

In fact, here is a whole list for you: http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.html

Regards,
The Papist.

I don't think I'll take the word of a religious propaganda site. Interesting that they feel the need to devote so much space to it, though.

[Germanicus]

No point in looking for easy ways out. If Scotland became independent, it would be hard, but at the end the people would probably be better off for it.


You are making a comment on something you know nothing about, it would appear by the fiscal report that the English tax payer would be the better off if Scotland left the union.:coffee:

[nisse]

You are making a comment on something you know nothing about, it would appear by the fiscal report that the English tax payer would be the better off if Scotland left the union.:coffee:

ROFL...so typically modern - why don't you reduce it down to some financials :D

I don't pretend to know anything about the numbers, but people wouldn't have settled Scotland in the first place if it was impossible to live there without English aid :wink

[Murphy]

I don't think I'll take the word of a religious propaganda site.

In other words, you have nothing to add because there is nothing to add.


Interesting that they feel the need to devote so much space to it, though.

Non-Christians have this problem with lies. Sometimes they need to be shown their errors ;).

Regards,
The Papist.

[Fortis in Arduis]

I think that Scotland should try to devolve her economy more, but that is cloud cuckoo land, because globalisation continues apace.

The best UK party for Scotland was usually the Conservative Party who have always been keen to protect Scotland's separate national institutions, but Scots just do not want to vote for them...

England has to defend Scotland from herself. It is a ridiculous situation.

The voters choice is for Labour or the phoney nationalists SNP. What choice is that?

The SNP used to be a really interesting outfit of money reformers and distributists, but it is just a joke now.

Then there are the SSP arse-fucks. :puke:

[Murphy]

The best UK party for Scotland was usually the Conservative Party who were always been keen to protect Scotland's separate national institutions, but Scots just do not want to vote for them...

Perfectly understandable. In the beginning, most Scots were simply too poor and the Tories were too busy pandering to the big businessmen. Now, too many hate that bitch Maggie too much to vote for the Tory Party.

The Tories have a chance with my generation right enough, but the SNP are swooping in and stealing us all away.

Regards,
The Papist.

[Wulfhere]

Non-Christians have this problem with lies. Sometimes they need to be shown their errors ;).

:lol00002::lol00002::lol00002:

[Germanicus]

ROFL...so typically modern - why don't you reduce it down to some financials :D

I don't pretend to know anything about the numbers, but people wouldn't have settled Scotland in the first place if it was impossible to live there without English aid :wink


ALBA - The 1707 Act of Union


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you are still thinking 'what has something which happened centuries after the death of Sir William Wallace got to do with the truth behind the man?' - you would be right. Of course it has nothing to do with the man himself, but it does have a lot to do with what Sir William Wallace fought and died for.
Scotland's past is stained with the blood of thousands of her people who fought and died to keep Scotland free - none more than Sir William Wallace. Queen Anne, with one stroke of her hand, committed, to what Scottish nationalists saw as, the supreme betrayal. Making the deaths of thousands of Scots fade into history as pointless sacrifice.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relations between the English and the Scots throughout the 1600's had been poor to say the least - During the 1650's Scots had been subject to Cromwell - Hostility continued through the reign of Charles II and James VII - The agreement made with William II in 1689 gave Scotland even greater independence than it had during the times of James VII - The breach was widened even further after the massacre at Glencoe - and by the time Queen Anne came along, Scotland was still fighting against English occupation, a fight which had been ever present since long before Sir William Wallace was born.

The making of a United Kingdom had been 'on the table' for decades, it had been proposed in 1606, 1667, 1670 and in 1689 (and even as far back as Edward I's proposed marriage with his 6 year old son and the 3 year old 'Maid of Norway' when she became queen of Scotland) and each time it was mentioned, fear and racism reared its head and communication not only ceased but also lead to battle. The English argument was, "Whoever married a beggar could only expect a louse for a portion", in other words the only benefit in a united kingdom was in Scotlands favour. The Scots argument was that Scotland would become a region or annex of England and their more wealthy, more populous and more powerful neighbours would "Swallow up the nation" just as they had with the Welsh in the 13th century and were still trying to do in Ireland.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first change of attitude came from the English. They found themselves, yet again, at war with France. King Louis XIV recognised the Catholic James VIII as the rightful heir to both the crowns of England and Scotland. Highlanders in particular also recognised this claim on Scotland's Crown and many in England, Ireland and Scotland sympathised and supported the Jacobite cause.

It is regarded by historians of the time, and of now, that should the Jacobites, namely James VIII (son of the exiled James VII) have landed in Scotland to restore the exiled House of Stuart claim in 1702 instead of later, he (James VIII) may well have been accepted instead of Anne - and the whole history of Scotland, and the situation now, would have been completely different. As it was, the 14 year old pretender, blessed with as hopeless a sense of timing as his father, did nothing.

Anne had been imposed on the Scots by the English and the 1707 Act of Union was the inevitable child of this forced marriage. Therefore Jacobitism became intertwined with Scottish nationalism.

Some complications followed (which we wont get into to save space on this page), regarding what might happen should Anne fail to produce an heir - her failure to produce children who lived for any great length of time drew attention to this concern. Scotland wished to pass the Act of Security 1702, which would allow Scottish parliament to choose an heir should Anne have no successor. This would mean that Scotland could possibly name a Scot and once more have an independent monarchy. Englands greatest fear was not so much an independent Scotland, but more that the 'Auld Alliance' between Scotland and France (something which had been around since before Wallace's time and came to and end on the death of Alexander III), could be rekindled should the throne pass to someone like James Stuart, and the Act of Security would make this a likely scenario.

The threat of Jacobite invasion and civil war at a time when England was vulnerable due to the war of Spanish Succession which they were also fighting, was something which, as far as the English were concerned, must never happen. England relied on having Scottish soldiers in its front line against the Spanish and having them suddenly turn and join ranks with the French would easily turn the balance of power against them (indeed there was a Spanish-Jacobite rebellion in later years which was aborted).

Anne was Scotlands queen and when she failed to sign the Act of Security, parliament withheld supplies until she gave in and signed. Within 2 years (1704) of signing, Scotland was forging its way ahead, politically, to becoming a free nation with complete independence from England, whilst maintaining business and commercial ties. Meanwhile Anne and her English government were still trying to bind the two nations together as one.

Scotland held the upper hand at this point, and failed to take it. The usual internal disputes between the Scots allowed the English to rethink its plans and force the Alien Act of February 1705. This forced the Scots into a decision, that by Christmas day they had to choose the House of Hanover (which is who the English wanted to succeed Anne), or renegotiate the union policy. If they failed to choose either then England would treat all Scots as aliens, all trade would be destroyed and any claims of land that Scots held within England would be reclaimed. If this were to happen it would prove disastrous on Scotlands commerce. There was no way that rejuvenated connections with France were of more value than English business.

At the same time England made her money freely available to Scottish MP's if they supported the union - In the words of Robert Burns when reflecting on Scotlands countrymen, they were: "bought and sold for English gold".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a poorly attended Scottish parliament, a vote was taken to agree on the commissioners who would discuss and negotiate the union proposal. By April 1706 discussions began, and by July were finalised with little complication. The terms of the union were published and were greeted with roars of distrust and protest, but by then it was too late and on January 16th 1707 Scotland had in effect voted itself out of existence by accepting 1. The English ultimatum, 2. Queen Anne herself and 3. The money?

Chancellor Seafield is observed to have stated at the time: "Now there's an end of an old song!"

The Scottish parliament was dissolved by the last Scottish monarch on 28th April 1707. By the terms of the Act of Union England and Scotland became, in sense, one country. Anne became the first Queen of Great Britain with the succession going over to the House of Hanover on her death - exactly what the English wanted. There was full economic union, the Scots were granted 45 seats in the House of Commons and 16 peers in the upper house. This was not a fair reflection of the population difference between the two countries or on the contribution toward the now combined revenue. There was a compensation of 398,085 pounds and 10 shillings (English value) for agreeing to share responsibility for England's national debt. The money was intended to compensate those who had lost out? due to the Act, but it was little more than a bribe paid.

Why did Scotland accept such a heavily biased deal when it had been fighting so hard for independence for years? What with the speculative 'national bribe' of considerable but short term value - personal guarantee to those in power (more bribes) - the threat of loss of trade and business - and add to that the fact that it did bring political stability to a divided Highland vs Lowland country - it was a situation where they had everything to loose and little to gain. The English had shown tactics which they had used on the battle field many many times - divide and conquer. The churches and laws of Scotland would not be touched by the act, and this one favour with the religious sections within Scotland - "at least they would be safe".

The English gained in strength in the European arena, and success in battle throughout made Great Britain - under English majority decision in parliament - indeed a 'Great' kingdom.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once the union was signed there was no way out and indeed in 1713 the issue of separate nations was raised but when put to the vote was outnumbered by the English votes, which were greater than the total number of Scottish votes in the House of Commons. So long as English MP's wanted the union the handful of Scottish votes could never break the deal. The only alternative to political debate was violence and civil war, and by that time - in what was considered modern times - the wielding of the Claymore was not an alternative. Matters could, surely, be worked out politically.

The debate for Scottish independence is still a political 'hot potato' even today, and with a general election to take place either this year 1996 or next year 1997, the Scottish issue is yet again raised.

We shall wait and see what happens. In 1707 an 'auld song' did indeed end, but riots in Glasgow in 1724 and again in Edinburgh in 1736 clearly showed that many new songs were being sung, and none of them were ballads.

King Edward 'Longshanks' Plantagenet I of England had defeated Sir William Wallace, but his worst fear had indeed happened - he gave Scotland the hero/martyr that would spur generations after words. Little would Longshanks now that in the 1990's - Wallace - the BRAVEHEART would stimulate the imaginations and passions of the World.


A Scottish goverment ruling Scotland would be a good thing, the years of depending on the south for financial handouts would transform it to a self taxing, thriving country. The long term unemployed would seek jobs, the tax payers of Scotland would sustain the public services.