[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

The only good stampt dutyis a zero one - let the property market function properly.

Not a terrible idea - but where do you make up the lost tax revenue?

The issue with stamp duty is it is not a tax on wealth or income. Two people living in the same value of house moving every 5 years vs every 25 pay different amounts of tax. So it is a tax on mobility.

A fairer way in my view to deal with higher value property, or any property for that matter, which would also answer your question, would be to reduce the level of central government funding to local authorities and increase the council tax.

Of course Mols but there wouldn't be much point of comparing parts of England an Wales that have similar house price profiles to Scotland would there?

Er yes, there would..

oldbloke - Member
5 years vs every 25 pay different amounts of tax. So it is a tax on mobility.

or a tax on working your arse off turning a sizeable but grotty flat that had been neglected for 25 years into a nice family home, depending on how you look at it.

vintagewino - Member
or a tax on working your arse off turning a sizeable but grotty flat that had been neglected for 25 years into a nice family home, depending on how you look at it.

Or a tax on profiteering from the property market depending on how you look at that.

Moving house to find work is normal and finding yourself having to lose 18 months pay to move does not encourage that.

well I've been living in it for 5 years but now my family is outgrowing it so I was thinking of punting it for a profit and using the proceedings to buy somewhere bigger.

oldbloke - Member

Moving house to find work is normal and finding yourself having to lose 18 months pay to move does not encourage that.

The vast majority of people will pay less under these new rules, so it'll be less of a barrier

So, you buy a house for £500k. 5 years later you have to move job. You sell for £500k and buy a new house near the new job for £500k. No profit made at all yet you have to shell out a tax. Unjustifiable.

If you want to tax profit on housing, the thing to do is revoke the exemption from CGT for the main house. But they're not doing that.

oldbloke - Member
The vast majority of people will pay less under these new rules, so it'll be less of a barrier
It remains a barrier and has no justification.
So, you buy a house for £500k. 5 years later you have to move job. You sell for £500k and buy a new house near the new job for £500k. No profit made at all yet you have to shell out a tax. Unjustifiable.

If you want to tax profit on housing, the thing to do is revoke the exemption from CGT for the main house. But they're not doing that.

I think this land tax is absolutely fair given that it's and either/or situation, not an tax or no tax question.

incidently, how would you raise lost revenue if property tax was abolished?

btw when I say fair I mean fair in a scottish context, I can see merit in having different rates set across the uk.

Not arguing fantasy at all - arguing for coherent tax policies. This isn't coherent. Successful and justifiable taxes work on the basis of taxing a justifiable event - so you earn a wage, you pay income tax. You make a profit on shares, you pay tax on a profit. Not on the full price.

I covered the lost revenue point on the last page and there's another idea on the post above. I've no doubt this tax is here to stay, but that doesn't make it justifiable.

Increase council tax? How is increased monthly tax better than a 1 off payment?

Personally I think council tax is unfair and would like to see it scrapped, in favour of say a 3% income tax rise.

There's another thread been started on this, this seems a better place to discuss.

This tax change will create huge distortions in the market. The number of transactions in the £250-£1m bracket will fall dramatically, it will be hard to buy and to sell. If the SNP has assumed this will raise same/more money overall they may get a nasty surprise. As per oldbloke's example above it will negatively impact job mobility.

Most countries I know have a fixed property purchase tax, its not banded. Something like 5% in France, 2% Switzerland are the examples I know.

jambalaya - Member
£250-£1m bracket will fall dramatically,

I think youse are looking at this through a UK lens. I doubt if this was applied to the rest of the UK the rates would be the same.

Well, we bet that the price of white goods, carpets and curtains is going to rise dramatically 😉

ninfan - Member
Well, we bet that the price of white goods, carpets and curtains is going to rise dramatically

Stamp duty distorts the housing market and reduces labour mobility. This has the knock on effect on transactions and economic efficiency. It should be abolished. The gain would be the increase in economic activity which would offset the output and efficiency losses.

But governments love to meddle.

teamhurtmore - Member
Stamp duty distorts the housing market and reduces labour mobility. This has the knock on effect on transactions and economic efficiency. It should be abolished. The gain would be the increase in economic activity which would offset the output and efficiency losses.

But governments love to meddle.

No not all, it serves a very good purpose. But I would seek to minimise its influence as much as possible - it's my libertarian streak!

@seos - yes misunderstood calculation, it will still create a distortion not least as house prices are highest where there is the work and where people need to move to job reasons

teamhurtmore - Member
No not all, it serves a very good purpose. But I would seek to minimise its influence as much as possible - it's my libertarian streak!

I'm not one for anarchism myself, especially not the capilatist variety! 😉

seosamh77 - Member

Ernie I was at a meeting last night with an rmt representative there. There question was put to him that it'd be unrealistic for scotrail to be brought in to public ownership within 5 years anyway and he pretty much agreed.

So you claim to have been at a meeting in which someone, allegedly an RMT representative, said something which apparently supports the point you are trying to make.

Despite providing no proof or evidence you expect me to accept your, presumably unbiased, version of events and your interpretation of what was said.

And you want me to reject the official RMT Press Office release in favour of your unofficial one.

http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-on-scotrail-franchise-award/

Well that sounds perfectly reasonable, I can't see how I can argue with that.

However as it happens I was also at a meeting last night too, and there was an SNP representative present who when it was put to him pretty much agree that everything the SNP and the Scottish government had said on so-called "independence" is actually complete bollocks.

So I'm afraid that I've just trumped you seosamh 8)

😆 Look at the SNP submission to the Smith commission, railways are specifically mentioned in relation to new powers. coincidence? I think not.

btw the meeting was radical independence southside, you can check whether there was an RMT representative there or not here:

you got a link to your meeting? 😆 😉

Well if you are trying to point just how contradictory the SNP can be, well done, thank you......they say one thing and do something different.

[url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport/snp-in-call-for-increased-devolved-powers-for-rail.17896475 ]SNP in call for increased devolved powers for rail[/url]

And I'll stick what the RMT says is their policy, as stated here :

http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-on-scotrail-franchise-award/

Even if you do allege that an RMT representative "pretty much agreed" with you.

never agreed with me, it was actually a guy that worked for natwork rail thast posed the question to him, i was just an observer.

tbh I never knew about that 2012 article. btw as I mentioned a thousand times i'm not and snp supporter. I'm interested in pro indy opposition to the snp if the truth be told...

But i dont see how the snp position is contradictory at all, they have to work within rules stated by westminster and they are calling for full devolution, how are these things coontradictory? Is there some indication from westminster that they are going to devolve rail in the next few weeks that would make these positions contradictory?

Natwork Rail? Great name for when it's renationalised 🙂

😆

Ooh, what a surprise - the big debate we were promised on Scottish powers has turned into a debate about English devolution with Labour and the Tories arguing with each other as usual.

Acronym of the moment is EVEL - English Votes for English Laws.

None of the three main party leaders, who made that solemn vow before the referendum, bothered to turn up.

A SNP MP who asked when they would start talking about Scotland was told that the debate wasn't really about Scotland.

Stitched up good and proper.

Now now Ben ! The two conversations are going on in parallel. The SNP have been trying find fault with the Scottish devolution document but I thought Hague answered Salmond's non-points quite firmly. The Labour party are getting stitched up here of course but they should have seen it coming. The calls for greater regional devolution cut both ways.

Conservative proposal is to give Scotland total control over tax. The sting in the tail (for Labour) is combined with English votes for English laws means equivalent control over English taxes. Gordon Brown has spotted it and is complaining bitterly. Strange how things work out eh ? 8)

If the English want English votes for English laws (and they should) they should go ahead and launch their own devolved parliament. Westminster is the UK parliament and anyone elected to it should get to vote on any matters that come up on it's agenda. Asking or telling Scottish MP's not to vote on English stuff isn't the way forwards. And these things definitely should not run in parallel. That wasn't part of the deal and could hold up any further devolution for Scotland for a long long time.

We don't need a whole new parliament building etc with all those costs (like Holyrood) we can jut have English votes at Westmister whilst the Scots and Welsh are doing their thing in their own Parliaments. The extra powers Scotland is getting is the deal, anything beyond that [b]should[/b] be held up for a long time, we don't want all this nonsense again for a very very long time. We've had the vote, it was No.

[quote=jambalaya ]Conservative proposal is to give Scotland [s]total[/s] control over [b]some[/b] tax[b]es[/b]. FTFY

Using Westminster is fine, 533 MPs represent English constituencies. It will be much cheaper to overpay the 117 Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs who will have a much lesser workload if there is further devolution than it would be to pay for yet another layer of representation involving 500+ EMPs.

We've had the vote, it was No.

You're not taking the party line that it was "decisive" and that's that for ever and ever are you? A 55-45 result is not by any measure decisive enough to be put to bed for ever.

The deal was new powers. Nothing about it being tied in to anything else.

we can jut have English votes at Westmister whilst the Scots and Welsh are doing their thing in their own Parliaments.

No you cant. It's the UK parliament and it should stay that way. By all means hold an English parliament there but it needs it's own elections and it's own rules etc.

We don't need a whole new parliament building etc with all those costs (like Holyrood) we can jut have English votes at Westmister

The main issue here is you could have one govt for all the uk not having th e majority in England and all sitting in the same place with the same people and no actual "english" ministers for the dept they are responsible. It will create a massive power struggle in the same place.
Its not workable and the Torie are doing it to harm Labour rather than serve democracy.

@whatnobeer, no what @mefty says. You have all the extra overhead up in Scotland, we don't need or want that, no sir-eee.

It's not a party line as such IMO. I posted on here a year ago the worst outcome was a no vote and then the Scots trying resurrect this every 5 mins. Its done and dusted for a long time, I won't say forever but part of me thinks that's the case. Once oil runs out the devolution argument will die totally as what's uneconomic today (but not recognised by many) will be financial suicide 20 years from now. You had 45-55 on a near 90% turnout. If had been 51/49 Yes that would have been permanent so you have to take 55-45 No the same way, no ? 😉

JY, just to be clear I meant we have have the UK votes at Westminster and the English ones at Westminster too.

@Scotroutes, I am repeating what I read on news websites but it would make total sense for Cameron to recommend Holyrood has total power over income tax as the flipside is the English MPs get total control over English income tax. it makes no sense for Scotland to have total power over corporation tax as you'll just get the "race to the bottom" George Galloway spoke of. Scotland would just turn into a another Ireland with sweetheart deals for companies and a 10% corporate tax rate.

yet another layer of representation

You say that as if it's a bad thing.......all these layers of "representation".

.

No you cant. It's the UK parliament and it should stay that way. By all means hold an English parliament there but it needs it's own elections and it's own rules etc.

Yup, otherwise it means that only English MPs would have full voting rights in the House of Commons. Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish, wouldn't.

Obviously any Prime Minister would need to have no lesser voting rights than any other member of the House of Commons, so he or she would therefore need to be an English MP.

The case for an English Parliament is every bit as legitimate as the case for a Scottish Parliament.

I also think the case for regional English parliaments/assemblies is very strong.

I have to say Labour have been totally out-maneuvered here. The SNP are talking about a heavy toll in Scotland for the UK parties (so that means Labour) and English votes for English laws puts Labour on the backfoot too.

The Guardian blog has been particularly interesting today

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/oct/14/mps-debate-further-devolution-after-the-scottish-referendum-politics-live-blog ]linky-do-dah-day[/url]

@ernie - surely you don't want even more MPs what a total waste of money. I mean you vote for one English MP to vote on UK matters and another Englsih MP to vote on English only matters, surely one person can do both jobs perfectly well ? The money is much better spent on services than twice as many politicians ? We have to agree on that !

what a total waste of money

You mean this 'people electing people to represent them' business ?

You would rather not bother ?

No I mean electing two people to do a job that can perfectly well be done by one.

So you want to abolish the Scottish Parliament and get Scottish MPs in Westminster to vote on Scottish only issues ?

Or is it somehow different for Scotland ?

It's their problem, I don't want to replicate that in England. I could see a situation where we abolish Scottish Westminster MPs and just have the SMPs vote on UK issues (population weighted). Would be worth thinking about, no ?

Do yo agree we would be better off spending the money saved by not duplicating English politicians on services ?

You say that as if it's a bad thing

Democratic representation is of course a great thing, but as I am sure your mother told you, you can have too much of a good thing.

I could see a situation where we abolish Scottish Westminster MPs

You have just spent 8 months arguing on this thread that Scotland shouldn't separate itself from the rest of the UK, and you now come out with that little beauty. Remarkable.

Democratic representation is of course a great thing, but as I am sure your mother told you, you can have too much of a good thing.

I think we are a very long way off from reaching the point of too much democracy in our society.

It does not necessarily follow the greater the number of politicians, the greater the quality of the democracy.

And it doesn't necessarily follow that cutting back on the number of politicians to save money the greater the quality of the democracy.

So what's new ?

Who said anything about cutting back?

If you disagree with what I have said why don't you just address the point directly rather than suggesting I have said something else.

If you disagree with what I have said why don't you just address the point directly rather than suggesting I have said something else.

You're a bit touchy aren't you ? You didn't mind suggesting what my mother told me, despite the fact that she never said such a thing.

So anyway, this is precisely what you said.

mefty - Member

Using Westminster is fine, 533 MPs represent English constituencies. It will be much cheaper to overpay the 117 Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs who will have a much lesser workload if there is further devolution than it would be to pay for yet another layer of representation involving 500+ EMPs.
Posted 1 hour ago

Clearly saving money is your priority. Cutting back on the number of MPs we would otherwise have if we had a separate English Parliament is what you are suggesting.

Obviously you would rather have a silly pedantic argument claiming that I'm misrepresenting you than address the point directly.

If the Tories succeed in a 2 tier Westminster the UK won't last 10 years. Only possible way is a federal system with a separate English parliament or regional parliaments.

BTW anyone know the veracity of Margaret Curran's claim that out of 400+ bills passed by Westminster, only 5 could be determined to only affect England?

I think th the problem is that bills are often used to shoehorn in lots of stuff at once - it'd take discipline to separate off English-only issues and not put those in bills with UK-wide issues.

No voters voted No because of certain assumptions and promises from the main party leaders. If those promises don't come true, then I don't see any problem with having another referendum, and perhaps quite soon. 1.6M Yes voters, and most No voters, want a lot more power for Holyrood - we disagreed on the best way to get that power, not on whether we should have it.

I'd put money on there being another referendum within 10 years.

You're a bit touchy aren't you ? You didn't mind suggesting what my mother told me, despite the fact that she never said such a thing.

Not really, I was just about to leave to get a train, and was bored with your projecting a different meaning on what I had said. However, if my assumption that your mother used a pretty common phrase caused you offence, I , of course, apologise - it was intended to be light hearted it clearly wasn't taken as such so I am sorry. I am sufficiently arrogant to assume that my words are sufficient to convey my meaning without smileys, I should perhaps change this.

Clearly saving money is your priority. Cutting back on the number of MPs we would otherwise have if we had a separate English Parliament is what you are suggesting.

I have difficulty with the concept of cutting back non existent expenditure. However, to avoid a further accusation of pedantry, I will amplify my thoughts:

(i) There is good evidence that the English people do not want more layers of government where they are suggested from the top, i.e. North East Regional Assembly Referendum and the referenda for Mayors.

(ii) On this basis a limited cost solution is needed and the one I suggested would meet that criteria.

(iii) This is where I agree with you, I think there is a strong argument for regional assemblies but I don't think the pathway to achieving that is from above.

(iv) The pathway which may find favour with the electorate is to encourage initiatives like the Northern City Councils working together and give them real funding.

(v) On the assumption, they, and others, are successful, they can then argue that if they are given more democratic legitimacy they will be able to achieve more, this should be supported from the centre (whether it will is another matter).

(vi) The public, having seen success, are more likely to back the formation of regional assemblies to which powers are devolved, and therefore they could be supported, partially funded by a reduction in the number of MPs of all nations in the union. (MPs jobs would be smaller)

(vi) You then have a House of Commons where devolution has taken place in all countries but from the local level upwards. It will take 10 to 20 years, but then the West Lothian question has been unanswered for 17.

This is a back of fag packet suggestion so there will be holes in it

" it'd take discipline to separate off English-only issues and not put those in bills with UK-wide issues."

it's not such a big exercise for parliamentary draftspeople.

the veracity of Margaret Curran's claim that out of 400+ bills passed by Westminster, only 5 could be determined to only affect England?

It wouldn't surprise me, but then most legislation passed by the UK parliament (eg. civil and criminal laws) is England and Wales - the argument still stands on whether Scottish or NI politicians should have a vote on it.

No voters voted No because of certain assumptions and promises from the main party leaders. . If those promises don't come true, then I don't see any problem with having another referendum, 

No they didn't. These promises were put on the table in the final couple of weeks. Every opinion poll for 2 years showed a No lead until one opinion poll at the end. The promises may or may not have swung a few percent of people. A swing back to No in the end could have been caused by a variety of factors.

It would be rich for the SNP to demand a new referendum if politians break their vows, after initially vowing that this was a 'once in a lifetime, opportunity.

athgray - Member

It would be rich for the SNP to demand a new referendum if politians break their vows, after initially vowing that this was a 'once in a lifetime, opportunity.

Given that the SNPs case was based on lies nearly all the way through, it certainly is rich.

More spoilt kids syndrome....even dear Nicola demanding nothing less than devo max now.

She could have asked for devo super max.

The opinion polls show massive support for devo Max. Claiming them as gospel during a campaign(which I concede were more accurate than my assessments) then to ignore what they say after it, is a bit rich.

The polls show absolutely massive support for maximum devolved powers. If they aren't delivered, its all up for grabs again.

The ball's in Westminster's court. For the moment.

just to be clear I meant we have have the UK votes at Westminster and the English ones at Westminster too.

Not helping convince me you are not the King of satire 😉

I have to say Labour have been totally out-maneuvered here

CMD is the one who tried to move the goal posts and deliver something never mentioned before hand. Who will be damaged politically ? Well The tories cannot be damaged in Scotland can they and I am not sure how much English voters GAS. Its not a huge issue with anyone I knwo tbh.

No, the ball has been taken away, we are playing with it now, bad luck 😉

There is good evidence that the English people do not want more layers of government where they are suggested from the top, i.e. North East Regional Assembly Referendum and the referenda for Mayors.

As the benefits have become apparent public opinion in support of devolution has increased substantially in the 15 years since its introduction in Scotland and Wales.

Support for devolution in Wales before it was introduced was only lukewarm, now there is strong support. Similarly in Scotland support for devolution has increased in the last 15 years, despite there being already initially strong support.

And contrary to your claim there is in fact good evidence that the English people now also want their own parliament. Although less so in favour of regional parliaments/assemblies, that argument perhaps still needs to be won.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6264823.stm ]'Most' support English parliament[/url]

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/21/guardian-view-devolution-parliament-for-england ]The Guardian view on a parliament for England[/url]

Quote : [i]The BBC reported this week that a large new survey by Cardiff and Edinburgh universities shows 54% support in England for its own parliament, four times as many as those who disagreed.[/i]

The ball's in Westminster's court. For the moment.

The ball remains in Westminster's court for as long as it wants

I think the nationalist movement will come to rue the Day Alex shot his mouth off with the comment 'once in a generation opportunity, perhaps even a once in a lifetime'...

teamhurtmore - Member
No, the ball has been taken away, we are playing with it now, bad luck

[quote=ninfan ]The ball's in Westminster's court. For the moment.

The ball remains in Westminster's court for as long as it wants
I think the nationalist movement will come to rue the Day [b]Alex[/b] shot his mouth off with the comment 'once in a generation opportunity, perhaps even a once in a lifetime'...
See - that's one mans opinion. It wasn't a vow, or a promise, or a manifesto commitment. Alex Salmond doesn't have the right to permanently speak on behalf of the Scottish people - a fact many on the No side were happy to point out over the past 3 years or so 😆

infan - Member
I think the nationalist movement will come to rue the Day Alex shot his mouth off with the comment 'once in a generation opportunity, perhaps even a once in a lifetime'...

I think the nats regret every day the DO shot his mouth off.

Wishful thinking Joe, it's not November yet

[quote=seosamh77 ]

infan - Member
I think the nationalist movement will come to rue the Day Alex shot his mouth off with the comment 'once in a generation opportunity, perhaps even a once in a lifetime'...

😆

I think you'll maybe notice Alex isn't SNP leader anymore.

So what? The answer you'll get from now until forever is that the people have spoken, and the matter is settled for at least a generation

[quote=ninfan ]I think you'll maybe notice Alex isn't SNP leader anymore.

So what? The answer you'll get from now until forever is that the people have spoken, and the matter is settled for at least a generation
That wasn't the question, so how can that be the answer?

I wouldn't disagree that reality of devolution is more popular than the concept, hence why I suggested working from the ground up.

And contrary to your claim there is in fact good evidence that the English people now also want their own parliament. Although less so in favour of regional parliaments/assemblies, that argument perhaps still needs to be won.

I don't find those articles/polls particularly persuasive as there appears to be no/little discussion about cost - once that enters the equation I think the answer would differ - I think respondents would have said yes just because it was unfair rather than because they wanted another layer of representation - I am more guided by how voters have actually voted when faced with the choice of additional representation - but I am happy to admit there is no definitive answer.

ninfan - Member
I think you'll maybe notice Alex isn't SNP leader anymore.
So what? The answer you'll get from now until forever is that the people have spoken, and the matter is settled for at least a generation

[quote=whatnobeer ]You're not taking the party line that it was "decisive" and that's that for ever and ever are you? A 55-45 result is not by any measure decisive enough to be put to bed for ever.

So how decisive would a 51-49 vote* have been, and how long would that have put the issue to bed for before people got a chance to change their minds?

* in favour of yes