You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The Tories would love to be rid of us - unfortunately it's Scottish oil money that props up Tory tax cuts. It's our oil they want, not us.
I've never come across this "them and us" bitter attitude when I've been in Scotland, where does it come from?
Don't like the English, don't like the Tories, don't like Labour.
You just come across as being generally miserable. 😆
bencooper - MemberMeanwhile, buried away in today's budget, Scotland's block grant is being cut in real terms.
Do you have a link for that? I can't see it in the budget. Ta.
I've never come across this "them and us" bitter attitude when I've been in Scotland, where does it come from?Don't like the English, don't like the Tories, don't like Labour.
It's pretty much just the Tories we have a problem with, a lot of that stems from the Poll Tax and the rest from them generally being nasty ****s. Funnily enough I think most people in Scotland don't feel nearly as strongly about the Scottish Conservatives.
The Labour hating is mainly just because they've been useless for the last 8 years in Scotland and are just as useless down south.
Do you have a link for that? I can't see it in the budget. Ta.
BBC's James Cook on twitter says it's on page 61.
Ben, you did see what he said about NS oil revenues?
At least he left Scotch alone!!!
Budget in full is here:
Don't like the English, don't like the Tories, don't like Labour.
Not sure where you get that from. My partner is English, my father is English, a lot of my family and friends are English. You'd be amazed how many English people in Scotland are voting for independence.
I don't like New Labour, no, and I detest the Tories. I don't think that is unusual in Scotland or England.
As are many other areas it seems. NHS, Education are the winners. It was pretty well flagged that public expenditure was going to be cut in real terms, so I'm not sure this is a surprise.Meanwhile, buried away in today's budget, Scotland's block grant is being cut in real terms.
epicyclo. Still struggling with your idea of democracy tbh.
You talk of decisions being made in Scotland on the future of Scotland.
Earlier in this thread you stated it was undemocratic for not allowing a vote in rUK. The UK should have "insisted on it"
When it was then pointed out that the rUK could then vote Scotland out of the union despite a majority of Scots supporting the union, you said you would "be forever grateful to your UK benefactors".
Here is the punchline.
This would result in a democratic Scotland, free to made decisions on the future path of Scotland. We will not be told what to do by Westminster. Hilarious.
This shows a high level disregard for the elected will of the Scottish people I would suggest.
Which other democratic values will go out the window to ensure an independent Scotland.
I think some would be happy for a pissed up Tory MP to make the decision in the Commons bar if the answer was yes. Democracy in action.
I think some would be happy for a pissed up Tory MP to make the decision in the Commons bar
Isn't that exactly what's been happening for the last 4 years?
gordimhor, no.
ben, you say many in the no camp think iS will be like North Korea. I would argue that the yes camp think we live in North Korea at the moment.
athgray - Member
epicyclo. Still struggling with your idea of democracy tbh....
Democracy is simple.
You vote for the members of your government. That government operates without any other master than its electorate.
I realise it may be difficult to comprehend if you've been brought up to knuckle your forelock to your "betters" (the unelected elites) and believe their wise guidance is used to work in your best interests.
As Winston said, democracy is not a perfect system, but nothing better has been invented.
When we are independent we will have a proper democracy. Can't say No to that.
Hah! So naive!
unfortunately it's Scottish oil money that props up Tory tax cuts. It's our oil they want, not us.
Rrrrrrrubbish! You're totally overstating the importance of oil revenue.
[i]The Tories would love to be rid of us - unfortunately it's Scottish oil money that props up Tory tax cuts. It's our oil they want, not us. [/i]
The fact that the Queen hasn't sent you a card saying how much you are loved doesn't mean you aren't wanted. Now take your skirts off and man up! 😉
bencooper - Memberunfortunately it's Scottish oil money that props up Tory tax cuts.
What Tory tax cuts ?
The UK tax burden has [i]increased[/i] since we've had a Tory Chancellor again.
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/total-tax-revenue_20758510-table2
For someone who claims to "detest the Tories" you certainly like to swallow their spin and propaganda.
Tax revenue has hardly changed as a percentage of GDP for decades. Nowt to do with Tories or spin. It's the spending that is the volatile measure - no real surprise there though.
epicyclo. I did not expect an adequate response. Did you get beyond the first line?
You categorically stated that you would be happy if the rUK voted Scotland out of the union even against the wishes of Scottish voters. Put any shit*y spin you like on it, that is not democracy.
Equals not betters. I have never heard such s***e.
I ask this. What lengths are deemed acceptable to gain independence?
Also, what are people prepared to give up for independence?
Chap i know, does Scots renactment stuff, medieval & lace wars.
When he does his speeches to the Scottish crowds he asks the question
"Who is the worst enemy of the Scot?" & the answer is invariably something along the lines of "the bloody English".
He (being a student of Scottish history) always answers "No, the worst enemy of the Scot is another Scot".
This thread shows the truth of that.
Athgray you asked
A free and fair referendum seems acceptable to me.What lengths are deemed acceptable to gain independence?
I really do not see any similarity between any of the campaign leaders in the referendum and Mr Putin or Kim Jong-un. The North Korean regime is systematically starving its own people.You likened our situation in Scotland to Ukraine, are the yes supporters supposed to be like Russia, like the ukraineans or like the ethnic russians in crimea?
You also asked
what are people prepared to give up for independence?
For me that will be a lot of time and such money as I can afford, some shoe leather etc.
What I find unacceptable are things like foodbanks, growing child poverty, etc IDS welfare reforms will (imo) be pushed through by this UK government or the nextno matter what the social cost because of the reduction in the welfare budget they believe they can achieve.
You will note that I do not compare IDS to Kim Jong-un
edit
gordimhor, I agree with your first reply. What ever the result of the referendum should stand. I will not dig my heels in, if the Scottish people have said yes then independence it is.
What I can't comprehend are those that would take independence for Scotland, even if Scots vote against it, as has been expressed here.
The widening inequality gap in the UK does bother me, and needs fixed. I assert that people that wish independence for Scotland do not care about this, however pretend they do so they can give themselves a pat on the back for their so called socialist credentials.
teamhurtmore - MemberTax revenue has hardly changed as a percentage of GDP for decades. Nowt to do with Tories or spin.
It has everything to do with spin. The Tories have repeatedly said that they have cut taxes, and people believe them, even those who claim to detest them such as bencooper, and yet as you point out this Tory claim is completely untrue.
If this widely held false belief isn't the result of spin then I don't know what is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28public_relations%29
BTW to say that the tax burden has "hardly changed as a percentage of GDP for decades" isn't totally accurate, is it ?
[img] 
[/img]
ernie, I admit to not being an economist, but the UK tax burden on that graph varies between 33.5% and 39.2% GDO approx over 25 years. Is that a lot in reality?
As an engineer, when I look at financial graphs, the next thing I do is look at the scale of the Y axis.
ben. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing in politics? She is still dead by the way!
athgray - Member
epicyclo. I did not expect an adequate response. Did you get beyond the first line?...I ask this. What lengths are deemed acceptable to gain independence?
Also, what are people prepared to give up for independence?
Yup, read it, Another of your red herrings and deliberate misconstructions, so I didn't bite.
A referendum is the civilised way to gain independence.
Independence is gaining something, not giving something up.
ben. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing in politics? She is still dead by the way!
You're saying no-one at the time thought that Thatcher's policies were a very bad idea?
Thatcher's dead, Thatcherism is very much alive - that's why we need independence.
epicyclo, I only pointed out what you actually wrote. No red herrings there. You would happily accept independence even if Scotland votes against it.
ben, you wrote that if meaningful devo max were on the table you would probably vote for it. Why do I not believe you?
Is that a lot in reality?
Well more than "hardly changed" imo. And if they had managed to cut the tax burden by 6% I'm sure they would have claimed it was a huge success.
But the reality is that for most of the time that the Tories were in government between 1979-1997 the tax burden was considerably higher than it had been before they were elected. And since the Tories returning to government the tax burden is now slightly higher than it was in 2010.
The Tories claim to cut taxes but they do not cut taxes. The reason people think they do is because of very effective spin.
She may be dead but Thatcherism is not (unfortunately) and according to wikipedia many people were able to make a good assessment of Mrs T in the 80s
At the 1987 General Election, the Conservatives had their number of Scottish seats lowered from 21 to 10, their worst performance since before World War I. They lost the seats of Aberdeen South, Angus East, Argyll and Bute, Banff and Buchan, Cunninghame North, Edinburgh Central, Edinburgh South, Fife North East, Moray, Renfrew West and Inverclyde and Strathkelvin and Bearsden.
ben, you wrote that if meaningful devo max were on the table you would probably vote for it. Why do I not believe you?
No idea, I'm normally very believable 😉
I was serious - but since Devo Max isn't on the table (nor anything remotely near it) it's an academic question.
[img] 
[/img]
The successful candidate for Banff and Buchan in 1987
Fair enough ben. I think a no vote can provide devo max. I disagree with your assessment that it will not, however respect your stance. epicyclo, I still reckon your response is wanting.
Shame on you Banff and Buchan. 😉
I think a no vote can provide devo max.
I'm interested - how do you think that'll happen? Labour have just comprehensively ruled it out, and the Tories haven't made any concrete suggestions anywhere near Devo Max. Things will definitely change after a No vote, but what would the motivation be for a Westminster government to devolve more power to Soctland?
Shame on you Banff and Buchan.
Yeah imagine electing a Jambo 🙂
they might just do it to stop this thread and start a new one on devo max 😉
athgray - Member
....epicyclo, I still reckon your response is wanting.
.
.
.
.
.
After due consideration, I've decided it's best not to further engage with subpontal denizens.
I suppose the short hand response to you ben, would be that I reckon none of the UK parties want Scotland to leave, and if devo max does not happen, Scotland will be independent within 15-20 years.
Ernie, I am intrigued by your graph. Where did you get it from? The Guardian has a useful graph that compares tax revenue and gov spending as % of GDP. It sources the data from HMT too but the results are different.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963
I don't know how to copy pictures!! But the trend is much flatter supporting my conclusion and indeed the Guardian makes the same point
You can see how the tax receipts projected for 2012-13 are £550.6bn, that is 35.6% of GDP - up since the recession started, [b]but strikingly static for the last few decades[/b].
[b]What you cannot see (directly) from the graph is whether it is the numerator or the denominator that is driving the trend!! [/b]. As the guardian asks:
You can also see how they went down in the 1980s - was this recession again or reduced tax rates?
A nice homework question springs to mind!
But for every, "the Tories are the party of tax cuts" there will be a "thatcher cut gov spending" or "this government is a government of austerity" or "income inequality has got worse under this government" - none of which are strictly true, but that doesn't stop folk spinning the truth!!! Same in the US - are the Republicans or the Democrats the big spenders, did Reagan control spending etc??
I suppose the short hand response to you ben, would be that I reckon none of the UK parties want Scotland to leave, and if devo max does not happen, Scotland will be independent within 15-20 years.
Via what mechanism? The SNP have said that this referendum is a once in a generation thing. Equally, the overall SNP majority that allowed the referendum to take place was unusual. So this might be the only chance we have for a very, very long time.
The SNP will say it is a once in a generation chance, as they want indepence now. It is not in their best interests to say "don't worry, you can vote no now and see what happens".
If the SNP government is an anomoly, perhaps Scottish voters are not as dissaffected by the UK as much as you think.
For all the people suggesting Devo max will be rolled out after a no vote...Err no. After the 79 vote the Conservative Government squeezed Scotland like never before,despite having a significant number of MP's in Scotland. Now that they have no significant representation here I don't think they will feel any need to play nicely.
Same in the US - are the Republicans or the Democrats the big spenders, did Reagan control spending etc??
Err, on welfare and social policy he did!
athgray - Member
epicyclo. Still struggling with your idea of democracy tbh....Democracy is simple.
You vote for the members of your government. That government operates without any other master than its electorate.
I realise it may be difficult to comprehend if you've been brought up to knuckle your forelock to your "betters" (the unelected elites) and believe their wise guidance is used to work in your best interests.
As Winston said, democracy is not a perfect system, but nothing better has been invented.
When we are independent we will have a proper democracy. Can't say No to that.
But you want to be a part of Europe, and the unelected MP's there?
THM your link fully backs up my point, it shows that in the 1980s tax as percentage of GDP did not go down despite the claim by the then Tory government.
In fact the complete opposite is true - not only did the Tories [i]not[/i] reduce the tax burden but they actually increased it, ie, tax as percentage of GDP was higher in the 1980s than it had been in the 1970s.
Your link gives the precise figures :
. 1970-71 36.7
.
1971-72 35
.
1972-73 32.6
.
1973-74 32.6
.
1974-75 35.3
.
1975-76 35.7
.
1976-77 35.2
.
1977-78 33.9
.
1978-79 32.8
.
1979-80 33.7
.
1980-81 35.1
.
1981-82 37.6
.
1982-83 37.3
.
1983-84 36.7
.
1984-85 37.6
.
1985-86 36.4
.
1986-87 36.1
.
1987-88 35.6
.
1988-89 35.3
.
1989-90 34.9
Your link also backs up my claim that since returning to office the Tories have not cut taxes but slightly increased them.
And yes, you are completely right about the Tory myth that they are the party of low public spending. After all why would they need to increase the tax burden if they were cutting public spending ?
The 1970s had lower taxation, lower public spending, and lower unemployment, than the 1980s when Margret Thatcher, the celebrated champion of low gov. spending and taxation, was Prime Minister.
The reason most people probably don't realise that is because highly effective media backed Tory spin has created enduring myths. And because today's Labour Party is too spineless to tackle and challenge Tory myths, believing that if they disagree with the Tories too much the right-wing Tory press will give them a hard time. In a word, they are cowards.
duckman - Member
Err, on welfare and social policy he did!
Another example of the difference between what people say people did and what they actually did. Reagan talked tough on welfare but allowed it to increase during his administration. Yes, he made changes in where that was spent but not the overall amount. The guy who acted in welfare was Bill Clinton - a democrat. Still this is a tangent!!!
michaelbowden, yes I do. Europe is another system that requires fixing, but worth attempting to fix for sure.
epicyclo suggests that he would be happy to have in independent Scotland even if the people of Scotland vote against it.
I don't disagree with your cut and paste from him, however that is not what is being preached elsewhere on this thread.
To happily disregard the settled will of the Scottish people on the largest decision we will ever make is not a good start, and hopefully not representitive of how we mean to continue in iS.
Cheers Ernie, I know my data thanks as I use the same source, just trying to reconcile it with your graph which shows higher tax revenues in the 70s. It is a genuine data question, not questioning the analysis of it. What was the source of your graph?
But back to the implications - are people also cowards when they fail to reject ideas about the current Tories and austerity, or bullies if they point out that AS BS is just that (BS) in the main?
et Voila:
[url= http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7210/13284282925_77ef2b7c33_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/brf/13284282925/ ]Tax as a percentage of GDP[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/brf/ ]brf[/url], on Flickr
Now that they have no significant representation here I don't think they will feel any need to play nicely.
A poor argument. 4 million voters and only one MP suggests that the Tories need to work a lot harder in Scotland. The Tories need all the MPs they can get, Scotland represents a wasted opportunity and they need to regain the good will which Thacher's arrogance lost them.
Cheers Ernie, I know my data thanks as I use the same source, just trying to reconcile it with your graph which shows higher tax revenues in the 70s.
My graph doesn't show tax revenues in the 70s.
alright late 70s, early 80s!!! I am just interested in where that graph came from and why the data is still different despite the same source. Just a simple question, as you may have a better source.
What people focus on with Thatcher is the dramatic cuts in marginal tax rates. They miss how this was replaced by higher levels of national insurance and indirect taxation. But as I have always said, her supporters credit it her with far more than she ever achieved and vv with her detractors, Thatcherism itself was largely a myth perpetrated by both sides. The reality was far more mundane.
If you right-hand click on the graph and then "view image info" it shows the source, ie, BBC News.
The data isn't different, it's the same.
athgray
My quote was aimed at epicyclo not you. He seems to believe that iS will only be beholden to MP's that they have elected.
Where as all that will happen is Scoland will lose the layer of the upper house but will still be tied to policy with rUK via a monetary policy and/or a greater loss of decision making power by being a new member of Europe probably tied to the Euro and without the Veto vote that the UK has
Ok, thanks I will look. It is only slightly different but I was intrigued.
IS will have less control over Econ policy than before, that's the absurdity of these arguments - be careful what you wish for.....
Where as all that will happen is Scoland will lose the layer of the upper house but will still be tied to policy with rUK via a monetary policy and/or a greater loss of decision making power by being a new member of Europe probably tied to the Euro and without the Veto vote that the UK has
Apparently none of that will happen, we wont have a monetary union and we certainly won't be allowed back into the EU.
[quote=ernie_lynch ]My graph doesn't show tax revenues in the 70s.
Conveniently 😉
I'm surprised at you, THM - the data quite clearly follows the same trends on both graphs, even if the numbers are slightly different. The difference between the two is the difference in the axes - not only is the y-axis compressed on ernie's graph, but it also covers a shorter time period.
Even more interesting than missing the 70s is that ernie's graph stops at 2006 - which enables him to put the interesting spin on the figures that the tax burden is higher than in 2010. Whereas it is clear from your graph (which as mentioned is not contradicted by ernie's) that the tax % of GDP is lower now and has been lower for the whole of this government than it was in 2006 - that's despite this government being during a recession and 2006 not.
[quote=whatnobeer ]
Where as all that will happen is Scoland will lose the layer of the upper house but will still be tied to policy with rUK via a monetary policy and/or a greater loss of decision making power by being a new member of Europe probably tied to the Euro and without the Veto vote that the UK has
Apparently none of that will happen, we wont have a monetary union and we certainly won't be allowed back into the EU.
Surely that is something you should be celebrating then - strange how AS keeps complaining that the Yes camp is wrong and you'll actually have less democracy than they suggest.
[Aracer, I am neither disputing the graph nor the basic interpretation. I use this data regularly and was simply puzzled that the numbers differed slightly despite the same source. I just wanted to check the numbers to see which were better or more accurate. It was that simple]
There is nothing to be surprised about! Of course, the interesting bit is to explain the "why" behind these trends but this is not the place for that!!
ernie_lynch » My graph doesn't show tax revenues in the 70s.Conveniently 😉
I did better than that, I copied and pasted the precise figures from THM's link. It very clearly shows that the Tories did not cut the tax burden in the 1980s.
the tax % of GDP is lower now and has been lower for the whole of this government than it was in 2006
Now that's what I call spin.......making a comparison of the present situation with an arbitrary point in time which conveniently makes the point you want to make, well done that man! 🙂
It's not lower now than when the Tories came to power. They have not lowered the tax burden.
Which gets back to my point that this statement is incorrect :
bencooper - Memberunfortunately it's Scottish oil money that props up Tory tax cuts.
But you want to be a part of Europe, and the unelected MP's there?
Unelected MPs lol
Agreed it is a tangent THM, but he tripled the US national debt with his tax cuts for the rich and while he didn't cut the likes medicare, his spending on toys meant the likes of Clinton was screwed because of the need to service not only the debt, but the post cold war bloated US Military. I have always found it interesting as I think it defined the end of the "American Dream" or at least pretending there was such a thing. Anyway, back to the fechting
Sorry michael. Misinterpreted you there.
Agreed (partially) Duckman, it must be very annoying for politicians who have take the flak for sorting out the errors of their predecessors!!! Especially if this involves addressing levels of debt and interest service?
He (RR) also slashed spending on education 🙁
Surely that is something you should be celebrating then - strange how AS keeps complaining that the Yes camp is wrong and you'll actually have less democracy than they suggest.
No camp, surely? There will also be more democracy. At least the EMPs are elected and we'll have a more representative government than the one we have now.
I just find the stuff coming from the Unionists a bit funny in all is splendid negativity.
You can't share the pound. If you did share the pound you'd have no say in it's running (not much change there then, eh?)
You definitely wont be allowed in the EU. If they do let you in you'll need to use the Euro.
You'll have no democracy yadda yadda yadda.
[quote=ernie_lynch ]Now that's what I call spin.......making a comparison of the present situation with an arbitrary point in time which conveniently makes the point you want to make, well done that man!
It's not lower now than when the Tories came to power. They have not lowered the tax burden.
Given that the tax burden also went up when Labour came to power, went up when Maggie came to power, went up when Wilson came to power then presumably the tax burden has been going up continuously since the start of the 70s? The last government which decreased the tax burden when it came to power was Heath's (according to the Grauniad the tax take was fractionally less under Major than when Maggie got elected, but that's within the noise - no other government since Heath has got the tax burden to be less than when it came to power). Alternatively, 2010 (and 1978) might be just as much an arbitrary year. It's hardly unheard of for tax cuts to appear just before an election...
If you want to avoid picking arbitrary points in time, then it's clear that the tax burden under this government has never been as high as the peak under the last government.
The No campaign's real trump card is uncertainty. You can't be sure what'll happen if you vote Yes, so best play it safe and vote No. It's a powerful argument, especially when you're talking about jobs and pensions and the like.
But they don't mention two problems with that. The first is that there's a lot of uncertainty whatever happens - the Barnett Formula is going to be scrapped, and no-one knows what will replace it. We don't know what will happen at the next election. So much uncertainty either way.
The second problem is bigger - we do know some things. Austerity will continue as Labour and the Tories are, as with almost everything, in complete agreement on this. The Scottish Parliament will get little or nothing in the way of further powers. We'll spend £100bn on some new nuclear toys, while the MoD wants to release more radiation into the Clyde. None of the oil money will be saved for the future.
There's a lot of hope in a Yes vote, and perhaps some wishful thinking too. But there's more wishful thinking in a No vote - hoping that Scotland will still get scraps from the UK table, hoping that at best things will stay the same.
[quote=whatnobeer ]No camp, surely? There will also be more democracy. At least the EMPs are elected and we'll have a more representative government than the one we have now.
Sorry, typo.
Do you really think the EU is more democratic than the UK? 😯 You do realise that a lot of the decisions aren't made by the MEPs? Are you also ignoring the issue about having no control over the pound if you shared it - surely an "asset" like that is something you'd want to have some control over in a democracy given the influence it would have on your country?
If you did share the pound you'd have no say in it's running (not much change there then, eh?)
Well actually it is, but feel free to ignore the bail out of banks domiciled in Scotland and that the needs of Scotland are currently taken into account as part of monetary policy.
Are you just getting upset because the reality won't be quite as set out in the BoD and the No camp are simply pointing that out?
Be wary though, considering who commissioned it.
You do realise that a lot of the decisions aren't made by the MEPs?
You do realize that the vast majority of UK legislation is not made by a parliament, right?
Made by the EU isn't it? 😉
Unelected unaccountable eurocrats IIRC
the tax % of GDP is lower now and has been lower for the whole of this government than it was in 2006
Its obvious that if you want to say they have cut taxes you must say what they were when they came to power, what they were whilst they were in power and what they are now.
If it is less now than when they took power they have cut it.
Is it less?
As I said, the last government to cut taxes on that basis was Heath's. I'm not making any claims about this government cutting taxes.
I just find the stuff coming from the Unionists a bit funny in all is splendid negativity.
Can the people of Scotland can benefit from a monetary union, Yes you can. Can the people of Scotland have a say in its running, Yes you can. Can the people of Scotland be in the EU, Yes you can. Can the people of Scotland continue to use the pound, Yes you can.
Bit more positive? And all things being promoted by the Yes campaign.
All you have to do is vote No
In related news, the Tories have revealed their long-term plans for what they're doing to help every part of the UK:
Can the people of Scotland can benefit from a monetary union
Quite probably, subject to reasonable negotiation, as it's been done before.
Can the people of Scotland have a say in its running
See above, and have more direct say than we have at the moment.
Can the people of Scotland be in the EU
We already are, it'll be negotiated for us to stay.
Can the people of Scotland continue to use the pound
Definitely - there's no way to stop us.
If you want to avoid picking arbitrary points in time, then it's clear that the tax burden under this government has never been as high as the peak under the last government.
No you are still picking arbitrary points in time to suit your argument. The 'highest peak' ever, since that apparently is what interests you, was under a Tory government, Thatcher's Tory government, when it hit 37.6% of GDP.
But whether you look at the peaks, or much more realistically the averages, the fact remains that Tory governments do not reduce the tax burden.
The claim that they do is a Tory myth which you obviously want to perpetuate aracer.
Made by the EU isn't it?
Appropriate use of Edinburgh Defence.
[quote=ernie_lynch ]No you are still picking arbitrary points in time to suit your argument. The 'highest peak' ever, since that apparently is what interests you, was under a Tory government, Thatcher's Tory government, when it hit 37.6% of GDP.
Oh, so comparing one government with another is arbitrary because you want to compare all Tory governments with all Labour ones? Remind me which was the last government to actually reduce the tax burden when it came to power if we're playing that game?
For the record I'm making or perpetuating any claims about what Tory governments do, simply pointing out the inaccuracies in your spin.