Tax credits cuts only affect Scotland if the SNP want them to.

[BetterTogether]

With much ado about tax credits in the press here's an interesting video of Mhairi Black SNP asking questions about tax credits and how they affect Scotland. Iain Duncan Smith states quite categorically that Holyrood already has the powers to mitigate any effect as long as the extra money is raised in taxation within Scotland and does not fall on the shoulders of the RUK to pay. So the basic line is there doesn't have to be any cuts in Scotland unless the SNP want there to be.

the video is worth a watch for those who don't fully understand the changes that are being made or powers that Holyrood already has.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/RA87A8UgXME

[Oddquine]

With much ado about tax credits in the press here's an interesting video of Mhairi Black SNP asking questions about tax credits and how they affect Scotland. Iain Duncan Smith states quite categorically that Holyrood already has the powers to mitigate any effect as long as the extra money is raised in taxation within Scotland and does not fall on the shoulders of the RUK to pay. So the basic line is there doesn't have to be any cuts in Scotland unless the SNP want there to be.

the video is worth a watch for those who don't fully understand the changes that are being made or powers that Holyrood already has.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/RA87A8UgXME

Of course they have choices, nobody has ever denied that.......... they can raise taxes or cut/reduce perks like the bus passes, the free prescriptions, the student tuition fees and the like..or do nothing about the consequences of a tax credit cut............so people like you can say that we are doing no better with devolution and can continually bang on about how much worse everything would be with independence. That is the whole purpose of devolution, Westminster-style.....to cut the feet from under the SNP.....or hadn't you noticed?

I assume then, if you pay income tax, you would be quite happy to pay more tax, over and above that which is current in the rest of the UK, to help out those being hit by policies you give the impression you like, for the privilege of staying in the Union, would be equally happy to see Barnett adjusted downwards the following year to take that increased tax income into account, because it looks like Scotland is not allowed to benefit from the proceeds of devolved fiscal powers....or, as a council taxpayer, you would be happy to have your council tax payments increased to bring in the money to pay benefits, as that would save the SG paying local authorities to maintain the council tax freeze.

I assume you are aware that Scotland, until at least 2018, have only the powers they have now, via the 2012 Scotland Act..plus, I think, now being officially the Scottish Government rather than the Scottish Executive. I assume you are aware that what IDS is mostly burbling about is the provisions in a Bill which has not yet passed through Parliament, to the Assent Stage.....and may well be very different (as in better or worse) when it does eventually get through?

Therefore Scotland, at the moment, while it has the ability to createnew taxes (with the permission of Westminster), has only gained control over Landfill Tax and Stamp Duty, over and above the rates income it already has, and has the ability to raise/lower income tax (as they always have been able to do with just the the basic rate, but no government has ever used) to pay for them....or the ability to cut elsewhere to pay for them. Whoop-de-do!

The Scotland Act 2012 this time, unlike in 1998, obliges the SG to use the income tax powers, even if they leave it the same as the rest of the UK, and to pay HMRC for the privilege of collecting it...... and they can only raise the tax rates as a whole package.......ergo, no increasing tax on the top earners without also taxing every other taxpayer..and with no ability to increase tax allowances to compensate. The SG has also gained borrowing powers, of up to £2.2 billion, but that is only to be spent on Capital projects and not on day to day expenses, like benefits.

If the borrowing powers are used to help fund capital projects, and perhaps free up some cash to be applied to ameliorating benefits, that will mean the addition of annual interest payments to Scotland's spending, and as we can only borrow from Westminster, more money going from our pocket to Westminster to bring down it's borrowing....and if the Capital projects produce economic growth via jobs etc....any increased income will go straight back down to the coffers in Westminster,and can't be used by the SG.....and, in fact will probably mean a reduction in Barnett because Westminster is doing so well out of us, given that the one thing which is common to all devolution bills is that any changes should not result in an increase or decrease to the Scottish Government budget or any detriment to the rest of the UK. Currently, we spend £100 million or so from the Block Grant and other current income, to ameliorate he impact of the likes of the bedroom tax on the Scottish people. There will be annual costs payable to HMRC for the collection of SRIT, at the last HMRC guesstimate, around £40 million to set up and around £4 million a year to collect....on top of what we are already charged as part of our GERS debit to pay for UK General and Public Services, like HMRC. The main winner is going to be HMRC income and the Westminster Treasury. We have had to set up something to collect the replacements for Landfill Tax and Stamp Duty, as well, though I don't know what or the costs.....and though Westminster did say they'd look at ways of compensating us for the fact that HMRC no longer have to do the work on that, I for one, ain't holding my breath.

It will be very interesting to see how much Westminster thinks they can take off Barnett next year, on top of the ubiquitous austerity cut, to allow for us collecting the first ten pence of every tax rate ourselves........especially since it is the OBR who is going to do the estimates, and they have proven, since 2010 how good they are at forecasting, haven't they?

[BetterTogether]

Nice post Oddquine thanks for such a well thought out response.

The he reality and you mention it a few times there may be a decrease in the Barnett formula but on the same hand there may be an increase at the moment there have been no indications to either scenario happening so it's pure speculation.
What we actually have is a situation where the Scottish Government and some of the parties followers are decrying an as of yet not implemented government policy. This makes for fun listening to but in reality the crux of the matter is if the policy goes through unchanged the Scottish Govt has the powers to mitigate the effects, whether I like it or not is particularly irrelevant. There should be no reason that any taxpayer in Wales, Northern Ireland or England should bear the burden of any differences between rUK and Scotland so if you want to be different don't expect every one else to pay for it. Therefor complaining about potential tax increases when you've voted in a government that ŵants to spend spend and give away lots of freebies the rest of the U.K doesn't get puts the onus on the shoulders of everyone who voted for them.

You wanted those extra powers you want to do things differently have extra benefits well you have pay for them quite simple.

[BetterTogether]

Bit of u turn on whether the Scottish Govt has powers to mitigate the tax credit issue.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politic...#ixzz3qY7ZfH54

[rob murray]

Bit of u turn on whether the Scottish Govt has powers to mitigate the tax credit issue.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politic...#ixzz3qY7ZfH54

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-34720846

[rob murray]

]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-34720846

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1...ey_couldn___t/

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f4008272-8...#axzz3qcFLPqcw

[BetterTogether]

So much for the anti austerity government not they can't but they won't.

[Oddquine]

So much for the anti austerity government not they can't but they won't.

Which part of "coming to" do you not quite get, BT? Which part of anything in that article makes you think that it will be in action in time for the tax credit cuts this year...or next year.....or the next one even? I would be really interested to know.

In fact, I rather get the impression that they cannot legally mitigate directly the cut to tax credits due in 2016, given it appears they are not getting the power to mitigate the Tax Credit cuts until the Scotland Bill has received Royal Assent. Shades of the Bedroom Tax carry-on! Bear in mind, the power to mitigate is an amendment to the original bill, which did not give even that power, coincidentally(or not) came on the very day he was due to debate the lack of powers in Holyrood. What was wanted was control over welfare, though, not the power to apply sicking plaster to the cuts.

Get your facts right, for once, BT, don't just regurgitate the MSM crap..only a rank eejit or a blind unionist would believe anything they say without checking the veracity for themselves.

[BetterTogether]

If you had listened to the debate properly and had done a quick check on facts you'd know that the Scottish Government will have sufficient powers to mitigate the cuts without having to refer to Westminster in any way shape or form.

It got them into a pickle yesterday's and made them look completely incompetent with all off them reading of their crib sheets while being informed that the powers already exsist by their own party.

So do check your facts stop the personal insults and try entering into an informed debate rather than regurgitating that rather pernicious clap trap broadcast by the Reverand from Bath who spends his days firing up grievance to make a profit.

[weeker2014]

If you had listened to the debate properly and had done a quick check on facts you'd know that the Scottish Government currently has sufficient powers to mitigate the cuts without having to refer to Westminster in any way shape or form.

It got them into a pickle yesterday's and made them look completely incompetent with all off them reading of their crib sheets while being informed that the powers already exsist by their own party.

So do check your facts stop the personal insults and try entering into an informed debate rather than regurgitating that rather pernicious clap trap broadcast by the Reverand from Bath who spends his days firing up grievance to make a profit.

BT you wouldnt recognise an informed debate if it smacked u in the kipper. You must have a very boring life when u have the time to read every anti-nationalist paper on the planet. Every thread you start is an attempt to troll and judging by the very few people who engage with you, everyone is sick of it. The reason the org is like a ghost town is very much down to you and a few exactly like you!

[golach]

BT you wouldnt recognise an informed debate if it smacked u in the kipper. You must have a very boring life when u have the time to read every anti-nationalist paper on the planet. Every thread you start is an attempt to troll and judging by the very few people who engage with you, everyone is sick of it. The reason the org is like a ghost town is very much down to you and a few exactly like you!

I am not sick of Better Together, I like what he posts, I blame the nationalists, just look at your elected MP, an Idjit in my opinion

[BetterTogether]

BT you wouldnt recognise an informed debate if it smacked u in the kipper. You must have a very boring life when u have the time to read every anti-nationalist paper on the planet. Every thread you start is an attempt to troll and judging by the very few people who engage with you, everyone is sick of it. The reason the org is like a ghost town is very much down to you and a few exactly like you!

Now anyone who wants an informed debate should check your posts and the amount of times you accuse various people of being Trolls.

From what I can make out it seems to be your raison d'etre nothing useful to say for yourself just constantly calling people trolls.

I cant honestly say I see an awful lot of people engaging with your posts.

Maybe be you should look up the definition of what a " Troll" actually is and realise your constant off topic inflammatory remarks and personal attacks fit the definition rather more appropriately.

[Oddquine]

If you had listened to the debate properly and had done a quick check on facts you'd know that the Scottish Government will have sufficient powers to mitigate the cuts without having to refer to Westminster in any way shape or form.

It got them into a pickle yesterday's and made them look completely incompetent with all off them reading of their crib sheets while being informed that the powers already exsist by their own party.

So do check your facts stop the personal insults and try entering into an informed debate rather than regurgitating that rather pernicious clap trap broadcast by the Reverand from Bath who spends his days firing up grievance to make a profit.

They cannot mitigate the effect of the tax credits directly, if they could do that, there would be no need to have that amendment in the Bill currently going through Parliament....would there?

I am sure they can and will do something to mitigate the effects, but what that will be will not be clear until we actually know the level of the cuts, if that is reconsidered, and how that will be done has not yet been decided. Suffice it to say that if there is an SNP Government when the tax credit cuts bite, they will do what they can afford to mitigate the effects.

It did not get them into a pickle yesterday, except in the Unionist MSM, which is still fighting the referendum, as are you. The SNP have always said that they would find a way to mitigate at least some of the effects of the tax credit cuts..and that is still the situation today. What will happen once the current Scotland Bill becomes law is another matter altogether.

I ask again..........if they have the powers to mitigate the tax credit cuts now as easily and automatically as you appear to think, why was there any need for an amendment, in a Bill which will not be in force at the time of the tax credit cut anyway, to legally allow them to mitigate tax credit cuts?

I have regurgitated nothing in this thread from Wings, as far as I am aware, I am quite capable of reading figures and coming to my own conclusions.......it seems you are not, because you never provide any figures..and there are, after all, only so many ways of saying that someone is talking through their behind, so it is possible that I may have used some expressions from one of his extensive articles telling anyone who is interested in facts, of the bottom-burping of Westminster politicians and the MSM.

By the way, Rev Stu does not make a "profit" from Wings. He makes a wage, and only makes that because the Wings readers have insisted he does, and they fund it via crowd-funding in order that he can concentrate on the website. I suspect that he takes less of a wage than you would in his place, and less than many journalists who write the articles in the MSM, simply regurgitating Westminster propaganda without bothering to check out the facts. If he was making a profit, he would be keeping all the crowd-funding to himself, wouldn't he....as there is no click through business advertising on the site, which is the way you make profit on the internet. And, by the way, he doesn't have to fire up grievance, the Westminster government does that quite effectively by itself.

[rob murray]

They cannot mitigate the effect of the tax credits directly, if they could do that, there would be no need to have that amendment in the Bill currently going through Parliament....would there?

I am sure they can and will do something to mitigate the effects, but what that will be will not be clear until we actually know the level of the cuts, if that is reconsidered, and how that will be done has not yet been decided. Suffice it to say that if there is an SNP Government when the tax credit cuts bite, they will do what they can afford to mitigate the effects.

It did not get them into a pickle yesterday, except in the Unionist MSM, which is still fighting the referendum, as are you. The SNP have always said that they would find a way to mitigate at least some of the effects of the tax credit cuts..and that is still the situation today. What will happen once the current Scotland Bill becomes law is another matter altogether.

I ask again..........if they have the powers to mitigate the tax credit cuts now as easily and automatically as you appear to think, why was there any need for an amendment, in a Bill which will not be in force at the time of the tax credit cut anyway, to legally allow them to mitigate tax credit cuts?

I have regurgitated nothing in this thread from Wings, as far as I am aware, I am quite capable of reading figures and coming to my own conclusions.......it seems you are not, because you never provide any figures..and there are, after all, only so many ways of saying that someone is talking through their behind, so it is possible that I may have used some expressions from one of his extensive articles telling anyone who is interested in facts, of the bottom-burping of Westminster politicians and the MSM.

By the way, Rev Stu does not make a "profit" from Wings. He makes a wage, and only makes that because the Wings readers have insisted he does, and they fund it via crowd-funding in order that he can concentrate on the website. I suspect that he takes less of a wage than you would in his place, and less than many journalists who write the articles in the MSM, simply regurgitating Westminster propaganda without bothering to check out the facts. If he was making a profit, he would be keeping all the crowd-funding to himself, wouldn't he....as there is no click through business advertising on the site, which is the way you make profit on the internet. And, by the way, he doesn't have to fire up grievance, the Westminster government does that quite effectively by itself.

I am sure they can and will do something to mitigate the effects, but what that will be will not be clear until we actually know the level of the cuts, if that is reconsidered, and how that will be done has not yet been decided....RAISE TAXATION ?? Suffice it to say that if there is an SNP Government when the tax credit cuts bite, they will do what they can afford to mitigate the effects...........Financial Times : The Scottish National party has committed to trying to make up losses that would be suffered by low-income people under tax credit cuts planned by the UK Conservative government.

[Oddquine]

Now anyone who wants an informed debate should check your posts and the amount of times you accuse various people of being Trolls.

From what I can make out it seems to be your raison d'etre nothing useful to say for yourself just constantly calling people trolls.

I cant honestly say I see an awful lot of people engaging with your posts.

Maybe be you should look up the definition of what a " Troll" actually is and realise your constant off topic inflammatory remarks and personal attacks fit the definition rather more appropriately.

The definition of a troll is fairly clear, but the perception of who is a troll is a personal thing. Nowadays it has more and more come to mean someone who only posts to abuse(although what is abuse is defined by the person who wishes to feel abused, (like the person who got offended when I called the general population of the country "plebs" in a post, although I never did quite understand why that person objected to being included among the common people)

According to WIKI.....In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

According to Urban Dictionary it is.... One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

I am more inclined to define a troll as " someone who starts many threads, on the same subject, with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response". Are people who respond in the ongoing thread, as a result of that deliberate act, with what is perceived by the thread starter, as "abuse" themselves "trolls" or are they just "feeding the troll"who made the original post?

weeker2014 does not meet my criteria of a "troll" but does meet my criteria of someone "feeding the Troll".

On the other hand, since March 2015, someone has started 98 threads, only 6 of which were not specifically on the SNPBAD premise.that is an average of 10 a month! I am inclined to consider that that level of output on one single subject, by someone who ignores responses, does not discuss facts and figures, and simply repeats the same SNPBAD theme in different words is trolling under my definition....and that of WIKI and Urban dictionary. Ergo by any definition you are the troll on here, BT.

If we all stop feeding you, will you go away?

[BetterTogether]

Ah so we now have anyone who criticises the incumbent party in power on a political forum is a Troll. 10 a month or one every 3 days is hardly prolific maybe some are just happy to let the government do as they wish without any accountability or discussion.
I didn't realise we where all supposed to just accept the party political view of one party as the last word not to be discussed.
Considering the amount of personal comments aimed at me no wonder no one else with a differing political view to SNPgood has no real desire to post.

Same old ad hominem remarks, don't attack the policy attack the person.

[rob murray]

BTG why dont you retreat like I did, there's no shame involved if you do your not surrendering, whats the point, you will never ever change a yesser into a maybe or a no voter, insults are thrown around here like confetti.....I will never forget being told on here to sod off south if I didnt like it ( ie the SNP government / indy 2 strategy ) and me with a direct lineage in Caithness traceable to 16 century, that in itself shows the bitter divisions at play across the country and on here.......there is no point, just let them get on with it, let some one else carry the load, sit back and watch the whole scottish political shooting match, unravel into a mess or maybe a success. WHo knows ?

[BetterTogether]

I may just do that let them stew in their own policiital ideology then wail and moan when it all goes pear shaped.

Nice to see the Huntly by election being won by the conservatives right down in Mr Salmonds back yard the turn has begun.

[weezer 316]

The definition of a troll is fairly clear, but the perception of who is a troll is a personal thing. Nowadays it has more and more come to mean someone who only posts to abuse(although what is abuse is defined by the person who wishes to feel abused, (like the person who got offended when I called the general population of the country "plebs" in a post, although I never did quite understand why that person objected to being included among the common people)

According to WIKI.....In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

According to Urban Dictionary it is.... One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

I am more inclined to define a troll as " someone who starts many threads, on the same subject, with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response". Are people who respond in the ongoing thread, as a result of that deliberate act, with what is perceived by the thread starter, as "abuse" themselves "trolls" or are they just "feeding the troll"who made the original post?

weeker2014 does not meet my criteria of a "troll" but does meet my criteria of someone "feeding the Troll".

On the other hand, since March 2015, someone has started 98 threads, only 6 of which were not specifically on the SNPBAD premise.that is an average of 10 a month! I am inclined to consider that that level of output on one single subject, by someone who ignores responses, does not discuss facts and figures, and simply repeats the same SNPBAD theme in different words is trolling under my definition....and that of WIKI and Urban dictionary. Ergo by any definition you are the troll on here, BT.

If we all stop feeding you, will you go away?

Be under no illusions Oddaquine, you are wrong on many levels, least of all your support for the nats and some of your incredibly dodgy maths leading up to the referendum. You are bang on the money here though! Just ignore him, you can always argue with me if you are keen :-) And I always am.

[dc1]

please keep going bt and rob