CalMac

[BCram]

I enclose the Calmac Ferries Limited annual accounts for the year ending 31st March 2021. https://www.calmac.co.uk/media/7855/...=1654095781973
I suggest that you scroll down to Page 12 of the accounts section where you will read a breakdown of their total income which was
£198,959,000.
This consisted of
Fares and other income £41,758,000
Scottish Government grant. £156,617,000
Management Fees. £484,000
Therefore the income from fares and other income which will probably be sales of meals from the restaurants on the ferries plus purchases in the Mariners Coffee Cabins plus alcoholic drinks from bars on ferries where applicable equates to 20.99%
It is a pity that the enclosed annual accounts did not list the income solely from Fares which would have made it a lot easier to calculate the % of income from fares compared to the total costs of operating the Calmac ferries during their financial year.
£41,758,000 is a minute amount compared to the £41 billion (£41,000,000,000) that the Scottish Government has received from the Westminster Government under the rules of the Barnett Formula in their current financial year.

Thanks Islay. I will try to find out how the Northlink ferries compare.

[BCram]

I enclose the Calmac Ferries Limited annual accounts for the year ending 31st March 2021. https://www.calmac.co.uk/media/7855/...=1654095781973
I suggest that you scroll down to Page 12 of the accounts section where you will read a breakdown of their total income which was
£198,959,000.
This consisted of
Fares and other income £41,758,000
Scottish Government grant. £156,617,000
Management Fees. £484,000
Therefore the income from fares and other income which will probably be sales of meals from the restaurants on the ferries plus purchases in the Mariners Coffee Cabins plus alcoholic drinks from bars on ferries where applicable equates to 20.99%
It is a pity that the enclosed annual accounts did not list the income solely from Fares which would have made it a lot easier to calculate the % of income from fares compared to the total costs of operating the Calmac ferries during their financial year.
£41,758,000 is a minute amount compared to the £41 billion (£41,000,000,000) that the Scottish Government has received from the Westminster Government under the rules of the Barnett Formula in their current financial year.

Can't see any set of accounts. Are they Calmac in disguise?

[grantzer]

As you seem to be an expert on everything I look to you explaining how an independent Scotland is going to replace the current £41 billion it received this year as a result of the rules of the Barnett Formula plus Barnett Consequentials.
This money will be gone and it will have to be replaced by Scottish Government taxation.
The vast majority of the Scotch whisky distilleries are owned by companies who have their Head office in England or a foreign owned. The largest of them are Diageo and their head office is in London.
Diageo will be paying their corporation tax to the Rest of the U.K. Treasury not the Scottish Government Treasury.

Sorry, missed this..... I am going to use an example here, corporation tax is not really my thing,so if I pick an example which is wrong,it's the concept I am backing,not the particular example I use.....

The head office of macdonalds is where? Are they exempt from corporation tax in every other country in the world and only pay it where they have a head office?

The Barnett formula is your goto when you realise you are losing any argument,but let's see if we can sort out a replacement for it now. This will be pretty simple stuff,you should be able to follow it.

Taxation works like this,pretty much everywhere.

Government taxes people,or things. It collects x amount of money. It works out what it needs to run itself,then uses the rest as its pocket money.

The UK government does this( if we exclude the huge amount it borrows).

It does it with Scotland too,using the money from Scotland the same way it uses all its money.

So,Scotland raises x amount, the UK collects that,then the government takes off what it needs to pay for itself. What is left is spending money.

The UK needs some of that,for infrastructure,pensions,army,anything that is shared by each country in the UK,then sends the rest back to Scotland as the barnett formula.

Independence. This means we are a separate nation. We collect taxes the same way, don't send it to the UK, we just keep it here.

Now that sum of money has the amount of £0 going to pay for the UK government. Previously that amount would be more than that.

This would mean Scotland gets more money than now.

Obviously it would have it's own costs for infrastructure and so on,but as we are already paying our share as part of the UK, this amount should be roughly the same.

So if we use the figure of £100 just to keep it simple, £20 currently goes to pay for the UK government, £30 on costs, Scotland gets £50 back. Independent Scotland starts with £100,pays £30 in costs,keeps £70.

£70 is MORE than £50.

Now before anyone jumps down my throat,this is for Islay,so I kept it nice and simple.

And my views on independence have never changed, I don't care either way if it happens or not

[The AuldYin]

Sorry, missed this..... I am going to use an example here, corporation tax is not really my thing,so if I pick an example which is wrong,it's the concept I am backing,not the particular example I use.....

The head office of macdonalds is where? Are they exempt from corporation tax in every other country in the world and only pay it where they have a head office?

The Barnett formula is your goto when you realise you are losing any argument,but let's see if we can sort out a replacement for it now. This will be pretty simple stuff,you should be able to follow it.

Taxation works like this,pretty much everywhere.

Government taxes people,or things. It collects x amount of money. It works out what it needs to run itself,then uses the rest as its pocket money.

The UK government does this( if we exclude the huge amount it borrows).

It does it with Scotland too,using the money from Scotland the same way it uses all its money.

So,Scotland raises x amount, the UK collects that,then the government takes off what it needs to pay for itself. What is left is spending money.

The UK needs some of that,for infrastructure,pensions,army,anything that is shared by each country in the UK,then sends the rest back to Scotland as the barnett formula.

Independence. This means we are a separate nation. We collect taxes the same way, don't send it to the UK, we just keep it here.

Now that sum of money has the amount of £0 going to pay for the UK government. Previously that amount would be more than that.

This would mean Scotland gets more money than now.

Obviously it would have it's own costs for infrastructure and so on,but as we are already paying our share as part of the UK, this amount should be roughly the same.

So if we use the figure of £100 just to keep it simple, £20 currently goes to pay for the UK government, £30 on costs, Scotland gets £50 back. Independent Scotland starts with £100,pays £30 in costs,keeps £70.

£70 is MORE than £50.

Now before anyone jumps down my throat,this is for Islay,so I kept it nice and simple.

And my views on independence have never changed, I don't care either way if it happens or not

You're going on the presumption that Scotland doesn't get more out than it puts in.

[BCram]

Sorry, missed this..... I am going to use an example here, corporation tax is not really my thing,so if I pick an example which is wrong,it's the concept I am backing,not the particular example I use.....

The head office of macdonalds is where? Are they exempt from corporation tax in every other country in the world and only pay it where they have a head office?

The Barnett formula is your goto when you realise you are losing any argument,but let's see if we can sort out a replacement for it now. This will be pretty simple stuff,you should be able to follow it.

Taxation works like this,pretty much everywhere.

Government taxes people,or things. It collects x amount of money. It works out what it needs to run itself,then uses the rest as its pocket money.

The UK government does this( if we exclude the huge amount it borrows).

It does it with Scotland too,using the money from Scotland the same way it uses all its money.

So,Scotland raises x amount, the UK collects that,then the government takes off what it needs to pay for itself. What is left is spending money.

The UK needs some of that,for infrastructure,pensions,army,anything that is shared by each country in the UK,then sends the rest back to Scotland as the barnett formula.

Independence. This means we are a separate nation. We collect taxes the same way, don't send it to the UK, we just keep it here.

Now that sum of money has the amount of £0 going to pay for the UK government. Previously that amount would be more than that.

This would mean Scotland gets more money than now.

Obviously it would have it's own costs for infrastructure and so on,but as we are already paying our share as part of the UK, this amount should be roughly the same.

So if we use the figure of £100 just to keep it simple, £20 currently goes to pay for the UK government, £30 on costs, Scotland gets £50 back. Independent Scotland starts with £100,pays £30 in costs,keeps £70.

£70 is MORE than £50.

Now before anyone jumps down my throat,this is for Islay,so I kept it nice and simple.

And my views on independence have never changed, I don't care either way if it happens or not

My understanding is that the sum of all the taxes raised in Scotland, Vat, income tax, inheritance tax, national insurance both employer's and employee and corporation tax, is less than the amount of money that Holyrood gets by way of direct grant from Westminster. I don't think you are correct in saying that, today, Scotland raises more money in taxes than it gets back from Westminster. Note I said today. When North Sea oil was discovered it became clear that if Scotland could keep the revenue from the oil and gas, then the whole economic argument changed and with a different approach Scotland's Oil, could have been used for the exclusive benefit of Scotland, in the same way that Norway benefits even today. It was a fiddle, a gigantic fiddle, designed to deny the SNP the argument that Scotland should retain all North Sea revenues and unfortunately there is no way to correct that. We are where we are, and I don't think renewable energy sources will generate enough of a surplus to create a similar wealth fund for Scotland. The costs of creating renewable are being paid for by the energy users, and we can all see how paying more for energy takes money away from the individual. Somehow the green energy sources are now going up and up when we know that the cost of the wind is free!
I don't think there is a way for Scotland to become an independent country and be a small s socialist state.

[BCram]

Meant to say thanks to grantzerfor keeping things simple. I am hoping that by making what I hope is an equally simple but different scenario equivalent but different scenario, we might get the answers from independence supporters.

[grantzer]

You're going on the presumption that Scotland doesn't get more out than it puts in.

I look at it simply. If Scotland was taking more out than it put in,why would the tories fight to keep us? Labour I can almost understand, because historically they needed Scottish votes to win an election. The tories don't need our votes,and I am not prepared to believe they care about Scotland,they don't seem to care about England

So it always comes down to money. If we were costing money,they would not fight so hard to keep us. They would cut us loose without a second thought,and tell everyone how great it was for England,same as they would with Wales and NI

[islaydarkblue]

Sorry, missed this..... I am going to use an example here, corporation tax is not really my thing,so if I pick an example which is wrong,it's the concept I am backing,not the particular example I use.....

The head office of macdonalds is where? Are they exempt from corporation tax in every other country in the world and only pay it where they have a head office?

The Barnett formula is your goto when you realise you are losing any argument,but let's see if we can sort out a replacement for it now. This will be pretty simple stuff,you should be able to follow it.

Taxation works like this,pretty much everywhere.

Government taxes people,or things. It collects x amount of money. It works out what it needs to run itself,then uses the rest as its pocket money.

The UK government does this( if we exclude the huge amount it borrows).

It does it with Scotland too,using the money from Scotland the same way it uses all its money.

So,Scotland raises x amount, the UK collects that,then the government takes off what it needs to pay for itself. What is left is spending money.

The UK needs some of that,for infrastructure,pensions,army,anything that is shared by each country in the UK,then sends the rest back to Scotland as the barnett formula.

Independence. This means we are a separate nation. We collect taxes the same way, don't send it to the UK, we just keep it here.

Now that sum of money has the amount of £0 going to pay for the UK government. Previously that amount would be more than that.

This would mean Scotland gets more money than now.

Obviously it would have it's own costs for infrastructure and so on,but as we are already paying our share as part of the UK, this amount should be roughly the same.

So if we use the figure of £100 just to keep it simple, £20 currently goes to pay for the UK government, £30 on costs, Scotland gets £50 back. Independent Scotland starts with £100,pays £30 in costs,keeps £70.

£70 is MORE than £50.

Now before anyone jumps down my throat,this is for Islay,so I kept it nice and simple.

And my views on independence have never changed, I don't care either way if it happens or not

You did not answer my original question.
How is an independent Scotland going to replace the current £41 billion they receive from Westminster under the rules of the Barnett Formula.
I suppose they could use the same creative rules that they currently use for the calculation of the CO2 emissions throughout Scotland. The Scottish Government department responsible ignores the CO2 emissions from one sector to make the Scottish Government look better than the rest of the U.K.

[islaydarkblue]

I look at it simply. If Scotland was taking more out than it put in,why would the tories fight to keep us? Labour I can almost understand, because historically they needed Scottish votes to win an election. The tories don't need our votes,and I am not prepared to believe they care about Scotland,they don't seem to care about England

So it always comes down to money. If we were costing money,they would not fight so hard to keep us. They would cut us loose without a second thought,and tell everyone how great it was for England,same as they would with Wales and NI

I suppose you have never heard of the GERS figures for Scotland compared to the rest of the U.K.
Although they have nothing to do with Rangers Football Club the latest GERS figures for Scotland are just about as bad as when Craig Whyte was in charge at Ibrox.
The Tories want to keep Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland as part of the U.K.
If Tories wanted to remain in power for ever at Westminster they would have jettisoned Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who are all a drain on the finances of the Westminster Government.
People living in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be in a sorry state financially if the people living in England voted to leave the U.K. and become an independent country.
The pro independence supporters in Scotland should be very careful what they are wishing for as people living in England are getting fed up bankrolling the Scots who are continually shouting for independence.

[islaydarkblue]

My understanding is that the sum of all the taxes raised in Scotland, Vat, income tax, inheritance tax, national insurance both employer's and employee and corporation tax, is less than the amount of money that Holyrood gets by way of direct grant from Westminster. I don't think you are correct in saying that, today, Scotland raises more money in taxes than it gets back from Westminster. Note I said today. When North Sea oil was discovered it became clear that if Scotland could keep the revenue from the oil and gas, then the whole economic argument changed and with a different approach Scotland's Oil, could have been used for the exclusive benefit of Scotland, in the same way that Norway benefits even today. It was a fiddle, a gigantic fiddle, designed to deny the SNP the argument that Scotland should retain all North Sea revenues and unfortunately there is no way to correct that. We are where we are, and I don't think renewable energy sources will generate enough of a surplus to create a similar wealth fund for Scotland. The costs of creating renewable are being paid for by the energy users, and we can all see how paying more for energy takes money away from the individual. Somehow the green energy sources are now going up and up when we know that the cost of the wind is free!
I don't think there is a way for Scotland to become an independent country and be a small s socialist state.

The cost of electricity would rise in an independent Scotland as there are far more wind farms per head of population in Scotland compared to England thanks to the SNP controlled Scottish Government’s policy of granting planning permission for large wind farms despite numerous complaints by local residents.
The feed in tariff for all these wind farms are being paid by electricity customers in Scotland, England and Wales.
However in an independent Scotland electricity customers throughout Scotland would be solely responsible for paying cost of the feed in tariff payments through increased electricity bills.
The SNP controlled Scottish Government will not permit the building of new nuclear power stations as renewable electricity from wind farms and solar panels will produce all our electricity.
However they never tell us how many electricity generating power stations have closed down as a result of renewable energy produced throughout Scotland.
Meanwhile Wee Pat wants to shut down all the oil and gas fields in the North Sea.
Wee Pat has gone strangely quiet on this subject since is fellow Commie pal Putin invaded Ukraine and is reducing the flow of Russian gas to the rest of Europe.