Can anyone say if

[BCram]

Hi Islay. I think the perhead comparisons are unhelpful. The point, I was trying to tease out was that the block grant to Scotland was more than the amount of tax raised in Scotland. This is the fundamental point for those who think Scotland could easily be a strong independent country. They think that Scotland sends more tax to Westminster than they get back in block grant.
Not giving Scotland money that has been raised in Scotland just seems wrong. It was the reason for the It's Scotlands Oil slogan which was so effective. It was a fact that Scotland would have significant surpluses if the oil revenues were attributed to Scotland. I think this was a simplistic approach because the costs of the infrastructure was not calculated and included against the revenues.

[noahrab]

Hi Islay. I think the perhead comparisons are unhelpful. The point, I was trying to tease out was that the block grant to Scotland was more than the amount of tax raised in Scotland. This is the fundamental point for those who think Scotland could easily be a strong independent country. They think that Scotland sends more tax to Westminster than they get back in block grant.
Not giving Scotland money that has been raised in Scotland just seems wrong. It was the reason for the It's Scotlands Oil slogan which was so effective. It was a fact that Scotland would have significant surpluses if the oil revenues were attributed to Scotland. I think this was a simplistic approach because the costs of the infrastructure was not calculated and included against the revenues.

Its not ‘Scotlands Oil’ though.

Never has been.

[islaydarkblue]

Hi Islay. I think the perhead comparisons are unhelpful. The point, I was trying to tease out was that the block grant to Scotland was more than the amount of tax raised in Scotland. This is the fundamental point for those who think Scotland could easily be a strong independent country. They think that Scotland sends more tax to Westminster than they get back in block grant.
Not giving Scotland money that has been raised in Scotland just seems wrong. It was the reason for the It's Scotlands Oil slogan which was so effective. It was a fact that Scotland would have significant surpluses if the oil revenues were attributed to Scotland. I think this was a simplistic approach because the costs of the infrastructure was not calculated and included against the revenues.

I suggest that you read the latest annual GERS figures which shows that Scotland receives more in funds from the Barnett Formula than it earns in taxation.
It is the taxation on oil retrieved from Scottish waters which would go to the Scottish Government exchequer.
In 2016 Nicola Sturgeon begged the U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the taxation charged on a barrel of oil due to the low price of a barrel of oil at that time to keep oil workers in a job.
It is a pity that Shona Robison does not realise that high income tax imposed by the Scottish Government will drive businesses south of the border into England.
However if the residents of the Orkney and Shetland isles decide not to join an independent Scotland then the Scottish Government has a major problem.
There are large oil terminals in both the Orkney and Shetland isles and they could keep the taxation from every barrel oil piped into their own oil terminals for themselves.
The main oilfields in the North Sea are beginning to run out of oil with the main oilfields now being west of the Shetland isles.
The bulk of the whisky distilleries in Scotland are either foreign or English owned which means that they will not be paying corporation tax to an independent Scottish Government.