I'd find it very easy to vote for Maajid no matter which party he represented. He knows about militant Islamism, because he's been there.
There are quite a lot like him who really understand Islam, what it should be and how perverted Islamism is. And yet it is a supporter of Al Qaeda who gets Baroness Warsi and the Labour Shadow Justice Secretary turning up at a Parliamentary meeting on a "Muslim Manifesto". You may as well call it an Islamist manifesto.
And that is the point: the Islamists want to create the impression that only they speak for Islam and for Muslims. And by giving them space and airtime and credibility twits like Warsi and Slaughter are reinforcing just that and making it more likely that young Muslims will follow the Islamists.
What such fools do is not just stupid. It's dangerous - and to the rest of us, who don't benefit from the special protection afforded to Ministers and MPs.
Which as I said in another post, they may be unable to do.
Declining greatly increased autonomy, which could be imposed anyway, would start to look a bit silly, wouldn't it?
You didn't read my post.
WESTMINSTER may be unable to offer FFA if they know it would look positive for the SNP. Scottish FFA GDP at 110% of rUK GDP would demonstrate that the Unionists have been lying for years.
Of course, that does not follow at all. Just because it is positive in one year does not mean it has always been positive and will always be positive.
GERS - which is basically a "Worst Case" scanario for a Scottish Government, puts Scotland in a better position relative to rUK in every one of the last 33 years except one. And in Fiscal Surplus in every single one of these years except 3.
WESTMINSTER may be unable to offer FFA if they know it would look positive for the SNP. Scottish FFA GDP at 110% of rUK GDP would demonstrate that the Unionists have been lying for years.
I've read so many variations of what Scotland's finances are, it remains to be seen what the truth is.
The next UK government needs to push the boundary as far as it can and see where it leads.
Yes, indeed there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get a proper estimate of actual Scottish GDP, especially major items like VAT and Corporation Tax being skewed by the Head Office effect.
But Westminster *probably* knows the answer. And this would explain why the Tories - with no represenation to lose from Scottish Home Rule - are still reluctant to offer FFA.
There is no constitutional problem with the Tories allowing FFA. Scotland would still be in the Union, the UK would still exist. Logically, the only possible reason is that Westminster has the numbers and they have supressed the reports - just like they did with McCrone for 25 years.
VAT is not a tax that depends on where a head office is situated. You pay VAT at the point of sale and that is where it is collected. When I bought my Samsung TV the UK government got the VAT. It did not get sent to Korea. Likewise, when I buy my bottle of Macallan at Leamington Sainsbury's next Xmas the VAT will stay in the rUK. It will not be shipped to Scotland.
FPT Maajid Nawaz was among those nominated for "Islamophobe of the Year" along with Douglas Murray, UKIP, and Charlie Hebdo. I'm rather pleased to see UKIP in that company.
Given by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), another very interesting organization....and endorsed by another idiot Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
So, following today's polls both of which show an improving position for the Tories, electionforecast.co.uk's latest projection shows the Blue team's lead having increased to 12 seats, i.e. 289 vs 277 seats. Worth a thread here anytime soon ...... nah, thought not!
FPT Maajid Nawaz was among those nominated for "Islamophobe of the Year" along with Douglas Murray, UKIP, and Charlie Hebdo. I'm rather pleased to see UKIP in that company.
Given by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), another very interesting organization....and endorsed by another idiot Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
Islamic Human Rights is a contradiction in terms. It's just a cover for an agenda which seeks to use the "human rights" moniker as a way of exempting Islam and, by extension, Muslims from any criticism whatsoever.
So ignorant are our own so-called human rights activists that they neither truly understand the basis - philosophical, legal, historical, religious, cultural - of human rights as understood in the Western world nor Islam or its culture, philosophy, history.
We have two groups using the same phrase to mean entirely different things - a bit like how the West and Communists used the word "democratic".
Suzanne Evans @SuzanneEvans1 Mar 8 Defend 'European values' with an army, says @JunckerEU. What he means is take over UK army & crush British values of freedom & democracy.
I hear on the Telegraph grapevine that Cammo and Co want to reduce our armed forces (land) to only 50K.
That means that after taking all the support troops out, there will be a maximum of 15K frontline forces, (i,e. Soldiers that actually fight). Tories and the rest of the lab/Libs selling out the country.
If the EU is to have an army, what then for Nato?
Probably they would disband NATO?
But were an EU army to eventually go to war with Russia no doubt the EU would lose and the US would ultimately be forced to come in and rescue us, LOL!
Do the EU member states even have what would constitute an army? Russia would roll right through Europe as it currently stands. The only country who could possibly save them is America. The EU need to stop kidding themselves that they keep world peace and realise it is America who have largely kept Europe stable since WW2.
I don't think that the EU believe that they keep world (or even local) peace. How could they?
After all the most recent war to start is the one the EU caused between Russia and Ukraine.
FPT Maajid Nawaz was among those nominated for "Islamophobe of the Year" along with Douglas Murray, UKIP, and Charlie Hebdo. I'm rather pleased to see UKIP in that company.
Given by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), another very interesting organization....and endorsed by another idiot Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
Islamic Human Rights is a contradiction in terms. It's just a cover for an agenda which seeks to use the "human rights" moniker as a way of exempting Islam and, by extension, Muslims from any criticism whatsoever.
So ignorant are our own so-called human rights activists that they neither truly understand the basis - philosophical, legal, historical, religious, cultural - of human rights as understood in the Western world nor Islam or its culture, philosophy, history.
We have two groups using the same phrase to mean entirely different things - a bit like how the West and Communists used the word "democratic".
It's similar to the way the NCCL operated in the 1930s.
WESTMINSTER may be unable to offer FFA if they know it would look positive for the SNP. Scottish FFA GDP at 110% of rUK GDP would demonstrate that the Unionists have been lying for years.
I've read so many variations of what Scotland's finances are, it remains to be seen what the truth is.
The next UK government needs to push the boundary as far as it can and see where it leads.
Yes, indeed there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get a proper estimate of actual Scottish GDP, especially major items like VAT and Corporation Tax being skewed by the Head Office effect.
But Westminster *probably* knows the answer. And this would explain why the Tories - with no represenation to lose from Scottish Home Rule - are still reluctant to offer FFA.
There is no constitutional problem with the Tories allowing FFA. Scotland would still be in the Union, the UK would still exist. Logically, the only possible reason is that Westminster has the numbers and they have supressed the reports - just like they did with McCrone for 25 years.
VAT is not a tax that depends on where a head office is situated. You pay VAT at the point of sale and that is where it is collected. When I bought my Samsung TV the UK government got the VAT. It did not get sent to Korea. Likewise, when I buy my bottle of Macallan at Leamington Sainsbury's next Xmas the VAT will stay in the rUK. It will not be shipped to Scotland.
VAT/Sales tax is a Value Added Tax. As such it applies at national borders. When you sell a TV at Tesco in Silverburn Glasgow, it is booked by Tesco's head office in Hertfordshire and is recorded by the UK accounts as revenue by South East Region.
But as it is an added value tax, where it crosses a tax border a portion of that Value Added Tax is retained in the original jurisdiction.
For example, with an Internal Border (or national border post indy), the VAT paid by your Sainsbury's is not 20%, it is 20% less whatever percentage applied to the Scotch in the originating jurisdiction. In this case, 20% of the Wholesale price from Erdington's Scottish operation.
This is basic stuff, I'm surprised it needs explained.
FPT Maajid Nawaz was among those nominated for "Islamophobe of the Year" along with Douglas Murray, UKIP, and Charlie Hebdo. I'm rather pleased to see UKIP in that company.
Given by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), another very interesting organization....and endorsed by another idiot Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
And, by Peter Oborne.
The fact that Oborne did not like the way banks closed down Cage's bank accounts (and well before the latest furore) is relevant to his criticism of the Telegraph's coverage of HSBC. It wasn't just the tax avoidance/evasion story he was concerned about. He didn't like how HSBC treated organisations such as Cage though on this, at least, they had a rather better moral compass than Amnesty or Oborne himself.
FPT Maajid Nawaz was among those nominated for "Islamophobe of the Year" along with Douglas Murray, UKIP, and Charlie Hebdo. I'm rather pleased to see UKIP in that company.
Given by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), another very interesting organization....and endorsed by another idiot Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
And, by Peter Oborne.
The fact that Oborne did not like the way banks closed down Cage's bank accounts (and well before the latest furore) is relevant to his criticism of the Telegraph's coverage of HSBC. It wasn't just the tax avoidance/evasion story he was concerned about. He didn't like how HSBC treated organisations such as Cage though on this, at least, they had a rather better moral compass than Amnesty or Oborne himself.
What is it that makes Oborne an ally of Islamists?
Great move by Greece.. If the EU doesn't give em what they want then they will issue EU passports to anyone who asks for one..Takes the pressure off Lampadusa I suppose
It's a shoddy underhand despicable and low trick by the Greeks.
Giving out free passports to any random passing immigrant who wants shiny travel documents, a house and benefits is a proud British tradition.
FPT Maajid Nawaz was among those nominated for "Islamophobe of the Year" along with Douglas Murray, UKIP, and Charlie Hebdo. I'm rather pleased to see UKIP in that company.
Given by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), another very interesting organization....and endorsed by another idiot Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
Islamic Human Rights is a contradiction in terms. It's just a cover for an agenda which seeks to use the "human rights" moniker as a way of exempting Islam and, by extension, Muslims from any criticism whatsoever.
So ignorant are our own so-called human rights activists that they neither truly understand the basis - philosophical, legal, historical, religious, cultural - of human rights as understood in the Western world nor Islam or its culture, philosophy, history.
We have two groups using the same phrase to mean entirely different things - a bit like how the West and Communists used the word "democratic".
It's similar to the way the NCCL operated in the 1930s.
A number of these Islamist groups do derive ideological sustenance from the 1930's - and not in a good way, alas. They are the intellectual - if that's not too kind a word - descendants of the anti- liberal groupings which led the world to disaster from the inter-war decades onwards.
Did you find it baffling when William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard made it?
I thought it was folly back then, and it's folly now.
Fair enough. I'm not terribly keen on it myself, for exactly the same reason that I'm not keen on a 2% defence spending commitment: I don't like arbitrary spending targets.
2% isn't an arbitrary spending target in the same way that 0.7% is, though. We've signed up to 2% as part of our NATO commitment so it's much more concrete.
FPT Maajid Nawaz was among those nominated for "Islamophobe of the Year" along with Douglas Murray, UKIP, and Charlie Hebdo. I'm rather pleased to see UKIP in that company.
Given by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), another very interesting organization....and endorsed by another idiot Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
And, by Peter Oborne.
The fact that Oborne did not like the way banks closed down Cage's bank accounts (and well before the latest furore) is relevant to his criticism of the Telegraph's coverage of HSBC. It wasn't just the tax avoidance/evasion story he was concerned about. He didn't like how HSBC treated organisations such as Cage though on this, at least, they had a rather better moral compass than Amnesty or Oborne himself.
What is it that makes Oborne an ally of Islamists?
Who knows? He probably thinks they are bravely challenging the liberal establishment like him, that by supporting these unloved people doing a worthwhile job he's a latter-day George Orwell speaking up before it is popular and will be proved right in the end.
Instead, he's more like George Bernard Shaw: a self-important old windbag who's been taken for a fool by real hard men. A "useful idiot" in Lenin's phrase.
WESTMINSTER may be unable to offer FFA if they know it would look positive for the SNP. Scottish FFA GDP at 110% of rUK GDP would demonstrate that the Unionists have been lying for years.
I've read so many variations of what Scotland's finances are, it remains to be seen what the truth is.
The next UK government needs to push the boundary as far as it can and see where it leads.
Yes, indeed there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get a proper estimate of actual Scottish GDP, especially major items like VAT and Corporation Tax being skewed by the Head Office effect.
But Westminster *probably* knows the answer. And this would explain why the Tories - with no represenation to lose from Scottish Home Rule - are still reluctant to offer FFA.
There is no constitutional problem with the Tories allowing FFA. Scotland would still be in the Union, the UK would still exist. Logically, the only possible reason is that Westminster has the numbers and they have supressed the reports - just like they did with McCrone for 25 years.
Yes, logically, that is the only possible reason...
Great move by Greece.. If the EU doesn't give em what they want then they will issue EU passports to anyone who asks for one..Takes the pressure off Lampadusa I suppose
What a stupidly dangerous policy given the presence of IS barely 300 miles away. The EU should tell the Greeks that in that case they will need to suspend free movement for anyone with a Greek passport.
Better still, eject Greece from the EU. They would still owe zillions of Euros.
FPT Maajid Nawaz was among those nominated for "Islamophobe of the Year" along with Douglas Murray, UKIP, and Charlie Hebdo. I'm rather pleased to see UKIP in that company.
Given by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), another very interesting organization....and endorsed by another idiot Dr Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
And, by Peter Oborne.
Oborne is generally a very strange and erratic person...
WESTMINSTER may be unable to offer FFA if they know it would look positive for the SNP. Scottish FFA GDP at 110% of rUK GDP would demonstrate that the Unionists have been lying for years.
I've read so many variations of what Scotland's finances are, it remains to be seen what the truth is.
The next UK government needs to push the boundary as far as it can and see where it leads.
Yes, indeed there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get a proper estimate of actual Scottish GDP, especially major items like VAT and Corporation Tax being skewed by the Head Office effect.
But Westminster *probably* knows the answer. And this would explain why the Tories - with no represenation to lose from Scottish Home Rule - are still reluctant to offer FFA.
There is no constitutional problem with the Tories allowing FFA. Scotland would still be in the Union, the UK would still exist. Logically, the only possible reason is that Westminster has the numbers and they have supressed the reports - just like they did with McCrone for 25 years.
VAT is not a tax that depends on where a head office is situated. You pay VAT at the point of sale and that is where it is collected. When I bought my Samsung TV the UK government got the VAT. It did not get sent to Korea. Likewise, when I buy my bottle of Macallan at Leamington Sainsbury's next Xmas the VAT will stay in the rUK. It will not be shipped to Scotland.
VAT/Sales tax is a Value Added Tax. As such it applies at national borders. When you sell a TV at Tesco in Silverburn Glasgow, it is booked by Tesco's head office in Hertfordshire and is recorded by the UK accounts as revenue by South East Region.
But as it is an added value tax, where it crosses a tax border a portion of that Value Added Tax is retained in the original jurisdiction.
For example, with an Internal Border (or national border post indy), the VAT paid by your Sainsbury's is not 20%, it is 20% less whatever percentage applied to the Scotch in the originating jurisdiction. In this case, 20% of the Wholesale price from Erdington's Scottish operation.
This is basic stuff, I'm surprised it needs explained.
Sainsbury's does not pay the VAT, I do. Sainsbury's collects it and passes it on to the government. In a post-independence scenario all the VAT paid in England on any Scottish product would remain in England. Likewise, any VAT paid on an English product in Scotland would stay in Scotland. None of the VAT I paid on my Samsung TV ended up in Korea.
However, it was less than a month that Nate Cohn was using just the top half of this graph to 'prove' that Hillary was the surest thing since sliced bread! Compare, contrast, and laugh!
Suzanne Evans @SuzanneEvans1 Mar 8 Defend 'European values' with an army, says @JunckerEU. What he means is take over UK army & crush British values of freedom & democracy.
I hear on the Telegraph grapevine that Cammo and Co want to reduce our armed forces (land) to only 50K.
That means that after taking all the support troops out, there will be a maximum of 15K frontline forces, (i,e. Soldiers that actually fight). Tories and the rest of the lab/Libs selling out the country.
If the EU is to have an army, what then for Nato?
Probably they would disband NATO?
But were an EU army to eventually go to war with Russia no doubt the EU would lose and the US would ultimately be forced to come in and rescue us, LOL!
Do the EU member states even have what would constitute an army? Russia would roll right through Europe as it currently stands. The only country who could possibly save them is America. The EU need to stop kidding themselves that they keep world peace and realise it is America who have largely kept Europe stable since WW2.
I don't think that the EU believe that they keep world (or even local) peace. How could they?
After all the most recent war to start is the one the EU caused between Russia and Ukraine.
Given NATO, therefore the US, was responsible for starting the conflicts in Georgia and the Ukraine I expect an EU army might be a way in which NATO can be quietly dispensed with. Of course NATO is some way intertwined with the EU but this can be unwound. Not before time, NATO exists solely to perpetuate itself and US domination of Europe.
Not before time, NATO exists solely to perpetuate itself and US domination of Europe.
I'm rather keen on that as the alternatives are a Europe dominated by the Russians or, worse still, dominated by the EU. But I assume that you think that US influence is a bad thing for some reason?
Not before time, NATO exists solely to perpetuate itself and US domination of Europe.
I'm rather keen on that as the alternatives are a Europe dominated by the Russians or, worse still, dominated by the EU. But I assume that you think that US influence is a bad thing for some reason?
You'd rather be dominated by the Russians than the EU? Seriously?
Not before time, NATO exists solely to perpetuate itself and US domination of Europe.
I'm rather keen on that as the alternatives are a Europe dominated by the Russians or, worse still, dominated by the EU. But I assume that you think that US influence is a bad thing for some reason?
I am rather keen on not being dominated by anyone, and certainly not by the likes of the people in Washington DC, Hollywood and Wall Street.
VAT/Sales tax is a Value Added Tax. As such it applies at national borders. When you sell a TV at Tesco in Silverburn Glasgow, it is booked by Tesco's head office in Hertfordshire and is recorded by the UK accounts as revenue by South East Region.
But as it is an added value tax, where it crosses a tax border a portion of that Value Added Tax is retained in the original jurisdiction.
For example, with an Internal Border (or national border post indy), the VAT paid by your Sainsbury's is not 20%, it is 20% less whatever percentage applied to the Scotch in the originating jurisdiction. In this case, 20% of the Wholesale price from Erdington's Scottish operation.
This is basic stuff, I'm surprised it needs explained.
Sainsbury's does not pay the VAT, I do. Sainsbury's collects it and passes it on to the government. In a post-independence scenario all the VAT paid in England on any Scottish product would remain in England. Likewise, any VAT paid on an English product in Scotland would stay in Scotland. None of the VAT I paid on my Samsung TV ended up in Korea.
Let me be clear again.
You do not Understand AT ALL how Ad Valorem taxation works.
The VAT Sainsbury's collects for the Revenue is a NET FIGURE. VAT applied to Goods Sold MINUS VAT paid on Goods Purchased.
The vast majority of Imported goods have some element of VAT included (depending on the trade agreement - in the case of the EU it's pretty similar to what we pay in the UK, IIRC the lowest rates are about 15%). This is the basis of why Carousel Fraud works.
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers. In the case of an Independent Scotland, in the most likely scenario with both nations being in the UK, it would be EXACTLY the same (until applicable VAT rates changed).
Suzanne Evans @SuzanneEvans1 Mar 8 Defend 'European values' with an army, says @JunckerEU. What he means is take over UK army & crush British values of freedom & democracy.
I hear on the Telegraph grapevine that Cammo and Co want to reduce our armed forces (land) to only 50K.
That means that after taking all the support troops out, there will be a maximum of 15K frontline forces, (i,e. Soldiers that actually fight). Tories and the rest of the lab/Libs selling out the country.
If the EU is to have an army, what then for Nato?
Probably they would disband NATO?
But were an EU army to eventually go to war with Russia no doubt the EU would lose and the US would ultimately be forced to come in and rescue us, LOL!
Do the EU member states even have what would constitute an army? Russia would roll right through Europe as it currently stands. The only country who could possibly save them is America. The EU need to stop kidding themselves that they keep world peace and realise it is America who have largely kept Europe stable since WW2.
I don't think that the EU believe that they keep world (or even local) peace. How could they?
After all the most recent war to start is the one the EU caused between Russia and Ukraine.
Given NATO, therefore the US, was responsible for starting the conflicts in Georgia and the Ukraine I expect an EU army might be a way in which NATO can be quietly dispensed with. Of course NATO is some way intertwined with the EU but this can be unwound. Not before time, NATO exists solely to perpetuate itself and US domination of Europe.
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers. In the case of an Independent Scotland, in the most likely scenario with both nations being in the UK, it would be EXACTLY the same (until applicable VAT rates changed).
Bit like all the tax paid by a driver in Dunfermline on a new car made in Sunderland.
Suzanne Evans @SuzanneEvans1 Mar 8 Defend 'European values' with an army, says @JunckerEU. What he means is take over UK army & crush British values of freedom & democracy.
I hear on the Telegraph grapevine that Cammo and Co want to reduce our armed forces (land) to only 50K.
That means that after taking all the support troops out, there will be a maximum of 15K frontline forces, (i,e. Soldiers that actually fight). Tories and the rest of the lab/Libs selling out the country.
If the EU is to have an army, what then for Nato?
Probably they would disband NATO?
But were an EU army to eventually go to war with Russia no doubt the EU would lose and the US would ultimately be forced to come in and rescue us, LOL!
Do the EU member states even have what would constitute an army? Russia would roll right through Europe as it currently stands. The only country who could possibly save them is America. The EU need to stop kidding themselves that they keep world peace and realise it is America who have largely kept Europe stable since WW2.
I don't think that the EU believe that they keep world (or even local) peace. How could they?
After all the most recent war to start is the one the EU caused between Russia and Ukraine.
Given NATO, therefore the US, was responsible for starting the conflicts in Georgia and the Ukraine I expect an EU army might be a way in which NATO can be quietly dispensed with. Of course NATO is some way intertwined with the EU but this can be unwound. Not before time, NATO exists solely to perpetuate itself and US domination of Europe.
Bets against Jim Murphy might be much more attractive than people think.
From James Kelly's site : - "3) The Greens received 3% of the vote in the poll, and yet someone who attended the Greens' spring conference emailed me today to say that they'd heard the party won't be standing in East Renfrewshire."
This on top of the 2010 weighting and Spiral of Silence. I think Jim is in a lot of trouble. The leader of Labour Branch in Scotland must be a sitting parliamentarian (MEP, MP or MSP). He will be none of those.
Is that last actually true or does it apply only to the *election* [edit: of SLAB leader]? My impression in any case is that the rule book can be changed pdq (and has already been in terms of, IIRC, publishing/not publishing actual numbers of votes in the SLAB leadership election).
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers. In the case of an Independent Scotland, in the most likely scenario with both nations being in the UK, it would be EXACTLY the same (until applicable VAT rates changed).
Bit like all the tax paid by a driver in Dunfermline on a new car made in Sunderland.
This is currently booked (mainly as there will be the dealership margin VAT) as non Scottish Revenue (where is Nissan's UK head office btw, it could well end up as London Revenue).
Just checked it's HQ is Sunderland, so NE Revenue.
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers. In the case of an Independent Scotland, in the most likely scenario with both nations being in the UK, it would be EXACTLY the same (until applicable VAT rates changed).
Bit like all the tax paid by a driver in Dunfermline on a new car made in Sunderland.
This is currently booked (mainly as there will be the dealership margin VAT) as non Scottish Revenue (where is Nissan's UK head office btw, it could well end up as London Revenue).
There is the comparable case of the Harris Tweed industry, studied in a minor classic of a blog entry at indyref time. Because it happens to leave the UK through East Midland Airport, it is treated as an English export, whereas by definition it is in fact the product of a strictly limited part of Scotland.
Bets against Jim Murphy might be much more attractive than people think.
From James Kelly's site : - "3) The Greens received 3% of the vote in the poll, and yet someone who attended the Greens' spring conference emailed me today to say that they'd heard the party won't be standing in East Renfrewshire."
This on top of the 2010 weighting and Spiral of Silence. I think Jim is in a lot of trouble. The leader of Labour Branch in Scotland must be a sitting parliamentarian (MEP, MP or MSP). He will be none of those.
Is that last actually true or does it apply only to the *election* [edit: of SLAB leader]? My impression in any case is that the rule book can be changed pdq (and has already been in terms of, IIRC, publishing/not publishing actual numbers of votes in the SLAB leadership election).
I have no idea how the mechanism works, it may be the resignationn is "expected". It's all overseen by the NEC of Labour (UK) in any case as Scottish Labour does not exist as an administrative unit (only an accounting one).
This is currently booked (mainly as there will be the dealership margin VAT) as non Scottish Revenue (where is Nissan's UK head office btw, it could well end up as London Revenue).
Just checked it's HQ is Sunderland, so NE Revenue.
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers. In the case of an Independent Scotland, in the most likely scenario with both nations being in the UK, it would be EXACTLY the same (until applicable VAT rates changed).
Bit like all the tax paid by a driver in Dunfermline on a new car made in Sunderland.
This is currently booked (mainly as there will be the dealership margin VAT) as non Scottish Revenue (where is Nissan's UK head office btw, it could well end up as London Revenue).
There is the comparable case of the Harris Tweed industry, studied in a minor classic of a blog entry at indyref time. Because it happens to leave the UK through East Midland Airport, it is treated as an English export, whereas by definition it is in fact the product of a strictly limited part of Scotland.
When you look at all the areas where Scottish "Revenue" is not recorded by the UK Government (or GERS) as Scottish but in other parts of the UK, there is good reason to be certain this is why Westminster refuse to offer FFA.
Which was my original point earlier in the thread before Southam Observer demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of Ad Valorem taxes.
VAT/Sales tax is a Value Added Tax. As such it applies at national borders. When you sell a TV at Tesco in Silverburn Glasgow, it is booked by Tesco's head office in Hertfordshire and is recorded by the UK accounts as revenue by South East Region.
But as it is an added value tax, where it crosses a tax border a portion of that Value Added Tax is retained in the original jurisdiction.
For example, with an Internal Border (or national border post indy), the VAT paid by your Sainsbury's is not 20%, it is 20% less whatever percentage applied to the Scotch in the originating jurisdiction. In this case, 20% of the Wholesale price from Erdington's Scottish operation.
This is basic stuff, I'm surprised it needs explained.
Sainsbury's does not pay the VAT, I do. Sainsbury's collects it and passes it on to the government. In a post-independence scenario all the VAT paid in England on any Scottish product would remain in England. Likewise, any VAT paid on an English product in Scotland would stay in Scotland. None of the VAT I paid on my Samsung TV ended up in Korea.
Let me be clear again.
You do not Understand AT ALL how Ad Valorem taxation works.
The VAT Sainsbury's collects for the Revenue is a NET FIGURE. VAT applied to Goods Sold MINUS VAT paid on Goods Purchased.
The vast majority of Imported goods have some element of VAT included (depending on the trade agreement - in the case of the EU it's pretty similar to what we pay in the UK, IIRC the lowest rates are about 15%). This is the basis of why Carousel Fraud works.
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers. In the case of an Independent Scotland, in the most likely scenario with both nations being in the UK, it would be EXACTLY the same (until applicable VAT rates changed).
A VAT registered business claims the VAT it itself has paid back from the govt. The end payment comes from the end customer who is not VAT registered. That payment is made in the jurisdiction of the end customer. A non registered business cannot reclaim any VAT back and so must pass any payment it incurs on to its customers.
''A VAT-registered UK business does not need to charge VAT on goods it is sending to Germany, provided it keeps documentary proof of export. It must also obtain the German customer’s MwSt registration number and show it on the invoice '' ''A VAT-registered UK business importing goods from Germany should give the German supplier its UK VAT registration number (including the GB prefix) so that German MwSt does not get charged.'' http://www.brighton-accountants.com/blog/vat-uk-germany/
VAT/Sales tax is a Value Added Tax. As such it applies at national borders. When you sell a TV at Tesco in Silverburn Glasgow, it is booked by Tesco's head office in Hertfordshire and is recorded by the UK accounts as revenue by South East Region.
But as it is an added value tax, where it crosses a tax border a portion of that Value Added Tax is retained in the original jurisdiction.
For example, with an Internal Border (or national border post indy), the VAT paid by your Sainsbury's is not 20%, it is 20% less whatever percentage applied to the Scotch in the originating jurisdiction. In this case, 20% of the Wholesale price from Erdington's Scottish operation.
This is basic stuff, I'm surprised it needs explained.
Sainsbury's does not pay the VAT, I do. Sainsbury's collects it and passes it on to the government. In a post-independence scenario all the VAT paid in England on any Scottish product would remain in England. Likewise, any VAT paid on an English product in Scotland would stay in Scotland. None of the VAT I paid on my Samsung TV ended up in Korea.
Let me be clear again.
You do not Understand AT ALL how Ad Valorem taxation works.
The VAT Sainsbury's collects for the Revenue is a NET FIGURE. VAT applied to Goods Sold MINUS VAT paid on Goods Purchased.
The vast majority of Imported goods have some element of VAT included (depending on the trade agreement - in the case of the EU it's pretty similar to what we pay in the UK, IIRC the lowest rates are about 15%). This is the basis of why Carousel Fraud works.
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers. In the case of an Independent Scotland, in the most likely scenario with both nations being in the UK, it would be EXACTLY the same (until applicable VAT rates changed).
Yes. And the only net payer of VAT is the end consumer. Me. In Leamington. And the money I pay will get sent to the rUK exchequer once Sainsbury's has adjusted for its outgoing VAT payments. There is no redistribution of VAT payments to foreign governments.
When you look at all the areas where Scottish "Revenue" is not recorded by the UK Government (or GERS) as Scottish but in other parts of the UK, there is good reason to be certain this is why Westminster refuse to offer FFA.
Alternatively, every business is telling the government they want to do one set of admin and deal with one tax authority.
Full autonomy will involve dealing with more than one, and some businesses may decide that they would rather pass, and potentially relocate, than deal with more than one.
That said, it's the direction the electorate is pushing everyone towards and the government should respect that, organise accordingly and let the market do it's thing and have another election in 2020 that deals with the repercussions.
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers. In the case of an Independent Scotland, in the most likely scenario with both nations being in the UK, it would be EXACTLY the same (until applicable VAT rates changed).
Bit like all the tax paid by a driver in Dunfermline on a new car made in Sunderland.
This is currently booked (mainly as there will be the dealership margin VAT) as non Scottish Revenue (where is Nissan's UK head office btw, it could well end up as London Revenue).
There is the comparable case of the Harris Tweed industry, studied in a minor classic of a blog entry at indyref time. Because it happens to leave the UK through East Midland Airport, it is treated as an English export, whereas by definition it is in fact the product of a strictly limited part of Scotland.
When you look at all the areas where Scottish "Revenue" is not recorded by the UK Government (or GERS) as Scottish but in other parts of the UK, there is good reason to be certain this is why Westminster refuse to offer FFA.
Which was my original point earlier in the thread before Southam Observer demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of Ad Valorem taxes.
Paranoia and innumeracy, well at least that explains why you can't expalin where the money's coming from.
LIES LIES LIES ( just saving you the bother of replying ) LIES
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers. In the case of an Independent Scotland, in the most likely scenario with both nations being in the UK, it would be EXACTLY the same (until applicable VAT rates changed).
Bit like all the tax paid by a driver in Dunfermline on a new car made in Sunderland.
This is currently booked (mainly as there will be the dealership margin VAT) as non Scottish Revenue (where is Nissan's UK head office btw, it could well end up as London Revenue).
There is the comparable case of the Harris Tweed industry, studied in a minor classic of a blog entry at indyref time. Because it happens to leave the UK through East Midland Airport, it is treated as an English export, whereas by definition it is in fact the product of a strictly limited part of Scotland.
That has absolutely nothing to do with VAT though. Or Corporation tax, for that matter.
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers.
No it really wouldn't, unless 50% of trade was in Scotland. Which it isn't. And never will be.
More fantasy economics from the SNP. Can you get a qualification in Swinney Maths from Scottish universities these days? (free for Scottish students of course...)
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers.
No it really wouldn't, unless 50% of trade was in Scotland. Which it isn't. And never will be.
More fantasy economics from the SNP. Can you get a qualification in Swinney Maths from Scottish universities these days? (free for Scottish students of course...)
I hope Dair has never been responsible for VAT or Corporation tax payments.
Suzanne Evans @SuzanneEvans1 Mar 8 Defend 'European values' with an army, says @JunckerEU. What he means is take over UK army & crush British values of freedom & democracy.
I hear on the Telegraph grapevine that Cammo and Co want to reduce our armed forces (land) to only 50K.
That means that after taking all the support troops out, there will be a maximum of 15K frontline forces, (i,e. Soldiers that actually fight). Tories and the rest of the lab/Libs selling out the country.
If the EU is to have an army, what then for Nato?
Probably they would disband NATO?
But were an EU army to eventually go to war with Russia no doubt the EU would lose and the US would ultimately be forced to come in and rescue us, LOL!
Do the EU member states even have what would constitute an army? Russia would roll right through Europe as it currently stands. The only country who could possibly save them is America. The EU need to stop kidding themselves that they keep world peace and realise it is America who have largely kept Europe stable since WW2.
I don't think that the EU believe that they keep world (or even local) peace. How could they?
After all the most recent war to start is the one the EU caused between Russia and Ukraine.
Given NATO, therefore the US, was responsible for starting the conflicts in Georgia and the Ukraine I expect an EU army might be a way in which NATO can be quietly dispensed with. Of course NATO is some way intertwined with the EU but this can be unwound. Not before time, NATO exists solely to perpetuate itself and US domination of Europe.
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers. In the case of an Independent Scotland, in the most likely scenario with both nations being in the UK, it would be EXACTLY the same (until applicable VAT rates changed).
Bit like all the tax paid by a driver in Dunfermline on a new car made in Sunderland.
This is currently booked (mainly as there will be the dealership margin VAT) as non Scottish Revenue (where is Nissan's UK head office btw, it could well end up as London Revenue).
There is the comparable case of the Harris Tweed industry, studied in a minor classic of a blog entry at indyref time. Because it happens to leave the UK through East Midland Airport, it is treated as an English export, whereas by definition it is in fact the product of a strictly limited part of Scotland.
Yes, it called the " Rotterdam effect ", it's why UK dependency on EU trade is a lot less than reported we export a lot to other countries via Rotterdam.
A similar issue is mine and many other business pay their taxes to Cumbernauld, if I pay them in rUK there are going to be a lot of unemployed people in the Cumbernauld tax office.
My last post has been erased. The PB gestapo are at work again.
MikeK. Anyone who impugns the integrity of any pollster will have their comments deleted, repeated infractions will lead to your ability to instantly publish revoked.
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers.
No it really wouldn't, unless 50% of trade was in Scotland. Which it isn't. And never will be.
More fantasy economics from the SNP. Can you get a qualification in Swinney Maths from Scottish universities these days? (free for Scottish students of course...)
The EU recognises the value added at each stage of the production chain. That it uses a mechanism to limit the amount of transfers required, does not change what each individual jurisdiction gains from production and VAT.
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers. In the case of an Independent Scotland, in the most likely scenario with both nations being in the UK, it would be EXACTLY the same (until applicable VAT rates changed).
Bit like all the tax paid by a driver in Dunfermline on a new car made in Sunderland.
This is currently booked (mainly as there will be the dealership margin VAT) as non Scottish Revenue (where is Nissan's UK head office btw, it could well end up as London Revenue).
There is the comparable case of the Harris Tweed industry, studied in a minor classic of a blog entry at indyref time. Because it happens to leave the UK through East Midland Airport, it is treated as an English export, whereas by definition it is in fact the product of a strictly limited part of Scotland.
Yes, it called the " Rotterdam effect ", it's why UK dependency on EU trade is a lot less than reported we export a lot to other countries via Rotterdam.
A similar issue is mine and many other business pay their taxes to Cumbernauld, if I pay them in rUK there are going to be a lot of unemployed people in the Cumbernauld tax office.
Or the Cumbernauld office would redeploy to take on responsibilities for Scottish taxpayers and businesses currently handled at other sites around the rUK.
Suzanne Evans @SuzanneEvans1 Mar 8 Defend 'European values' with an army, says @JunckerEU. What he means is take over UK army & crush British values of freedom & democracy.
I hear on the Telegraph grapevine that Cammo and Co want to reduce our armed forces (land) to only 50K.
That means that after taking all the support troops out, there will be a maximum of 15K frontline forces, (i,e. Soldiers that actually fight). Tories and the rest of the lab/Libs selling out the country.
If the EU is to have an army, what then for Nato?
Probably they would disband NATO?
But were an EU army to eventually go to war with Russia no doubt the EU would lose and the US would ultimately be forced to come in and rescue us, LOL!
Do the EU member states even have what would constitute an army? Russia would roll right through Europe as it currently stands. The only country who could possibly save them is America. The EU need to stop kidding themselves that they keep world peace and realise it is America who have largely kept Europe stable since WW2.
I don't think that the EU believe that they keep world (or even local) peace. How could they?
After all the most recent war to start is the one the EU caused between Russia and Ukraine.
Given NATO, therefore the US, was responsible for starting the conflicts in Georgia and the Ukraine I expect an EU army might be a way in which NATO can be quietly dispensed with. Of course NATO is some way intertwined with the EU but this can be unwound. Not before time, NATO exists solely to perpetuate itself and US domination of Europe.
You should apply for a job with "Russia Today".
As crime correspondent.
I prefer not to pal around with the likes of Boris Berezovsky or Mikhail Khordorkovsky, unlike our current establishment.
The EU recognises the value added at each stage of the production chain. That it uses a mechanism to limit the amount of transfers required, does not change what each individual jurisdiction gains from production and VAT.
No.
VAT is a consumption tax, paid uniquely and exclusively by consumers.
Not before time, NATO exists solely to perpetuate itself and US domination of Europe.
I'm rather keen on that as the alternatives are a Europe dominated by the Russians or, worse still, dominated by the EU. But I assume that you think that US influence is a bad thing for some reason?
You'd rather be dominated by the Russians than the EU? Seriously?
I detest both of them as ideologies but the Russians don't pretend to be on your side. The EU and the Russians are both our enemies but at least the Russians stab you in the front.
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers. In the case of an Independent Scotland, in the most likely scenario with both nations being in the UK, it would be EXACTLY the same (until applicable VAT rates changed).
Bit like all the tax paid by a driver in Dunfermline on a new car made in Sunderland.
This is currently booked (mainly as there will be the dealership margin VAT) as non Scottish Revenue (where is Nissan's UK head office btw, it could well end up as London Revenue).
There is the comparable case of the Harris Tweed industry, studied in a minor classic of a blog entry at indyref time. Because it happens to leave the UK through East Midland Airport, it is treated as an English export, whereas by definition it is in fact the product of a strictly limited part of Scotland.
Yes, it called the " Rotterdam effect ", it's why UK dependency on EU trade is a lot less than reported we export a lot to other countries via Rotterdam.
A similar issue is mine and many other business pay their taxes to Cumbernauld, if I pay them in rUK there are going to be a lot of unemployed people in the Cumbernauld tax office.
Or the Cumbernauld office would redeploy to take on responsibilities for Scottish taxpayers and businesses currently handled at other sites around the rUK.
Not enough for them to do, they have more customers down South than they do in Scotland.
The EU recognises the value added at each stage of the production chain. That it uses a mechanism to limit the amount of transfers required, does not change what each individual jurisdiction gains from production and VAT.
No.
VAT is a consumption tax, paid uniquely and exclusively by consumers.
All taxes are paid by individuals as all taxes are passed on. Your statement is deliberately disingenuous.
Every business at every stage of the process must fully account for the VAT liabilities at their own stage of production. Hence why it is called "Value Added" Tax.
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers. In the case of an Independent Scotland, in the most likely scenario with both nations being in the UK, it would be EXACTLY the same (until applicable VAT rates changed).
Bit like all the tax paid by a driver in Dunfermline on a new car made in Sunderland.
This is currently booked (mainly as there will be the dealership margin VAT) as non Scottish Revenue (where is Nissan's UK head office btw, it could well end up as London Revenue).
There is the comparable case of the Harris Tweed industry, studied in a minor classic of a blog entry at indyref time. Because it happens to leave the UK through East Midland Airport, it is treated as an English export, whereas by definition it is in fact the product of a strictly limited part of Scotland.
Yes, it called the " Rotterdam effect ", it's why UK dependency on EU trade is a lot less than reported we export a lot to other countries via Rotterdam.
A similar issue is mine and many other business pay their taxes to Cumbernauld, if I pay them in rUK there are going to be a lot of unemployed people in the Cumbernauld tax office.
Or the Cumbernauld office would redeploy to take on responsibilities for Scottish taxpayers and businesses currently handled at other sites around the rUK.
Not enough for them to do, they have more customers down South than they do in Scotland.
Reread what I wrote. There's more than Income Tax for HMRC to collect.
Forgetting for a moment about the unfortunate Mr Miliband: that photo is a phenomenal achievement. You can actually see the helical structure of the arrangement of the protein subunits on the main body. Though it's not showing the RNA being injected into the bacterium wall fro the pore between the 'legs' - too much to hope for, I expect.
When you look at all the areas where Scottish "Revenue" is not recorded by the UK Government (or GERS) as Scottish but in other parts of the UK, there is good reason to be certain this is why Westminster refuse to offer FFA.
.... That said, it's the direction the electorate is pushing everyone towards and the government should respect that, organise accordingly and let the market do it's thing and have another election in 2020 that deals with the repercussions.
Faffing around with VAT between England and Scotland shows what a sillyness two plus nations is within the British Isles.
When you look at all the areas where Scottish "Revenue" is not recorded by the UK Government (or GERS) as Scottish but in other parts of the UK, there is good reason to be certain this is why Westminster refuse to offer FFA.
.... That said, it's the direction the electorate is pushing everyone towards and the government should respect that, organise accordingly and let the market do it's thing and have another election in 2020 that deals with the repercussions.
Faffing around with VAT between England and Scotland shows what a sillyness two plus nations is within the British Isles.
There's no VAT being charged at the border (hardly surprisingly). So your comment is not relevant.
And there is such a thing as Eire within the Isles of Britain and Ireland.
Every business at every stage of the process must fully account for the VAT liabilities at their own stage of production. Hence why it is called "Value Added" Tax.
There are no liabilities for VAT registered business as it is 100% deductible. There is no revenue until the final non-registered consumer.
I can't believe we have to explain this...
Company A makes a thing and sells it to company B for a pound (plus 20% VAT)
Company A pays 20p to the taxman, Company B claims 20p from the taxman. Net 'revenue' to the Government? zero.
Company B adds some value via a production process and sells it to company C for 2 pounds (plus 20% VAT). B pays 40p to the taxman. C claims 40p from the taxman. Net 'revenue' to the Government? zero.
Company C sells it to you for 3 pounds (plus 20% VAT). C pays 60p to the taxman. Net "revenue" 60p, paid uniquely and only by you.
When you look at all the areas where Scottish "Revenue" is not recorded by the UK Government (or GERS) as Scottish but in other parts of the UK, there is good reason to be certain this is why Westminster refuse to offer FFA.
.... That said, it's the direction the electorate is pushing everyone towards and the government should respect that, organise accordingly and let the market do it's thing and have another election in 2020 that deals with the repercussions.
Faffing around with VAT between England and Scotland shows what a sillyness two plus nations is within the British Isles.
Forgetting for a moment about the unfortunate Mr Miliband: that photo is a phenomenal achievement. You can actually see the helical structure of the arrangement of the protein subunits on the main body. Though it's not showing the RNA being injected into the bacterium wall fro the pore between the 'legs' - too much to hope for, I expect.
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers. In the case of an Independent Scotland, in the most likely scenario with both nations being in the UK, it would be EXACTLY the same (until applicable VAT rates changed).
Bit like all the tax paid by a driver in Dunfermline on a new car made in Sunderland.
This is currently booked (mainly as there will be the dealership margin VAT) as non Scottish Revenue (where is Nissan's UK head office btw, it could well end up as London Revenue).
There is the comparable case of the Harris Tweed industry, studied in a minor classic of a blog entry at indyref time. Because it happens to leave the UK through East Midland Airport, it is treated as an English export, whereas by definition it is in fact the product of a strictly limited part of Scotland.
Yes, it called the " Rotterdam effect ", it's why UK dependency on EU trade is a lot less than reported we export a lot to other countries via Rotterdam.
A similar issue is mine and many other business pay their taxes to Cumbernauld, if I pay them in rUK there are going to be a lot of unemployed people in the Cumbernauld tax office.
Or the Cumbernauld office would redeploy to take on responsibilities for Scottish taxpayers and businesses currently handled at other sites around the rUK.
Not enough for them to do, they have more customers down South than they do in Scotland.
Reread what I wrote. There's more than Income Tax for HMRC to collect.
I've read the same story numerous times over the last 3 years and it's all bollocks. Of course there are more things an Indy Scot govt could collect in tax, but there just aren't enough of them to keep everyone employed.
And that's the issue.
It's not that Scotland couldn't make a go of things, it's that there will be a shock to the system with a split and the SNP want to pretend there won't be. In the last 6 months the size of that shock has just got bigger due to the oil price.
If the SNP economics team had any integrity or common sense they'd face up to this. malc at least has the right approach in saying he recognises the risk but it's a price he's prepared to pay, the rest of you are just making it up as you go along.
When you look at all the areas where Scottish "Revenue" is not recorded by the UK Government (or GERS) as Scottish but in other parts of the UK, there is good reason to be certain this is why Westminster refuse to offer FFA.
.... That said, it's the direction the electorate is pushing everyone towards and the government should respect that, organise accordingly and let the market do it's thing and have another election in 2020 that deals with the repercussions.
Faffing around with VAT between England and Scotland shows what a sillyness two plus nations is within the British Isles.
You mean like we ALREADY have?
My aluminium supplier delivers from a site in the W Mids but has central invoicing from Glasgow. Before Indyref I told them that they'd be off my purchasing list if I had to manage cross-border VAT.
Every business at every stage of the process must fully account for the VAT liabilities at their own stage of production. Hence why it is called "Value Added" Tax.
There are no liabilities for VAT registered business as it is 100% deductible. There is no revenue until the final non-registered consumer.
I can't believe we have to explain this...
Company A makes a thing and sells it to company B for a pound (plus 20% VAT)
Company A pays 20p to the taxman, Company B claims 20p from the taxman. Net 'revenue' to the Government? zero.
Company B adds some value via a production process and sells it to company C for 2 pounds (plus 20% VAT). B pays 40p to the taxman. C claims 40p from the taxman. Net 'revenue' to the Government? zero.
Company C sells it to you for 3 pounds (plus 20% VAT). C pays 60p to the taxman. Net "revenue" 60p, paid uniquely and only by you.
Now do the figures where Company B exports the good within the EU.
Not before time, NATO exists solely to perpetuate itself and US domination of Europe.
I'm rather keen on that as the alternatives are a Europe dominated by the Russians or, worse still, dominated by the EU. But I assume that you think that US influence is a bad thing for some reason?
You'd rather be dominated by the Russians than the EU? Seriously?
I detest both of them as ideologies but the Russians don't pretend to be on your side. The EU and the Russians are both our enemies but at least the Russians stab you in the front.
Surely Swinney's record of financial competetnce- balanced budget every year by necessity but nonetheless achieved, low rollover each year, coping with 10 per cent real terms reduction in spending with comparatively little fuss or strikes, better growth, lower unemployment, higher employment, very much higher female employment, record inward investment, more efficient capital programme etc etc- looks rather good in comparison with Darling/Osborne.
@Dair Afraid you're wrong on this one - here is why
If WhiskyCoIndy Scotland sells a whisky to Sainsburys in England for £10 + £2 VAT then they will pay £2 VAT to HMRC Scotland.
SainsburysEngland will reclaim £2 VAT from the relevant tax authority however - and that will be HMRC Scotland in this case.
When they sell it say for £24 then HMRC England will receive £4 of VAT revenue.
The effect to HMRC Scotland is revenue neutral.
That's not how I understand the process.
Sainsburys reclaim £2 from England against their £4 liability. Therefore both English and Scottish revenues share the £2 based on their portion of the added value.**
In reality within the EU, countries Net out these numbers. I'm pretty certain that's how it works.
** EU rules actually change how this works as they don't "pay" the VAT on the explort/import but it is account by HMRC at national level and reconcilled between countries.
Surely Swinney's record of financial competetnce- balanced budget every year by necessity but nonetheless achieved, low rollover each year, coping with 10 per cent real terms reduction in spending with comparatively little fuss or strikes, better growth, lower unemployment, higher employment, very much higher female employment, record inward investment, more efficient capital programme etc etc- looks rather good in comparison with Darling/Osborne.
Swinney manages a budget he doesn't actually run an economy.
Gordon Brown demands the truth is told about the 3 million jobs and Britain's future if they were to leave the EU. It is almost laughable that he is demanding the truth be told about a lie.
Surely Swinney's record of financial competetnce- balanced budget every year by necessity but nonetheless achieved, low rollover each year, coping with 10 per cent real terms reduction in spending with comparatively little fuss or strikes, better growth, lower unemployment, higher employment, very much higher female employment, record inward investment, more efficient capital programme etc etc- looks rather good in comparison with Darling/Osborne.
Swinney manages a budget he doesn't actually run an economy.
There is a very strong argument that this is all ANY chancellor does. The actual impact of government on the economy being quite minimal.
When you look at all the areas where Scottish "Revenue" is not recorded by the UK Government (or GERS) as Scottish but in other parts of the UK, there is good reason to be certain this is why Westminster refuse to offer FFA.
.... That said, it's the direction the electorate is pushing everyone towards and the government should respect that, organise accordingly and let the market do it's thing and have another election in 2020 that deals with the repercussions.
Faffing around with VAT between England and Scotland shows what a sillyness two plus nations is within the British Isles.
You mean like we ALREADY have?
My aluminium supplier delivers from a site in the W Mids but has central invoicing from Glasgow. Before Indyref I told them that they'd be off my purchasing list if I had to manage cross-border VAT.
And a currency problem.
You'd dump supplier for a bit of box 8 and 9 stuff. Crikey ! Most of my co's suppliers and customers aren't in UK - EU VAT isn't that bad !
Sainsburys reclaim £2 from England against their £4 liability. Therefore both English and Scottish revenues share the £2 based on their portion of the added value.
No
Read the post again.
HMRC Scotland gets 2 and pays out 2. Ends up with zero
HMRC England gets 4
The VAT is collected where the product is consumed, paid by the consumer.
Surely Swinney's record of financial competetnce- balanced budget every year by necessity but nonetheless achieved, low rollover each year, coping with 10 per cent real terms reduction in spending with comparatively little fuss or strikes, better growth, lower unemployment, higher employment, very much higher female employment, record inward investment, more efficient capital programme etc etc- looks rather good in comparison with Darling/Osborne.
Swinney manages a budget he doesn't actually run an economy.
There is a very strong argument that this is all ANY chancellor does. The actual impact of government on the economy being quite minimal.
If the impact of government on the economy is minimal what's the point of socialism.
When you look at all the areas where Scottish "Revenue" is not recorded by the UK Government (or GERS) as Scottish but in other parts of the UK, there is good reason to be certain this is why Westminster refuse to offer FFA.
.... That said, it's the direction the electorate is pushing everyone towards and the government should respect that, organise accordingly and let the market do it's thing and have another election in 2020 that deals with the repercussions.
Faffing around with VAT between England and Scotland shows what a sillyness two plus nations is within the British Isles.
You mean like we ALREADY have?
My aluminium supplier delivers from a site in the W Mids but has central invoicing from Glasgow. Before Indyref I told them that they'd be off my purchasing list if I had to manage cross-border VAT.
And a currency problem.
You'd dump supplier for a bit of box 8 and 9 stuff. Crikey ! Most of my co's suppliers and customers aren't in UK - EU VAT isn't that bad !
Actually shd be no VAT if Scotland is an independent country on the interco transactions, some box 8 and 9 stuff tho cos it'll be EU
Yes, I understand this. But I was under the impression that the national Revenue then nets out the +s and -s on the inter-state EU trade and has to make payment to the relevant Revenues in each state (or receive payment) depending on the volume, allowing each country's Revenue to benefit from the Value Added in their own country.
When you look at all the areas where Scottish "Revenue" is not recorded by the UK Government (or GERS) as Scottish but in other parts of the UK, there is good reason to be certain this is why Westminster refuse to offer FFA.
.... That said, it's the direction the electorate is pushing everyone towards and the government should respect that, organise accordingly and let the market do it's thing and have another election in 2020 that deals with the repercussions.
Faffing around with VAT between England and Scotland shows what a sillyness two plus nations is within the British Isles.
You mean like we ALREADY have?
My aluminium supplier delivers from a site in the W Mids but has central invoicing from Glasgow. Before Indyref I told them that they'd be off my purchasing list if I had to manage cross-border VAT.
And a currency problem.
You'd dump supplier for a bit of box 8 and 9 stuff. Crikey ! Most of my co's suppliers and customers aren't in UK - EU VAT isn't that bad !
We told our pension scheme actuary in Scotland that if independence happened they moved to rUK or we'd move our business. No real choice frankly from our viewpoint.
WESTMINSTER may be unable to offer FFA if they know it would look positive for the SNP. Scottish FFA GDP at 110% of rUK GDP would demonstrate that the Unionists have been lying for years.
I've read so many variations of what Scotland's finances are, it remains to be seen what the truth is.
The next UK government needs to push the boundary as far as it can and see where it leads.
Yes, indeed there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get a proper estimate of actual Scottish GDP, especially major items like VAT and Corporation Tax being skewed by the Head Office effect.
But Westminster *probably* knows the answer. And this would explain why the Tories - with no represenation to lose from Scottish Home Rule - are still reluctant to offer FFA.
There is no constitutional problem with the Tories allowing FFA. Scotland would still be in the Union, the UK would still exist. Logically, the only possible reason is that Westminster has the numbers and they have supressed the reports - just like they did with McCrone for 25 years.
VAT is not a tax that depends on where a head office is situated. You pay VAT at the point of sale and that is where it is collected. When I bought my Samsung TV the UK government got the VAT. It did not get sent to Korea. Likewise, when I buy my bottle of Macallan at Leamington Sainsbury's next Xmas the VAT will stay in the rUK. It will not be shipped to Scotland.
VAT/Sales tax is a Value Added Tax. As such it applies at national borders. When you sell a TV at Tesco in Silverburn Glasgow, it is booked by Tesco's head office in Hertfordshire and is recorded by the UK accounts as revenue by South East Region.
But as it is an added value tax, where it crosses a tax border a portion of that Value Added Tax is retained in the original jurisdiction.
For example, with an Internal Border (or national border post indy), the VAT paid by your Sainsbury's is not 20%, it is 20% less whatever percentage applied to the Scotch in the originating jurisdiction. In this case, 20% of the Wholesale price from Erdington's Scottish operation.
This is basic stuff, I'm surprised it needs explained.
Are you sure you are right?
Macallan will charge VAT to Sainsbury's, which will be recorded in the Scottish region. Sainsbury's will then reclaim that VAT in London with this reclaim offset against the gross VAT charge that it adds onto its customers' bills. The consequence is that only the Sainsbury VAT is registered as being in London
NumbrCrunchrPolitics @NCPoliticsUK 16m16 minutes ago Great news:“Nick Robinson is recovering at home after a successful op to remove a lung tumour http://bit.ly/1E1G9kQ ”
When you look at all the areas where Scottish "Revenue" is not recorded by the UK Government (or GERS) as Scottish but in other parts of the UK, there is good reason to be certain this is why Westminster refuse to offer FFA.
.... That said, it's the direction the electorate is pushing everyone towards and the government should respect that, organise accordingly and let the market do it's thing and have another election in 2020 that deals with the repercussions.
Faffing around with VAT between England and Scotland shows what a sillyness two plus nations is within the British Isles.
You mean like we ALREADY have?
My aluminium supplier delivers from a site in the W Mids but has central invoicing from Glasgow. Before Indyref I told them that they'd be off my purchasing list if I had to manage cross-border VAT.
And a currency problem.
You'd dump supplier for a bit of box 8 and 9 stuff. Crikey ! Most of my co's suppliers and customers aren't in UK - EU VAT isn't that bad !
Not before time, NATO exists solely to perpetuate itself and US domination of Europe.
I'm rather keen on that as the alternatives are a Europe dominated by the Russians or, worse still, dominated by the EU. But I assume that you think that US influence is a bad thing for some reason?
You'd rather be dominated by the Russians than the EU? Seriously?
I detest both of them as ideologies but the Russians don't pretend to be on your side. The EU and the Russians are both our enemies but at least the Russians stab you in the front.
And what on earth do you think the Americans have been doing all this time? Have the Russians invaded Commonwealth territory recently? Have the Russians eviscerated a British blue chip company that our pension funds rely upon heavily recently? Have we spent billions invading a country with Russia recently and have them favour Dutch companies over British in the rebuilding? If Russia had done half of what America has done to Britain over the decades with our 'special relationship' we would literally be at war with them by now. To think of US influence on this country as benign is wilful blindness to empirical fact.
I'll tell you what's good about Russia -they don't want dominion over us. Sphere of influence over a buffer of small states between it and NATO territory, yes. World domination? No.
Macallan will charge VAT to Sainsbury's, which will be recorded in the Scottish region. Sainsbury's will then reclaim that VAT in London with this reclaim offset against the gross VAT charge that it adds onto its customers' bills. The consequence is that only the Sainsbury VAT is registered as being in London
The thread is getting complicated by the various scenarops but I believe you're asking about the current situation in the UK.
I had to check and Erdington is indeed HQed in Scotland, so in this case, the VAT would (probably) be correctly reflected as things stand. If it was a Diageo brand (based in London) it would all be London Revenue. Possibly.
When you look at all the areas where Scottish "Revenue" is not recorded by the UK Government (or GERS) as Scottish but in other parts of the UK, there is good reason to be certain this is why Westminster refuse to offer FFA.
.... That said, it's the direction the electorate is pushing everyone towards and the government should respect that, organise accordingly and let the market do it's thing and have another election in 2020 that deals with the repercussions.
Faffing around with VAT between England and Scotland shows what a sillyness two plus nations is within the British Isles.
You mean like we ALREADY have?
My aluminium supplier delivers from a site in the W Mids but has central invoicing from Glasgow. Before Indyref I told them that they'd be off my purchasing list if I had to manage cross-border VAT.
And a currency problem.
You'd dump supplier for a bit of box 8 and 9 stuff. Crikey ! Most of my co's suppliers and customers aren't in UK - EU VAT isn't that bad !
Scotland wouldn't be in the EU.
Same difference with non EU and EU suppliers, both are zero VAT just different numbers in boxes in the return.
When you look at all the areas where Scottish "Revenue" is not recorded by the UK Government (or GERS) as Scottish but in other parts of the UK, there is good reason to be certain this is why Westminster refuse to offer FFA.
.... That said, it's the direction the electorate is pushing everyone towards and the government should respect that, organise accordingly and let the market do it's thing and have another election in 2020 that deals with the repercussions.
Faffing around with VAT between England and Scotland shows what a sillyness two plus nations is within the British Isles.
There's no VAT being charged at the border (hardly surprisingly). So your comment is not relevant.
And there is such a thing as Eire within the Isles of Britain and Ireland.
As Chestnut says - ''Alternatively, every business is telling the government they want to do one set of admin and deal with one tax authority. Full autonomy will involve dealing with more than one, and some businesses may decide that they would rather pass, and potentially relocate, than deal with more than one.''
A business in Carlisle would not pay VAT on importing a good or service from Gretna Green but it would collect VAT and claim it back from Penrith. A business in Gretna Green would not collect VAT on a business transaction from Carlisle Perth Birmingham London.
Throw in another currency... It helps no one. Eire? You will have to forgive rather than nit pick at my shorthand. The main point is the needless additional complexity and cost.
When you look at all the areas where Scottish "Revenue" is not recorded by the UK Government (or GERS) as Scottish but in other parts of the UK, there is good reason to be certain this is why Westminster refuse to offer FFA.
.... That said, it's the direction the electorate is pushing everyone towards and the government should respect that, organise accordingly and let the market do it's thing and have another election in 2020 that deals with the repercussions.
Faffing around with VAT between England and Scotland shows what a sillyness two plus nations is within the British Isles.
You mean like we ALREADY have?
My aluminium supplier delivers from a site in the W Mids but has central invoicing from Glasgow. Before Indyref I told them that they'd be off my purchasing list if I had to manage cross-border VAT.
And a currency problem.
You'd dump supplier for a bit of box 8 and 9 stuff. Crikey ! Most of my co's suppliers and customers aren't in UK - EU VAT isn't that bad !
We told our pension scheme actuary in Scotland that if independence happened they moved to rUK or we'd move our business. No real choice frankly from our viewpoint.
What about the Actuaries with various UK Funds based in Bermuda (which is an awful lot)?
Comments
And that is the point: the Islamists want to create the impression that only they speak for Islam and for Muslims. And by giving them space and airtime and credibility twits like Warsi and Slaughter are reinforcing just that and making it more likely that young Muslims will follow the Islamists.
What such fools do is not just stupid. It's dangerous - and to the rest of us, who don't benefit from the special protection afforded to Ministers and MPs.
Worth a thread here anytime soon ...... nah, thought not!
So ignorant are our own so-called human rights activists that they neither truly understand the basis - philosophical, legal, historical, religious, cultural - of human rights as understood in the Western world nor Islam or its culture, philosophy, history.
We have two groups using the same phrase to mean entirely different things - a bit like how the West and Communists used the word "democratic".
After all the most recent war to start is the one the EU caused between Russia and Ukraine.
But as it is an added value tax, where it crosses a tax border a portion of that Value Added Tax is retained in the original jurisdiction.
For example, with an Internal Border (or national border post indy), the VAT paid by your Sainsbury's is not 20%, it is 20% less whatever percentage applied to the Scotch in the originating jurisdiction. In this case, 20% of the Wholesale price from Erdington's Scottish operation.
This is basic stuff, I'm surprised it needs explained.
Giving out free passports to any random passing immigrant who wants shiny travel documents, a house and benefits is a proud British tradition.
Bloody foreigners .... nicking our stupidity ....
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/09/leaving-eu-would-make-uk-the-north-korea-of-europe-warns-gordon-brown
We've signed up to 2% as part of our NATO commitment so it's much more concrete.
Instead, he's more like George Bernard Shaw: a self-important old windbag who's been taken for a fool by real hard men. A "useful idiot" in Lenin's phrase.
Top looning.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/upshot/hillary-clinton-is-more-vulnerable-in-2016-than-you-think.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
However, it was less than a month that Nate Cohn was using just the top half of this graph to 'prove' that Hillary was the surest thing since sliced bread!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/upshot/hillary-clinton-and-inevitability-this-time-is-different.html?abt=0002&abg=1
Anyone (other than PtP) going?
Any tips?
The PB gestapo are at work again.
But I assume that you think that US influence is a bad thing for some reason?
You do not Understand AT ALL how Ad Valorem taxation works.
The VAT Sainsbury's collects for the Revenue is a NET FIGURE. VAT applied to Goods Sold MINUS VAT paid on Goods Purchased.
The vast majority of Imported goods have some element of VAT included (depending on the trade agreement - in the case of the EU it's pretty similar to what we pay in the UK, IIRC the lowest rates are about 15%). This is the basis of why Carousel Fraud works.
In case of an internal UK tax border, around 50% of the VAT paid would end up in Scotland's coffers. In the case of an Independent Scotland, in the most likely scenario with both nations being in the UK, it would be EXACTLY the same (until applicable VAT rates changed).
You should apply for a job with "Russia Today".
Just checked it's HQ is Sunderland, so NE Revenue.
Which was my original point earlier in the thread before Southam Observer demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of Ad Valorem taxes.
''A VAT-registered UK business does not need to charge VAT on goods it is sending to Germany, provided it keeps documentary proof of export. It must also obtain the German customer’s MwSt registration number and show it on the invoice ''
''A VAT-registered UK business importing goods from Germany should give the German supplier its UK VAT registration number (including the GB prefix) so that German MwSt does not get charged.''
http://www.brighton-accountants.com/blog/vat-uk-germany/
Full autonomy will involve dealing with more than one, and some businesses may decide that they would rather pass, and potentially relocate, than deal with more than one.
That said, it's the direction the electorate is pushing everyone towards and the government should respect that, organise accordingly and let the market do it's thing and have another election in 2020 that deals with the repercussions.
LIES LIES LIES ( just saving you the bother of replying ) LIES
More fantasy economics from the SNP. Can you get a qualification in Swinney Maths from Scottish universities these days? (free for Scottish students of course...)
Nor indeed in international relations.
A similar issue is mine and many other business pay their taxes to Cumbernauld, if I pay them in rUK there are going to be a lot of unemployed people in the Cumbernauld tax office.
Please confirm you understand this instruction
VAT is a consumption tax, paid uniquely and exclusively by consumers.
The EU and the Russians are both our enemies but at least the Russians stab you in the front.
Every business at every stage of the process must fully account for the VAT liabilities at their own stage of production. Hence why it is called "Value Added" Tax.
Forgetting for a moment about the unfortunate Mr Miliband: that photo is a phenomenal achievement. You can actually see the helical structure of the arrangement of the protein subunits on the main body. Though it's not showing the RNA being injected into the bacterium wall fro the pore between the 'legs' - too much to hope for, I expect.
There's no VAT being charged at the border (hardly surprisingly). So your comment is not relevant.
And there is such a thing as Eire within the Isles of Britain and Ireland.
Not uniquely, all business taxes are borne by consumers. They an expense which needs to be recouped through sales revenue.
I can't believe we have to explain this...
Company A makes a thing and sells it to company B for a pound (plus 20% VAT)
Company A pays 20p to the taxman, Company B claims 20p from the taxman. Net 'revenue' to the Government? zero.
Company B adds some value via a production process and sells it to company C for 2 pounds (plus 20% VAT). B pays 40p to the taxman. C claims 40p from the taxman. Net 'revenue' to the Government? zero.
Company C sells it to you for 3 pounds (plus 20% VAT). C pays 60p to the taxman. Net "revenue" 60p, paid uniquely and only by you.
Yes, it's truly a magnificent photo
My VAT registered business bought a fork lift truck recently. Supplied from Netherlands, Manufactured in France, Delivery company UK.
Would you like to tell us which nations got how much tax (I know you can't give actual figures as values are missing, but in principle.)?
And that's the issue.
It's not that Scotland couldn't make a go of things, it's that there will be a shock to the system with a split and the SNP want to pretend there won't be. In the last 6 months the size of that shock has just got bigger due to the oil price.
If the SNP economics team had any integrity or common sense they'd face up to this. malc at least has the right approach in saying he recognises the risk but it's a price he's prepared to pay, the rest of you are just making it up as you go along.
Like Swinney.
If WhiskyCoIndy Scotland sells a whisky to Sainsburys in England for £10 + £2 VAT then they will pay £2 VAT to HMRC Scotland.
SainsburysEngland will reclaim £2 VAT from the relevant tax authority however - and that will be HMRC Scotland in this case.
When they sell it say for £24 then HMRC England will receive £4 of VAT revenue.
The effect to HMRC Scotland is revenue neutral.
And a currency problem.
On topic it would seem that with Labour stagnant or going backwards and Tories gaining it's a case of chickens coming home to roost...
Surely Swinney's record of financial competetnce- balanced budget every year by necessity but nonetheless achieved, low rollover each year, coping with 10 per cent real terms reduction in spending with comparatively little fuss or strikes, better growth, lower unemployment, higher employment, very much higher female employment, record inward investment, more efficient capital programme etc etc- looks rather good in comparison with Darling/Osborne.
Sainsburys reclaim £2 from England against their £4 liability. Therefore both English and Scottish revenues share the £2 based on their portion of the added value.**
In reality within the EU, countries Net out these numbers. I'm pretty certain that's how it works.
** EU rules actually change how this works as they don't "pay" the VAT on the explort/import but it is account by HMRC at national level and reconcilled between countries.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/09/leaving-eu-would-make-uk-the-north-korea-of-europe-warns-gordon-brown
Most of my co's suppliers and customers aren't in UK - EU VAT isn't that bad !
Read the post again.
HMRC Scotland gets 2 and pays out 2. Ends up with zero
HMRC England gets 4
The VAT is collected where the product is consumed, paid by the consumer.
This is getting really tedious now.
Or was your statement just a tad daft ?
Macallan will charge VAT to Sainsbury's, which will be recorded in the Scottish region. Sainsbury's will then reclaim that VAT in London with this reclaim offset against the gross VAT charge that it adds onto its customers' bills. The consequence is that only the Sainsbury VAT is registered as being in London
Great news:“Nick Robinson is recovering at home after a successful op to remove a lung tumour http://bit.ly/1E1G9kQ ”
I wish him well, even if he is a BBC hack
I'll tell you what's good about Russia -they don't want dominion over us. Sphere of influence over a buffer of small states between it and NATO territory, yes. World domination? No.
I had to check and Erdington is indeed HQed in Scotland, so in this case, the VAT would (probably) be correctly reflected as things stand. If it was a Diageo brand (based in London) it would all be London Revenue. Possibly.
''Alternatively, every business is telling the government they want to do one set of admin and deal with one tax authority.
Full autonomy will involve dealing with more than one, and some businesses may decide that they would rather pass, and potentially relocate, than deal with more than one.''
A business in Carlisle would not pay VAT on importing a good or service from Gretna Green but it would collect VAT and claim it back from Penrith. A business in Gretna Green would not collect VAT on a business transaction from Carlisle Perth Birmingham London.
Throw in another currency... It helps no one.
Eire? You will have to forgive rather than nit pick at my shorthand. The main point is the needless additional complexity and cost.