£1,500 tax subsidy for Scots to be reviewed - Daily Telegraph

The message <mp9ts35nbivnarbv59k801evm2ril90lq5@>
from Tony Polson <docnews2011@> contains these words:

> While the
> Scots enjoy the luxury of free prescriptions,

Errrr, which Scotland has free prescriptions? Not the one I lve in!!

--
Colin

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:07:00 +0000, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:

>The Real Doctor wrote:
>> On 5 Mar, 20:12, bobrayner <bobray...@> wrote:
>>> On 5 Mar, 18:47, The Real Doctor <ian.gro...@> wrote:
>>
>>> See chapter 9 of the 2007 PESA here ...
>>> Scots get much more spent on them even though they contribute *less*
>>> tax and generate *less* wealth.
>>
>> Ho yus. Even on those statistics, for the last year for which final
>> figures are available (2005 - 6) the spending in Scotland was £8179
>> per head and in London it was £8164. Is fifteen quid a head (0.18%)
>> "much more".
>>
>> And as for the "generate much less wealth bit" ... if you want to
>> count the tax generated by companies which operated across the UK (and
>> around the world) as generated by their head offices in London, then I
>> prseume you'll let me book North Sea oil revenue to Scotland?
>>
>> And alternative view is that since London is (claimed to be) so rich,
>> it should be able to survie ona fraction of the spending needed in
>> poorer areas ...
>
>Presumably you can have fun with the City of London, where money=lots,
>population=bugger all.
>
Well, you're almost there. The statistics usually fail to separate the
capital city from the rest of Greater London thus concealing an even
higher subsidy to the metropolitan area (or the "South East" when
using larger areas).

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:16:23 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charles@ellson.> wrote:

>On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:17:36 -0800 (PST), The Real Doctor
><ian.groups@> wrote:
>
>>On 7 Mar, 21:45, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:
>>
>>> There are certainly some items of Government expenditure that I do not
>>> consider to be at all valid - notable among these is the Scottish pork
>>> barrel, designed to bribe the Scots into maintaining a Union that has
>>> run its course, and then some.
>>
>>I'm trying to work out if Tony likes Scots.

Who's Tony ?
>
>I'm getting just a
>>suspicion of a hint that he doesn't, much. Is this a fair impression,
>>do you think?
>>
>It is the supposed flow of money to Scotland he doesn't like. When the
>money stops flowing in both directions then he might have a different
>opinion.

Josiah Jenkins wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:16:23 +0000, Charles Ellson
> <charles@ellson.> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:17:36 -0800 (PST), The Real Doctor
>> <ian.groups@> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 Mar, 21:45, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are certainly some items of Government expenditure that I do not
>>>> consider to be at all valid - notable among these is the Scottish pork
>>>> barrel, designed to bribe the Scots into maintaining a Union that has
>>>> run its course, and then some.
>>> I'm trying to work out if Tony likes Scots.
>
> Who's Tony ?

Tony as in 'Tony the lying sack of '?

>> I'm getting just a
>>> suspicion of a hint that he doesn't, much. Is this a fair impression,
>>> do you think?
>>>
>> It is the supposed flow of money to Scotland he doesn't like. When the
>> money stops flowing in both directions then he might have a different
>> opinion.

--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:50:21 +0000, Charles Ellson
<charles@ellson.> wrote:


>>
>AFAIAA exported whisky is still subject to duty (but not VAT if it
>leaves the EU).

If it moves to an EU country it moves under suspension of duty, to a
bond in that country. Duty is applied at that country's rate when it
leaves that bond. This is why whisky is cheaper in e.g. Spain than it
is in the U.K.

Duty in the UK is very high - it's higher than in e.g. Sweden. I did
that calculation in a Swedish brewery 4 years ago, together with the
brewer. The result surprised him more than it did me.

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:32:08 +0000, Graeme Wall
<Rail@greywall.> wrote:

>In message <nSVBj.2452$jH5.1088@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
> "allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Graeme Wall" <Rail@greywall.> wrote in message
>> news:965cd37e4f%Rail@greywall....
>> > In message <MJLBj.1890$Ff4.123@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>
>> > "allan connochie" <conncohies@noemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> But within the UK there is a stifling domestic tax put on whisky which
>> >> has
>> >> been way in excess of beer and wine though the fact it has been frozen
>> >> for
>> >> some years has redressed the balance a bit.
>> >
>> > That tax is imposed on all spirits, not just scotch, so it affects
>> > Warrington
>> > and Wales as well as Scotland.
>>
>> Of course it does and there is other spirit produced in Scotland other than
>> whisky. Point stands though that whisky is one of the major British, never
>> mind Scottish exports.
>>
>
>But there's no tax on the exports so what relevance is that to the domestic
>situation?

One example.
China is a growing market. The competition to 'Scotch' is
Indian and Japanese produced 'whisky'.

If the Chinese government see the UK government increase the tax
rate, there is a likely probability that they too will increase the
level of duty.

Result . . . market share lost to India and Japan.

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:45:29 +0100, Mike Roebuck
<mike.roebuck@> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:50:21 +0000, Charles Ellson
><charles@ellson.> wrote:
>>>
>>AFAIAA exported whisky is still subject to duty (but not VAT if it
>>leaves the EU).
>
>If it moves to an EU country it moves under suspension of duty, to a
>bond in that country. Duty is applied at that country's rate when it
>leaves that bond. This is why whisky is cheaper in e.g. Spain than it
>is in the U.K.

And in Luxembourg (no surprise there), Germany, France and Belgium.
Apart from the odd couple of bottles required to keep a stock in the
motorhome, I tend to bring back a dozen bottles each visit.

Bottled in Perth, shipped to Luxembourg, brought back to Glasgow !

Crazy !