to ask where indyref Part 5 is?

[grovel]

Well?

You do realise that this chap:

www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/council-services-chief-mark-turley-suspended-1-3402918

earned £123,000 as a council worker before he was dismissed on a mysterious deal that City of Edinburgh Council refuse to reveal to the citizens of City of Edinburgh? A council worker who presided over a very incompetent and corrupt service.

Only one in a series of mainly chaps earning that sort of salary in councils up and down Scotland, and in Edinburgh itself. Edinburgh Council has, to be fair, seen a number of similar level sackings in its many recent scandals, but no-one knows, what if any, deals preceed them.

You could just move to North Korea if you'd like everyone to earn the same?

£80k is not super rich, but is vastly more than the median, and more than 90% of the population. No-one is saying that people don't work to earn this money, just that you represent a small minority if you do. The issue is not with high earner per se, but that they earn so much more than the lowest paid. They shouldnt necessarily earn less, but others should earn more.

www.equalitytrust.org.uk/about-inequality/scale-and-trends/scale-economic-inequality-uk

Thank god, FannyFifer is here to talk some sense and another one who rarely knows anyone who earns £80k.

The issue is not with high earner per se, but that they earn so much more than the lowest paid. They shouldnt necessarily earn less, but others should earn more.

And how will independent Scotland tackle this? Except for driving all the high paid jobs out, of course.

Thank you Itsallgoingtobefine as you've basically worded it much better than I could have.

Switzerland sounds good

And not just re their attitude to defence. I lived there for a while and the experience made me realise just how feasible it is for a small country in Europe to make its own decisions for the benefit of the people who live there. Switzerland does not have the rich natural resources that we have either. They have used their independence, for example, to manage their economy well, to have bilateral arrangements with the EU (not full membership) which gives them the benefit of trading with their neighbours without many of the disadvantages, and to achieve high standards of healthcare etc. We need to be able to make our own decisions too.

Increasing the living wage would be a good start Santana.

What about the 'lovely' Brian Souter who was paraded by the SNP during the BBC debate this week? He earns a sight more than 80K.

I think this discussion needs derailing, tbh Sallying.

Derail: So why did only two SNP MPs make it down to Westmninster today to vote on repealing the bedroom tax?

The BBC invited Soutar, not the SNP.

I don't have an issue with women who are successful. I have a lot of admiration for Nicola Sturgeon and also Jeane Freeman who are both very successful Scottish women. But I think something's got to change with the poorest in society and increasing the living wage is a good start.

If someone has been successful in their career and worked hard, good for them. I'm not disputing they shouldn't be rewarded with a great salary to reflect that. But there is such a huge gap between these well paid jobs and those who are just struggling to make ends meet.

Yes, the poorest are suffering and NOBODY disputes that. But at the moment it's estimated that only those who are approaching HRT level are net contributors. You need higher earners who pay more tax and support those who earn less. Unless we're going for a communist state there will always be people earning less and people earning more. It sounds like you would prefer the highest earners just vanished. That won't help.

The reason they can get away with only 5 billion in annual defence expenditure is that every adult male is conscripted and trained, and keeps their weapons at home ready to be called up to fight. It saves having a much larger and more expensive permanent army.

I don't want to derail the discussion, just wanted to show why even the most peaceful country needs to maintain its security.

In absolute terms the UK spends more on defence than South Korea and Israel, both who have more to fear than the UK. In %age GDP the UK spends way more than any other European country at 2.3% the next highest is Estonia who spend 2%, most spend closer to/under 1%.

Why does the UK need to spend so much?

Vote wasn't to repeal bedroom tax, was to add amendments to the spare room subsidy bill afaik.

We could talk about the morality of Switzerland and its Nazi gold..

I saw that re SNP MPs. Seriously shameful - even if they believe that it's going to be a yes vote and irrelevant for Scotland they should have been there voting to show that they care about poverty and social justice everywhere, not just in Scotland.

Increasing the living wage would be a good start Santana.

Like the amendment proposed to the Procurement Amendment Bill this spring, which was blocked by the SNP?

Excuse me, the Procurement Reform Bill, proposed amendment.

I have a lot of admiration for Nicola Sturgeon and also Jeane Freeman who are both very successful Scottish women.

Ah yes, Nicola Sturgeon who was on the news this evening telling people they must vote Yes now because they may not have the chance again.

Knowing full well of course that if SNP don't win this time they will come back again and again until they get the answer they want. And they claim No are the ones with the scare tactics.

Yes, the poorest are suffering and NOBODY disputes that. But at the moment it's estimated that only those who are approaching HRT level are net contributors. You need higher earners who pay more tax and support those who earn less. Unless we're going for a communist state there will always be people earning less and people earning more. It sounds like you would prefer the highest earners just vanished. That won't help.

There are several suggestions here reidfoundation.org/portfolio/investing-in-the-good-society-five-questions-on-tax-and-the-common-weal/ or there are the various Nordic models....

Why does the UK need to spend so much?

Because UK governments of whatever colour like to "punch above their weight", thinking back fondly to British Empire days and kidding themselves that Britain should still be a major player on the world defence stage. That's the kind of approach which has had so many of our young people coming home in body bags or with PTSD, why our actions have made matters worse not better in various overseas troublespots, and why the UK needs to keep stoking up its defence budget instead of having a more measured approach and spending the cash on the vulnerable in our society instead. I don't think an independent Scotland would have the same delusions of defence grandeur.

weatherall thank you for the link but that kind of proves my point. 80k a year gets you a mortgage to buy a modest family home over 4 miles from the city centre. It is a nice home but hardly super rich territory is it?
No one is saying 80k isn't a good salary, it is great. But it is just nowhere near super rich.

It will be interesting to have a post-match analysis of which constituencies/areas voted for or against independence. But until then there's really not much point in squabbling about whether affluent people are more or less likely to vote yes or no, or what the socioeconomic profile of a yes voter is.

Personally, I know plenty of affluent people who are voting yes, and comparatively low income individuals who are voting no, and vice versa.

Anyway

"Yes, the poorest are suffering and NOBODY disputes that. But at the moment it's estimated that only those who are approaching HRT level are net contributors."

Have said this before upthread, but many, many low income people contribute to the wealth and prosperity of businesses and high income individuals through their labour. The vast majority of low paid workers deliver more in terms of value and cost to their employers than they take home in pay - they wouldn't be employed otherwise. And their labour makes a contribution to the profits of companies, and salaries of higher earners in the same organisation. It is not fair to say that they are not contributing to tax receipts simply because their own wages are low.

Incidentally, I know lots of successful women, who have achieved a great deal in their fields of expertise, who earn comparatively little. Just because someone is not a hr taxpayer does not mean they are not successful.

I also happen to know quite a few wealthy people who - much as I like them - I would really, really struggle to describe as "successful" in a professional capacity.