Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

What about blustering Dodgy Dave and his dodgy crew mates, who were going to sort out IMMIGRATION and seem instead turning the UK into a holiday resort?

Who are they going to blame this time?

What disaster this grubby incompetent crew are.

--=-=-=-==-=

On the other topic I think Leon Brittan, Maggie Thatcher and a few of their mating friends have more than a few questions to answer, even if they are post mortem enquiries.

Funny clubs they seem to belonged to.

isn't janner a labour peer?

fred - you really are so UTTERLY BORING AND PREDICTABLE

I wish some of your mates weren't so predictable.

The €U is rotten to the core!



Amazon's UK business paid just £11.9m in tax last year


Online retailer’s Luxembourg unit took £5.3bn sales from British internet shoppers, a rise of 14%, but Amazon.co.uk Limited recorded profit of just £34.4m




Amazon’s former head of tax, Bob Comfort, last year gave an interview recalling how in 2003 the then prime minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker, had behaved as “business partner” to the online retailer. Juncker is now the president of the European Union’s executive arm, the European commission.




Full story here: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/24/amazons-uk-business-paid-119m-tax-last-year

And that is a problem because?

No tax money for the politicians to piss up the wall...which in turn means we have to pay it (in addition)


Also, it's a bit rich to have high ranking pols in the pocket of the companies.

So the 7,000 Amazon UK employees don't count for anything? Do those employees not pay PAYE? And the 210,000 sq ft Amazon central London HQ doesn't provide income for other businesses and their employees who might happen to pay direct taxation on earnings, and indirect taxation on expenditure?

Or is it a case that the leftish Grauniad readership are affronted, so that's what it is?

Also Amazon are selling British goods that generate tax from the suppliers. In the case of Amazon's books, there is only a small profit per book, which enables low prices. As a result the consumers in the UK get a good deal regarding price. ALL multinational companies operate the way that Amazon, Google, Starbucks etc do. Even our companies such as ICI bring their profits back to the UK and pay minimal tax abroad. Ford did it by manufacturing engines in one country, bodies in another. They then use differential pricing to ensure the finished car makes a profit in their chosen country. That has been going on since any of us were born. If you think about it, there is little point in building up part of your company in another country just to leave a substantial slice of your profits there.

£5.3bn sales from British internet shoppers = £11mil in tax...an you think that's ok?

Current problems in Calais are causing severe delays across the Channel.

Immigrants from Africa are advised to check before travelling.

The tax would be on the profit and not the £5.3bn which is turnover. It is the same as our companies not paying tax in countries where they operate.

Of course on the profit.

What was the profit, actually acrued (primary) in this country?


Even at 1%, that's £50 million , and I suspect it was a lot more than 1%.

If the profit is £50m then corporation tax at 21% comes to £10.5m. So £11m is about right.

If you want Amazon to pay tax on their profits here then you must expect our UK multinational companies to do the same and pay their tax in all the countries that they do business. That would be a huge loss for our tax revenues.

Tom Peterkin: Scottish Labour left pondering future


22:00 Wednesday 24 June 2015


0comments



Have your say


SCOTTISH Labour’s past explains its problems, writes Tom Peterkin

As the Labour Party in Scotland ponders some difficult questions about its future, BBC viewers were treated to an interesting glimpse into its past this week. A documentary hosted by Jackie Bird attempted to shed some light on the events that have led to Labour’s astonishing descent from power and the parlous state it now finds itself in.

The Fall of Labour, broadcast on Monday night, chronicled the party’s failure to deal with the rise of the SNP.





It harked back to a time when Labour’s dominance of Scotland was unchallenged and the SNP had yet to emerge from the political fringes.


Footage of that redoubtable Scottish secretary Willie Ross reminded viewers of just how far the balance of power has shifted. With contempt dripping from his voice, a clip of a grainy archive film saw Ross delivering a withering verdict on the SNP of several decades ago.

“It is the irrelevance of that shoddy party that to my mind disgraces the name of Scotland with its cheapness of slogans, dividing this nation,” Ross thundered. It was a vignette that not only illustrated Labour’s hostility to the SNP but also just how far Nicola Sturgeon’s party has come. No longer can the party be dismissed as an irrelevance. As the programme attempted to explain how the SNP came to usurp Labour as the pre-eminent political party in Scotland, there was a more telling vignette that spoke volumes about the confused nature of the party’s leadership in Scotland.

Donald Dewar’s former spindoctor and the former Labour MSP David Whitton was asked about the extent that Gordon Brown interfered with the affairs of the Scottish party. It was a question asked by Bird in the knowledge that little was done in Scottish Labour without the say-so of Brown – encouraging suggestions that the Scottish arm of the party was in thrall to London.

“Gosh,” exclaimed the normally unflappable Whitton before dissolving into nervous laughter and side-stepping the question.


There is little doubt this command structure damaged Labour’s attempts to carve out a distinct position in Scotland.

Perhaps the most obvious example of Brown’s influence on Scottish politics was when the then prime minister put the kybosh on then Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander’s bold proposal to hold an independence referendum back in 2008.

With the benefit of hindsight, there can be few within Labour who do not now wish that Alexander’s plan to “bring it on” had come to fruition. Had Labour grasped the initiative, the SNP would have been denied six years of referendum preparation. The No vote may have been more decisive and Labour might not have taken the SNP’s place as the party of irrelevance.

Re: #60947


Can you name a few with figs Haystack?

Sturgeon warns of second referendum over EU exit


11:50 Tuesday 02 June 2015


126 comments



Have your say


A VOTE to take the UK out of the European Union (EU) could result in a “clamour” for another referendum on Scottish independence, according to the First Minister.

Nicola Sturgeon said that if Scotland was taken out of the EU against its will in the in/out referendum on membership it would create a “groundswell of anger”.

“ I believe that the groundswell of anger amongst many ordinary people in Scotland under these circumstances could produce a clamour for another independence referendum
Nicola Sturgeon

She used her first Brussels speech as First Minister to renew calls for a “double majority” to ensure that all four UK nations back withdrawal from the EU before it can take place.





The SNP leader said: “I previously stated my view that if Scotland were to be taken out of Europe despite voting as a nation to have remained, it would provoke a strong backlash amongst many ordinary voters.


“Quite what the result of that would be no-one can perceive but I’ve stated before that this could be one scenario producing the kind of material change in circumstances that would precipitate popular demand for a second independence referendum.

“Bluntly, I believe that the groundswell of anger amongst many ordinary people in Scotland under these circumstances could produce a clamour for another independence referendum that may well be unstoppable.

“Of course it is open to the UK Government to stop that happening, to guard against that scenario by agreeing to the double majority provision.”

Prime Minister David Cameron embarked on a tour of European capitals last week in an effort to drum up support for the reform of Britain’s relationship with the EU he hopes to secure before the referendum promised by the end of 2017.


In her address to the European Policy Centre, Ms Sturgeon reiterated her Government’s “unequivocal” support for the UK remaining in the EU and argued that “sensible proposals” for reform could be achieved without the need for treaty change.

With a legal challenge against Scottish Government plans for a minimum price for alcohol currently making its way through the European courts, she called for member states to be given autonomy in key areas such as public health policy, and for the development of a single EU market in energy and digital services.

The Scottish Government also wants more localised discretion in implementing regulations to make EU policies “more proportionate and less burdensome”, pointing to changes made to the Common Fisheries Policy last year.

comments

If UK votes to leave EU then why not have a 2nd ref for Indy . Scotland can go Indy and rejoin the EU and have all the benefits they want. U.S. Down south want Barnett money stopped and go for growth. The professionals and businesses of Scotland can come south. The SNP mob left in Scotland can be bailed out like Greece

Does that mean that is Scotland votes Yes to exit the EU and the rest of the UK votes No then Ms. Sturgeon will demand a second referendum with a view to keeping an independent Scotland out of the EU?

In the light of recent developments with the SNP stating that they want FFA (retaining Barnett subsidy of circa £10bn per year for as long as they can stretch that out if at all) and the Tories now proposing that Scotland be granted FFA (the real version without Barnett subsidy) here's a thought!

Would there be an appetite amongst NO (for Independence) voters to use something like CROWDFUNDING to raise sufficient funds to mount a legal action against the SNP and it's "Leaders" and "Officebearers" for seeking to "mislead, deceive and lie to The Scottish People regarding FFA and/or Independence for Scotland by "implying" or "suggesting" that either FFA or Independence was ECONOMICALLY VIABLE for Scotland AND The Scottish People"?

This kind of ACTION might just focus the minds of ALL The Scottish People AND the SNP "Leaders", "Officebearers" and cult followers that either FFA (without Barnett subsidy) OR Independence for Scotland IS NOT THE WILL OF THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE?

Interested to hear the thoughts of other rationally thinking Scots on these thoughts.

Any deflection (irrational or just plain stupid) from the topic or racist comments or inane non topic drivel will confirm that the posters of such haven't a clue about the points raised or the huge constitutional & economic changes to The Scottish People that either FFA (without Barnett subsidy) OR Independence for Scotland would bring to The Scottish People!

When did this beauty and stature challenged lady get the authority to speak for " the people of Scotland " ? She speaks only and I stress only, for the SNP and their supporters, who in no sense of the word are a majority in Scotland. At least the Tory government has the good grace and democratic principles to allow the people of the UK to decide , in a referendum, whether they wish to remain as members of the EU or not. In case the lowlife of the SNP are unaware of the fact, Scotland is and always will be part of the UK and has the same right to vote on this matter as the rest of the UK. If the dictatorial mindset of the SNP cannot handle the thought of democracy, then they are , as often suggested a threat to the people of Scotland.

This is downright undemocratic for our First Minister to threaten those of us who wish to leave the EU with another referendum on independence. Scots said NO, and that means they remain British, and therefore subject to the democratically arrived decisions taken by Westminster and the British people as a whole.The SNP form only a tiny part of the overall national electorate (UKIP got almost three times the popular vote), and therefore must not dictate to he rest of us. You lost the referendum; accept the verdict of the people, and pretend that you are real democrats!

I used to do financial modelling in the Treasury department of ICI and they were operating in virtually every country in the world. In 2006 they had turnover of £4.6bn. Almost all that turnover was done abroad. Just think of every large UK company, including all the banks who do business worldwide.

If you want to change the way you tax foreign companies doing business here then you need worldwide agreement. The net result will be tax paid in the countries that business is done in instead of the home country. That will probably net out to the same amount for each country as now.

I'll ask again, cos I don't think you read it right!


£5.3bn sales from British internet shoppers = £11mil in tax...and you think that's ok?

Yes. They do exactly what our companies do when trading abroad. They are fulfilling their legal obligations. There is no moral association with paying or not paying taxes. It is about legal requirements. If you don't like it then change the law and make them pay their taxes here. Then other countries will retaliate and they will tax our companies.