(Following on from James’ post yesterday and the fine debate that followed…)
With Michael Moore’s perfectly fair announcement that, back in 2007, the SNP let lapse the option to vary tax powers, the Scottish Greens’ policy of ‘revenue raising’ through said powers has been well and truly torpedoed. However, has the SNP shot itself in the foot by hampering its own 2011 policy of ushering in a Local Income Tax?
There are not expected to be too many big issues in the coming election campaign which makes the debate around what to replace the Council Tax with (if anything) all the more important. Labour and the Conservatives appear to be in favour of a variant of the status quo, the Greens are championing Land Value Tax and the SNP and Liberal Democrats prefer a Local Income Tax.
However, in order for Scotland to implement a Local Income Tax, we would need HM Revenues & Customs to collect different levels of tax rates from Scots to English and Welsh workers, an exercise that would be remarkably similar to receiving the income from use of the tax varying powers.
How can the Scottish Government bring in a Local Income Tax if it no longer has the option “to fund the upkeep of the Scottish Variable Rate (SVR), which allows MSPs to increase or lower income tax by 3p in the pound”?
The SNP has made similar short-sighted mistakes like this on big policy issues before:
The Scottish Futures Trust was stopped in its tracks upon the SNP learning that it couldn’t issue bonds to raise the necessary funds, a bodycheck that the policy has still not fully recovered from, particularly given the news that the Scottish Government is to dabble in the implementation of the much-maligned PPP
The reduction of class sizes to 18 was deemed illegal because parents had a right to put their child in a classroom as long as the class size was still below 30 and an embarrassing change of approach and shift in emphasis soon followed
It can’t be easy running a country, particularly when you want to simultaneously lead a devolved nation competently while convincing your electorate that it should choose independence. You only get to make so many mistakes though and this may be the one that decides the next election. After all, if this wasn’t a mistake, then why has it been brushed under the carpet for 3 years?
Labour may be arguing for an increase in Council Tax but set against a Local Income Tax that can’t be implemented for another three years (a policy we’ve already waited four years for) Labour’s offering might end up being accepted as the least worst option. Or, even better, Land Value Tax may come through the middle and be seen as an idea whose time has come.
Bottom line – I just can’t see how the SNP can campaign for varying our tax rates via LIT when it opens the party up to such easy, and deserving, criticism.
#1 by Doug Daniel on November 19, 2010 - 9:57 am
It would have cost the Scottish taxpayer £19.5 million in total to have this unused power at hand today. That’s the real scandal. As far as I’m concerned, the only mistake the SNP have made is that they should have highlighted this absurdity in the first place, so that there was absolutely no room for anyone to suggest that they had just forgotten to pay the bills. Labour in particular were very fond of telling us that this was not the time to be “wasting” £10 million on the independence referendum, and yet we now find out that we were expected to pay a similar(ish) amount to keep our options open with a tax power that no major party has any intention of using, and probably never would have since it is such an unprogressive tax power.
There will now be a lot of confusion and obfuscation around the issue of implementing taxes, as this blog post shows. Will this affect the ability to set up LIT/LVT/whatever or won’t it? Will the Calman tax powers be affected by this, or would they have replaced the system anyway? Why on earth does it cost £50,000 to maintain a system that is unused, and why would it have cost £7 million to include the SVR details in whatever system upgrade they did? We need to know for sure what the answers to these questions are before we start worrying about whether all future tax power changes have been scuppered.
Anyway, having worked on software for councils in the past, I have first-hand experience of how ridiculously long it takes to change things in governmental systems. When the VAT was changed to 15%, there were some councils who didn’t even have their online systems changed to reflect this until as late as October of last year, just a few months before the VAT rate was put back up to 17.5%, and this was in systems where they literally just had to change a 17.5 to a 15 in the database. If it would take 3 years to get the SVR system back up and running, you can bet your house on it taking just as long to implement any entirely new tax system – LIT, LVT or whatever. To be honest, even if LIT was agreed upon in the early months of the next parliament, I would be amazed if we actually saw the changes fully implemented before the next election.
The simple fact is that if HMRC insist on collecting any Scottish-only tax money and then dishing it back out to us, then the upkeep of such a system is their responsibility, and any costs incurred should be shouldered by them. We shouldn’t be paying millions of pounds for HMRC to tell us we can’t look after our own extra tax money. The SNP have been fairly naive here, something that has been consistent in most of their problems in this parliamentary session, but I think that’s the only thing they’re guilty of.
#2 by Jeff on November 19, 2010 - 11:22 am
Doug, it seems we are going to have two perfectly valid themes from this issue:
(1) as you say, why is it so expensive and problematic for a tax body to do the bidding of a national Government
(2) why did the SNP not make public the decision it had taken on our behalf and what was the full logic behind the move
I just hope the SNP doesn’t focus on the former while the opposition focuses on the latter and we all end up nowhere, as ever.
But the immediate question is indeed Calman, as you say. Michael Moore needs to step up and make a lot of these issues crystal clear as the Scotland Bill is due to be debated over the next few months, weeks even.
#3 by Malc on November 19, 2010 - 11:37 am
For an alternative viewpoint, have a read of Alan Trench on the issue. If nothing else, its worth looking at the reasons he suggests for doing it.
#4 by Richard Thomson on November 19, 2010 - 9:57 am
“How can the Scottish Government bring in a Local Income Tax if it no longer has the option “to fund the upkeep of the Scottish Variable Rate (SVR), which allows MSPs to increase or lower income tax by 3p in the poundâ€?”
Jeff – LIT never envisaged using the ‘Tartan Tax’ (SVR) powers. It was to be a seperate tax entirely which applied against all earned income.
Surely the question has to be asked – if HMRC is prepared to collect the SVR in exchange for suitable recompense, then why was it so against doing the same for LIT? More to the point, with Labour out of office at Westminster and a Lib Dem Secretary of State, is there any prospect of that HMRC stance altering?
#5 by Jeff on November 19, 2010 - 10:25 am
Thanks for the response Richard and that does clarify things. The SNP needs to avoid getting pulled into having to explain SVR at every turn though for fear of sending the public to sleep. If it can push hard against HMR&C and even arrange some sort of agreement in advance of May then I agree that the LIT policy is still alive but it’s going to be an even tougher needle to thread than 4 years ago as ‘SNP’, ‘tax’ and ‘trust’ are not a happy mix at the moment.
#6 by James on November 19, 2010 - 10:36 am
One thing: LIT wasn’t to be based on the SVR – yes.
But not the second: saying it’s “separate” that doesn’t explain how LIT would have been actually extracted from the public.
Jeff’s right that LIT would need to be collected by HMRC and would therefore have required the exact same database information, unless the SNP wanted to set up a whole new SHMRC for this purpose.
The third is right, though – I think if the SNP had not let the power lapse then they ought to have been able to get HMRC to run their National LIT, i.e. one rate. Now they can’t bring anything like that in until 2013 at the earliest. So inept. And the Lib Dem version, Local LIT (which at least had some control with Councils) now looks almost impossible.
What with Labour not really having a plan on local tax too.. mebbe LVT’s time has come.
#7 by Richard Thomson on November 19, 2010 - 11:09 am
Hi James.
The white paper on LIT made it clear that the preferred option was to have the tax collected by HMRC as a 3% flat tax over all earned income, at least to begin with. Ironically, if the database is in as much of a state as it seems to be, it lends added force to the SNP argument for not allowing 32 local authorities to set their own rates, at least at the outset.
I could never fathom why HMRC was prepared to collect the SVR, but not a LIT. This might be part of the explanation, although I suspect that the dead hand of Jim Murphy was a bigger factor, pace the treatment of Council Tax benefit.
The costs being spoken about suggest that the HMRC system is far more complex than it really needs to be. KPMG brought out a short report on the implications of using the SVR back in 1997, which made the point that if you were UK domiciled, then you only needed to spend 122 days mostly in Scotland in order to become liable.
The ‘easy’ way to do it would be to reconcile people according to their main addresses. If you live at least part of the year in Scotland, the onus would then be upon you to demonstrate that you are ordinarily domiciled elsewhere in the UK for the greater part of the year which renders you as being UK domiciled.
Start holding on to those old train tickets and boarding passes, people…
#8 by Steve on November 20, 2010 - 8:54 pm
LIT doesnt have to be done through HMRC, we could do it ourselves. LVT is a great relacement for business rates, I’m with you 100%, but it is not a good replacement for the council tax, it’s still regressive, and many of the benefits of LVT (efficient use of land, preventing land banking, taxing windfalls that come to landowners as a result of local improvements to services/infrastructure etc) just don’t apply to domestic property.
#9 by Richard Thomson on November 19, 2010 - 10:54 am
I think you’re right, Jeff. It’s frustrating to have to explain/defend the current setup, when what you really want to talk about is how things might work under a different system entirely.
Still, full marks to Michael Moore for managing to stir up something out of very little. Shame it’s austerity budget time, so he can’t give his SPAD a performance pay increase 🙂
#10 by Jeff on November 19, 2010 - 10:59 am
I disagree that it’s “very little” Richard. This could well plague the SNP for months to come. Every perceived waste of money (Salmond’s £0.5m speechwriting team in the Daily Record today, for example) will have the value of that spend compared with the cost of the tax-varying powers that Scots overwhelmingly voted for in the referendum. It’s the way it was all hushed up too that grates the most.
This can grow arms and legs too; can the SNP campaign for a referendum when the party rides roughshod over the express wishes of the electorate at the last one? I really don’t think this is a little deal.
#11 by Richard Thomson on November 19, 2010 - 11:21 am
Fair enough. Maybe I’m just jaundiced.
However, we’re talking about money *not* being spent here. It seems, to put it mildly, a little perverse for the press to be banging on about supposed government waste, at the same time as castigating the government for not spending money on maintaining a power that was never going to be used, and which is in any case about to be replaced with something else anyway!
#12 by Doug Daniel on November 19, 2010 - 11:37 am
SInce when were the press (particularly in Scotland) anything BUT perverse? This is what I mean about the SNP being guilty of being a bit naive – I think they need to start being a bit more skeptical about things, and before making a decision, spend a bit more time looking at every possible angle that could be taken on it. It was so obvious that when this came out, it would be looked at as if the SNP had lost SVR down the back of the settee, rather than a genuine decision not to waste £7 million on something that wasn’t being used, and never would. All they needed to do was say “look at this ridiculous waste of money for a regressive tax power that is close to useless. We’re spending the money on this instead”, and there would have been no issue.
#13 by James on November 19, 2010 - 10:00 am
Absolutely Jeff, that makes perfect sense. Hadn’t occurred to me in the heat of the tax hand-back stuff last night.
This does feel like a double unravelling – first a fraying at the edges of Scotland’s powers (not the SNP’s powers), delivered by the SNP themselves, and second a massive rip in both their credibility and their future policy proposals.
Apologies for not being around on last night’s thread, I was at a works night out.
But, despite all the empty froth and bluster from the Nats in the last thread, all you need to know about the lapsing of the Scottish Variable Rate is this: what would Alex Salmond have said if it came out in 2006 that Jack McConnell had let it lapse in 2003?
#14 by Malc on November 19, 2010 - 1:14 pm
That’s the crux of it, isn’t it? Wouldn’t the SNP have screamed bloody murder if a unionist party had “given back” (or at least looked like they’ve given back) a power?
On the flip side, they haven’t ACTUALLY given back the power, they’ve just let the ability to use it slide. That’s not the same as, say, letting Westminster legislate on something for them (Sewel motion-style).
Its about perception versus reality at the end of the day I think – the SNP will get slated for something which doesn’t really amount to anything that they were going to do anyway.
#15 by Gaz on November 19, 2010 - 11:36 am
I’m not sure about your premise here Jeff.
In 2007, the SNP campaigned for LIT which was to be preceeded by three full years of council tax freeze in the full knowledge that an LIT bill would have to be drafted, introduced, debated and agreed before the mechanics of implementation could begin. In short, the introduction of LIT is a three year project.
Assuming the SNP are returned at the next election, again on the platform of introducing an LIT and again fully aware that it would take time to implement it does not seem unreasonable that any necessary payment to HMRC could be made at that point so the system has been refreshed to support LIT in time for its implementation.
Remember that the SNP have already committed to freezing Council tax for 2011/12 already – precisely becasuse they know that introducing LIT cannot be done without substantial scrutiny and preparation.
The result? About £30million redirected from the waste bin into jobs and services during the course of the current parliament.
I’m sure that not even the SNP knew in 2007 just how important that additional money would be but it just goes to show how impressive John Swinney is in uncovering all the inefficiencies in the system that he inherited.
#16 by James on November 19, 2010 - 1:10 pm
I’m afraid that’s horse, as they say. I just scanned the SNP’s 2007 manifesto and there’s no reference to the imposition of a CT freeze.
All it says is:
#17 by cynicalHighlander on November 19, 2010 - 12:15 pm
If it doesn’t open at the right place go to c1:32:40secs in.
GMS
#18 by neil craig on November 19, 2010 - 12:54 pm
It is disgraceful that the SNP, nominally promising we need more powers to improve the economy have instead decided to get rid of the major power we have. Add that to the fact that they want to make us totally dependent on England to keep the lights on & that they are enthusiasts for being part of a superstate ruled from Brussels & it is clear that nobody honest can claim the party is in any way nationalist. All they are are persons who do not tell the truth intent purely on keeping their feet under the table while shuffling off all the difficult decisions to London.
#19 by Malc on November 19, 2010 - 1:16 pm
One more thing – if its the power of the Scottish Parliament (as in the referendum question – “should the Scottish Parliament have the power to…”) how could the Scottish Government do this without notifying Parliament?
Smoke and mirrors – but surely there was some discussion with some of the other parties…?
#20 by Jeff on November 19, 2010 - 1:30 pm
I think you answered your point with your earlier comment Malc. The “power” has not been revoked, they’ve just let it lapse for a few years.
One point that I don’t think has as yet been considered is that if we do ever need this £7m IT fix to be implemented, surely it’s easier (and cheaper) to have had it done when the HMRC systems were being overhauled anyway. Retro-fitting, for want of a better word, an amendment for Scotland could be costly.
That said, there’s a huge majority in favour of not using these powers and that doesn’t look likely to change so that particular aspect may well be moot.
#21 by Malc on November 19, 2010 - 2:07 pm
Still think if its isn’t the Scottish Government’s “power” to “return” or “let lapse” or however you want to frame it, then they wouldn’t be able to. Its the Parliament’s power… that’s all I’m saying.
#22 by Indy on November 19, 2010 - 1:56 pm
What nonsense some people are talking. The SNP’s plans for a local income tax ws one of the main issues in the 2007 election campaign and everybody – including James – knew that the plan was that council tax would be frozen prior to implementation.
You really can’t re-write history.
#23 by Gaz on November 19, 2010 - 2:40 pm
Yes Indy, I think James really seems to have a bee in his bonnet about his boss’s aspiration to raise tax.
Don’t worry James, once the Calman proposals go through, whatever government is in charge will have no choice but to raise our taxes.
Perhaps then you will understand the folly in doing so as subsequent years’ block grants are reduced to ‘compensate’ for the ‘extra’ tax being collected in Scotland.
Calman’s proposals are designed to force the reduction of public spending in Scotland while keeping her dependant on the Westminster Treasury. The choice for every Scottish Budget from here until Independence is cut spending or raise taxes.
#24 by Gaz on November 19, 2010 - 4:40 pm
Looks like the truth is about to come out.
Some folk are going to look very stupid but there’s no change there I suppose!!!
#25 by Doug Daniel on November 19, 2010 - 4:58 pm
Wow, I’ve just seen the contents of Salmond’s reply. An absolute slam dunk, which leaves Michael Moore looking rather foolish and a bit too hasty to try and pin something on the SNP, leading to him forgetting to make sure his facts were straight (where have we seen that before?) When are opposition MPs/MSPs going to realise that the expression “there’s nae flies on him” was practically invented for Salmond?
Of course, one wonders if this retort will be quite so readily reported in the media as the initial accusations were…
#26 by cynicalHighlander on November 19, 2010 - 5:18 pm
I am listening to Patrick on the radio, tut tut.
FM’s response
#27 by cynicalHighlander on November 19, 2010 - 5:24 pm
Wrong link sorry.
FM’s response
#28 by EphemeralDeception on November 19, 2010 - 5:26 pm
@James – Sorry for the impression I gave last night – when I said ‘major parties’. I just meant it pragmatically and I was thinking of SNP, Labour and Lib dems(incase of horse trading).
First the Power to vary TAX has not changed it is still in the Scotland act. You could argue that Westminster is itself in Breach of contract as they cannot implement it if we so wish. What is to stop them saying it will take 1,3,10 or 50 years to implement.
They can also change the systems any time they want meaning we pay more again…and again…and again
Politics aside – this is sheer lunacy.
So, in any case you cannot make a rational analysis of a system and a situation that is unworkable with the deck stacked against us.
P.S. I dont really favour LIT, I acutally preffer a LVT method.
I don’t like the geens plans for LVT either. It is just a garden tax. If any Country needs a real Land TAX it is Scotland – Andy Wightman style.
#29 by James on November 19, 2010 - 9:13 pm
You know Andy Wightman wrote the report for us?
#30 by Dubbieside on November 19, 2010 - 5:42 pm
Since so much space has been given to Moores letter, you may find the First Ministers reply worth reading. From SNP website.
Your letter of 18 November about the Scottish variable rate of income tax (SVR) is a travesty of the position. The reality is as follows.
The then Scottish Executive paid the UK Government £12 million in 2000 to add SVR functionality to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) tax collection systems. Thereafter, an annual fee of £50,000 was paid.
HMRC said in 2007 that additional work was needed to maintain the readiness of the IT system, and in summer 2008 made clear that they would be installing a new IT platform. Scottish Government officials attempted to elicit information on what this meant for Scotland and the functionality of the 3p tax power.
We were finally asked on 28 July this year to pay over the sum of £7 million to HMRC for this purpose. Why nowhere in your letter did you mention this.demand?
Anyone proposing paying this £7 million to HMRC would need to explain where the equivalent cuts would be made in Scottish public spending.
And even if we had paid it – at a time when Scotland is on the receiving end of massive cuts to our budget from your government – the SVR under the new system could not have been implemented until 2012/13: another key point which you failed to mention.
In any case, at that stage it seemed an academic debate because the SVR itelf is set to be replaced under any version of the legislation which you intend to introduce in the next few weeks.
On 20 August, Scottish Government officials offered talks with HMRC on the issue of the SVR – an offer which has not been responded to. The first we have heard from the UK government on the matter since 20 August is your letter of yesterday.
It is clearly unacceptable that Scotland should be asked to pay, again, for something which millions of pounds have previously been paid for. If HMRC choose to replace their IT systems, that is clearly a matter for them. However, anyone would expect them in specifying their new systems to replicate the functionality of the old.
No Scottish administration has used the 3p tax power, none of the main parties in Scotland advocate using it now, and it is intended to be overtaken by the Tory/Lib Dem Calman financial proposals – flawed measures which, had they been established for the start of the current spending review, would have resulted in the Scottish Budget being £900 million lower in 2009/10.
The real issue, therefore, would appear to be about the future.
You stated – as did Danny Alexander in his letter to me of 20 October this year about the Spending Review settlement – that: “it is an established principle that the costs of devolution should be met from the Scottish Budget.”
This is not the case – in fact, the opposite is true.
HM Treasury’s recently-updated Statement of Funding Policy states at paragraph 3.2.8 that:
“Where decisions of United Kingdom departments or agencies lead to additional costs for any of the devolved administrations, where other arrangements do not exist automatically to adjust for such extra costs, the body whose decision leads to the additional cost will meet that cost.”
The clear impression can only be that your letter was not about the cost of financial powers that are going to be superseded, but rather about establishing a precedent for the Scottish Government paying to instal and administer the Calman tax proposals – which unlike the SVR will require to be used every year.
Given the huge pressures on the Scottish public purse because of your government’s spending cuts – and the further threat to our budget from the Calman proposals themselves – we need answers to these key questions as a matter of urgency:
How much is the UK Government intending to ask the Scottish Government to pay for the Calman tax powers – measures which could reduce Scotland’s budget, as indicated above?
When do you propose asking the Scottish Government, and therefore the Scottish people, to pay?
Exactly when would these financial powers be capable of being implemented?
A copy of this letter goes like yours to Annabel Goldie MSP, Iain Gray MSP, Margo MacDonald MSP, Tavish Scott MSP and Patrick Harvie MSP, and David Gauke MP, and also to the leaders of the Scottish parties at Westminster: Angus Robertson MP, Ann McKechin MP, and David Mundell MP. I am also sending copies to John Swinney and Fiona Hyslop.
Given that you released your letter to the media, I am also releasing this.
ALEX SALMOND
Does anyone think that the reply will get the same prominence in the media that Moorse letter got.
#31 by Jeff on November 19, 2010 - 5:49 pm
One can only hope that it garners as much exposure Dubbieside as it is a tremendous letter and quite remarkable forceful language. If (if!) the Scottish Secretary has been playing games with this, can he realistically stay on? For me it all hinges on whether the tax option lapsed in 2007 or, as the FM’s letter seems to suggest, just a few months ago.
#32 by James on November 19, 2010 - 9:14 pm
In case you want to look back and work out the exact moment where Salmond dismissed both the Scottish Greens and our voters, it’s here:
#33 by Dubbieside on November 19, 2010 - 6:13 pm
Jeff
But some people swallowed it “hook, line and sinker” All the unionist parties have form on dodgy statistics, reading only partial quotes (Goldie yesterday at FMQ as an example) etc which are then reported as undeniable facts by the main stream media. Some blogs even rush out with quotes that they are indignant with rage.
To answer your specific questions will it garner as much exposure? No
Can he realistically stay on? Yes hes a unionist.
If this had happened in 2007 Murphy would have been all over this like a rash.
#34 by Doug Daniel on November 19, 2010 - 7:41 pm
We’ll be lucky if it garners ANY exposure.
BBC Scotland’s 15 minute lunchtime news had time for the juicy story, which broke on the BBC News website yesterday evening. Fast forward to the longer evening news at 6:30pm, and suddenly the story has completely disappeared. No correction, no word of the Scottish Secretary getting his facts badly wrong… no story at all. At the time of writing, it’s still not been corrected on the BBC News site (although the original story has suddenly been relegated right down the page).
Media manipulation in action. Want a fair, unbiased election? Try Burma or Zimbabwe.
#35 by John Ruddy on November 19, 2010 - 6:50 pm
If the facts are as said in Alex Salmonds reply above, then Michael Moore has shot himself in the foot, and the issue becomes not a toxic one for the SNP, but one they can use against the Lib Dems and the Tories.
Could we have 4 Secretaries of State in one year? Such ineptness cannot go unpunished!
#36 by Gaz on November 19, 2010 - 7:36 pm
My view is that Michael Moore will have to resign over this. In no way can his behaviour be described as acting in the interest of Scotland – which is supposedly what his job is meant to be about.
At least Murphy was smart enough to use innuendo and smears rather than leave such an obvious audit trail of deliberate untruths.
The integrity of the opposition leaders in Holyrood must also be in serious question. They made no attempt to seek clarification of the position from the institution they are a part of. They simply picked up the cudgels laid down by Westminster and did their dirty work for them.
This may indeed be as big as Jeff originally suspected!!!
#37 by Dubbieside on November 19, 2010 - 9:57 pm
Are a party with two MSPs a main party? Discuss.
#38 by James on November 19, 2010 - 11:57 pm
Is a party that lets Scotland’s powers wither away a nationalist party? Is a party that does that without telling anyone an honest government? Is a party that ignores the will of the people in a referendum a democratic party? Should any party be allowed to decide privately which other parties are important enough to be allowed to propose the use of parts of the Scotland Act (Penny For Scotland) and which aren’t?
Discuss.
#39 by Doug Daniel on November 20, 2010 - 12:45 am
I’ll take up the challenge.
Is a party that lets Scotland’s powers wither away a nationalist party? Depends if that power is actually beneficial for Scotland or not – something which is debatable in regards to how SVR was set up. But it’sa moot point since the power still exists – after all, only Westminster can give or remove devolved powers.
Is a party that does that without telling anyone an honest government? No, it isn’t. So it’s just as well the power still exists, or the SNP would look dishonest. It’s certainly just as well they haven’t been paying for something we don’t use without telling us, which, it transpires, is what the last lot did.
Is a party that ignores the will of the people in a referendum a democratic party? Well of course, it’s nice if the public even gets a chance to vote on a referendum, which is not something we’ve been allowed to do much of lately (no fault of the Greens, obviously). But the question was whether the Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers, not whether they should use them (and note: the question said tax-varying powers, not a tax-varying power… Where did the rest of them go?)
Should any party be allowed to decide privately which other parties are important enough to be allowed to propose the use of parts of the Scotland Act (Penny For Scotland) and which aren’t? Nope, but then no one has said such a thing. Salmond merely stated that none of the four main parties advocated its use. Whether or not the Greens are a main party or not is a different question of course (I’m sure Malc did a blog on this subject a few months ago), but until and unless the Greens manage to hoover up all the Lib Dem support in May (and I can think of worse things to happen), then I’m afraid it’s unlikely many people would regard a party with 2 MSPs to be a main party, unless we’re going to start calling Margo a main party too.
The fact is that, up until the sending of Michael Moore’s letter, the Government were still waiting for a response from HMRC in their negotiations about the £7 million demanded in July this year, for an IT system upgrade that was first mooted in 2007. The £50,000 payments may have stopped, but no one could seriously expect a change to our tax system to be implemented the day after the next election anyway – parliamentary debates, civil servant hold-ups and such like would have seen a tax change take 10 months easily, and if the Greens win the next election, there’s nothing to stop them saying “hey, get that system up and running while we try and get this tax increase proposal through parliament”. Oh wait, there is – because even if the SNP had coughed up the £7 million straight away like good little boys and girls, the IT upgrade would still not have been ready until 2012/2013.
This whole thing boils down to theory vs practice. The SNP are probably not entirely blameless in this whole drama, but I would say HMRC are the real baddies (not to mention the idiots who helped set the ridiculous system up in the first place – Labour party, please take a bow).
#40 by Fitalass on November 19, 2010 - 9:59 pm
Sorry, but have I missed something here? Where in that letter did Alex Salmond explain the reasons why he and his government had failed to make this situation public? Did they even share any of this information with the leaders of the opposition parties at Holyrood? That is what drove the headline news last night, and I suspect was the main reason for Michael Moore’s own letter?
I don’t see this letter as a triumph of factual content for Alex Salmond and his government, but more a detailed excuse and attempt to gloss over the fact that this information was released by Michael Moore instead of Scotland’s FM. And it would have been Alex Salmond’s letter that made the headlines last night if he had laid out the current situation to the public and his opponents without resorting to partisan point scoring.
Because regardless of deliberate or unintentional incompetence either at Holyrood or Westminster. I want to know why we are only hearing about this now, and if left to our government in Holyrood, when were the SNP intending to come clean to tell us about this?
And what ever the details on this issue, ta very much for bringing it to all our attention Mr Moore.
#41 by Lost Highlander on November 20, 2010 - 12:17 am
The trouble for the SNP is that if they had made this public before now they would have been accused by the Unionist parties and the press of picking a fight with westminster that could have easily been resolved by negociation.
But Moore has not only put his foot into it but jumped headfirst. And now the SNP can use this as a lack of respect from Westminster. Remember this will have officially neutral witnesses the civil servants and so expect this to run a long time. This can no longer be hidden and the best the coallition can do is to make a form of apology and to resolve this in all likehood with reinstating the mechanism but without the costs added.
But somehow I dont think the Condems will do this and added to the AV referendum on the same day as the Hollywood election and Camerons personal involvement in the closing of Kinloss this becomes more evidence for the view that it is Westminster bashing Scotland.
#42 by Indy on November 20, 2010 - 10:14 am
Fitalass asks where in his letter did Alex explain the reasons why he and his government had failed to make this situation public?
I think if you read the letter again you may notice these lines:
“HMRC said in 2007 that additional work was needed to maintain the readiness of the IT system, and in summer 2008 made clear that they would be installing a new IT platform. Scottish Government officials attempted to elicit information on what this meant for Scotland and the functionality of the 3p tax power.
We were finally asked on 28 July this year to pay over the sum of £7 million to HMRC for this purpose …. On 20 August, Scottish Government officials offered talks with HMRC on the issue of the SVR – an offer which has not been responded to. The first we have heard from the UK government on the matter since 20 August is your letter of yesterday.
This is all about officials dealing with officials. The SG was not in a position to report anything because they did not know what the situation was. Clearly they would have been complete mugs to have paid over 7 million for an upgraded IT system which Alex Salmond’s letter suggests did not have the same functionality as the previous one. If someone replaced an IT system you had paid for and then said you will have to pay extra to have the same functionality that you had before would you just hand that money over without so much as asking for a meeting to discuss it? If you would I very much hope you are never made responsible for Scotland’s finances.
But what is more to the point is the latter part of the letter and the way in which the UK Government is trying to change the rules (without actually changing the rules).
#43 by Indy on November 20, 2010 - 10:50 am
There’s no point answering your questions James because they are not based on reality. However I would make the following points.
1. It is not disputed that the then Scottish Executive paid the UK Government £12 million in 2000 to add SVR functionality to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) tax collection systems. Thereafter, an annual fee of £50,000 was paid to maintain it.
2. Alex Salmond’s letter states as a fact that in 2007 HMRC said that that additional work was needed to maintain the readiness of the IT system. In summer of 2008 HMRC said that they would be installing a new IT platform. The issue of paying 50,000 a year is therefore irrelevant because they would have been paying to maintain a system which no longer existed. The arrangements lapsed because the IT system they were paying to help maintain lapsed. You don’t go on paying for a service that you are not getting.
3 Alex Salmond’s letter states as a fact that the Scottish Government was not advised by HMRC that it would cost 7 million to have the AVR functionality available in the new system until 28 July 2010. The SG quite rightly did not agree – because the previous Scottish Executive had already paid 12 million to have that functionality built into HMRC’s system.
4. Alex Salmond’s letter states as a fact that SG officials offered talks with HMRC about the matter on 20 August. There was no response until Michael Moore’s letter.
5. A key point that has been overlooked in Michael Moore’s letter is his statement that “I am not privy to the dialogue which took place between your Administration and the previous UK Government in the past three years†That seems rather strange to me as communications between officials over administrative matters are not generally kept secret and this is an administrative issue. But it perhaps explains the reason why Labour have not jumped on this.
6. The key point in Alex Salmond’s letter is his accusation that the UK Government is trying to manipulate the situation to make the Scottish Government responsible for any administrative costs associated with Calman even though their own funding policy makes it clear that the UK should take responsibility for paying for any extra costs which result from decisions that they take.
7. The key point about the Green response to this is the way that they automatically backed the Tories against the SNP – even though Greens said they found the story astonishing they did not hesitate to make immediate political capital out of it before they had heard the SG side of things. That undermines any vague sense that Green MSPs are somehow “different” to other parties. Clearly you are as prone to unthinking political opportunism as any other party and, on the basis of this, not to be trusted in future.
#44 by neil craig on November 20, 2010 - 10:59 am
Something which makes no semse unless we asume the SNP are so incompetent that they simply forgot to pay the token bill:
In January 2009 Holyrood defeated the SNP budget because the LudDims voted it down because they allegedly wanted to use the power to reduce income tax by 2p. We now know that the SNP had already relieved Holyrood of this power yet they said nothing about it, even though mentioning it would have forced the LDs to stand aside & the budget would have passed. So the SNP eother deliberately deceived parliament for the purpose of achieving their biggest constitutional setback or they hadn’t a clue.
The LDs, seeing they had succeeded, immediately proved they hadn’t ever meant it as anything more than dishonest electoral posturing, by reversing their position & letting the budget pass.
#45 by Jeff on November 20, 2010 - 11:02 am
Good point!
#46 by Dubbieside on November 20, 2010 - 11:11 am
James
Since I am not a nocturnal animal Doug Daniel discussed very vigorously your points. Probably much better than I could.
The reply from Indy also makes some very valid points, but particularly point 7. You jumped on this in a mirror of the worst of the Labour party behavior, no opportunity for the SNP to reply, take anything that on face value hurts the SNP and run with it.
As Indy quite rightly says it now appears that the Greens are as prone to unthinking political opportunism as any other party. Alas the hope that there was one party, no matter how small and insignificant, was prepared to provide constructive opposition, much needed constructive opposition, has now been shattered.
#47 by Fitalass on November 20, 2010 - 12:26 pm
Indy, Michael Moore decided to bring this situation to the attention of the public and opposition parties because after having nearly four years to do so, Alex Salmond and his government still had not.
Trying to make excuses for what happened while shifting the blame onto everyone else still doesn’t answer the question of why the SNP at no point thought that the public or the their opponents had any right to know.
I genuinely want to know why we got to this current state of play without this situation ever being raised here at Holyrood or Westminster over the last three and half years. Could it be because we had an SNP government at Holyrood while Labour were in power at Westminster? I think that both parties have questions to answer.
#48 by Indy on November 20, 2010 - 1:32 pm
I don’t see any point in repeating myself Fitalass – the answers are in Alex Salmond’s letter. The Scottish Government was not advised of the situation until J28 uly 2010.
#49 by Fitalass on November 20, 2010 - 1:42 pm
Well this is now November, and we have the Holyrood elections in May. Just when were the SNP going to mention this to the opposition parties and the public, before or after their opponents had written and published their own manifesto’s? On this occasion, they have every reason to be very angry about being kept in the dark.
#50 by Indy on November 20, 2010 - 1:49 pm
Jeezo – again, can I refer you to Alex Salmond’s letter. The Scottish Government was advised that it would cost 7 million quid to get the functionality on HMRC’s new system that their predecessors had already paid for on the old system on 28 July 2010. On 20 August 2010 Scottish Government officials contacted HMRC to ask for a meeting to discuss matters. They did not receive any response. Are you suggesting that at that stage they should have gone to the Scottish Parliament and made a statement about that? Because if you are I think you will find that the same MSPs who are now huffing and puffing would have huffed and puffed about the SNP “picking a fight” with Westminster. The fact is that this IT system belongs to HMRC, not the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government is in no position to make statements about it.
#51 by Fitalass on November 20, 2010 - 2:16 pm
“Are you suggesting that at that stage they should have gone to the Scottish Parliament and made a statement about that?”
Yes, especially on this issue, and the current state of play at anytime since 2007 would have been the fine. But they didn’t. The Scottish people voted yes to this tax raising powers, and they and the opposition parties had a right to know that they were no longer available to them for what ever reason. And the Scottish government was most certainly in a position to make a statement at any time, but most especially in the run up to the Holyrood elections.
I want to know why they have chosen to remain silent on the issue until their hand was finally forced and they had to respond to Michael Moore’s letter? We are all well aware of the difficulties that HMRC have faced over the last 3/4 years. Indeed, everything from the tax credits fiasco to losing the personal data of those receiving child benefit.
And yet total silence on this issue from our government in Holyrood since 2007. And here’s a thought, some really proactive discussion and debate in the public domain ‘might’ have achieved so much more during that period. But we will never know.
#52 by neil craig on November 20, 2010 - 2:35 pm
Presumably the London civil service also knew the SNP had managed to throw away this power. Thus, assuming they have a beter grasp on thjings thanthe SNP the Labour government would have too. Did they tell the Scottish lanour leadership? Why did it have to wait till a LD member of the new government went public.
The SNP have proven grossly dishonest, since they have certainly kept silent & possibly also grossly incompetent if they have done this by (semi)-accident rather than by a deliberate decision, in full understanding of the implications, of the full cabinet at the time.
The point that, if it was really about the cost, that issue could have been forced by public debate also strongly suggests that there was not at the time an intention to rob Scotland of the power & that the numpties are indeed grossly incompetent.
#53 by Observer on November 20, 2010 - 2:43 pm
”The Scottish people voted yes to this tax raising powers, and they and the opposition parties had a right to know that they were no longer available to them for what ever reason.”
So you wanted the Scottish government to make a statement to the Parliament which said that due to an upgrade in HMRC’s computer system the option of immediately implementing the Scottish tax varying powers was not available.
Can I ask you why you think a devolved government should make an announcement about a reserved function?
The drivers here are & always have been HMRC, not the Scottish government. The ball was in their court up until 28th July 2010 when they demanded £7,000,000 from the Scottish government to replicate a system that had already been paid for.
The Scottish government responded to that on 20th August 2010 – I think a very reasonable timescale, especially given the timescales HMRC were evidently working to which stretched to years not weeks.
I don’t think it would have been particularly responsible of Alex Salmond to have made a statement to Parliament about the failure of HMRC to make any significant progress with their upgrade between summer 2008 & July 2010, mainly because it had no relevance as there was no prospect of the power being used. It would just have been written off as a futile attack on Westminster over a technical issue.
I think you need to read Alex Salmond’s letter again – the real issue here isn’t technical problems with HMRC’s computer system – the real issue is who is going to get landed with the costs of implementing Calman on a year on year basis.
#54 by Observer on November 20, 2010 - 2:45 pm
Scotland has not been robbed of any powers.
The only people who can amend the Scotland Act either removing powers or adding them are in the Westminster Parliament.
#55 by haarandrime on November 20, 2010 - 6:19 pm
This is Alan Trench’s update on the issue – hope it’s alright to quote him:
It’s long been the case that the UK Government expects that the Scottish Government will defray any additional costs arising from devolved powers such as the SVR. But as the political stakes involved increase, it’s only natural to expect there to be additional scrutiny of the sums involved and what happens to them. This is going to be a key issue as the principle of devolved fiscal powers for Scotland starts to move from an abstract idea to something that has to work in practice . The real surprise here is that HMRC were surprised. In any case, that position is highly contentious, and the UK Government would be well advised to drop it and instead accept that the ‘UK end’ of devolution is a UK cost and not one to be borne by the devolved administration, whether through the block grant or otherwise. (The trickier issue is working out what the ‘UK end’ is.) One point to look for in the Calman bill will be what it says about the governance arrangements for HMRC. If those don’t reflect the fact that HMRC will work to two governments, not one, that shows how little the implications of even the Calman model of fiscal autonomy have been thought through.
#56 by Erchie on November 20, 2010 - 7:02 pm
For the various folk who keep repeating that the power has been “thrown away” the plain answer is that it hasn’t
HMRC quoted a £7 million price 2 years after saying that the old system was being replaced, with a three year timescale for replacement,
The SG asked for a meeting
HMRC didn’t reply, next the SG hear of it is Michael Moore’s press release
And we can see how even handed the press is being about this
You guys, having jumped on this, don’t even have the grace to say “whoops, maybe there is more to this story, perhaps we were being a bit previous”
#57 by Jeff on November 20, 2010 - 7:37 pm
To be fair Erchie, I never said that the powers have been given away. Power has been given away for a few years sure (and in return for a pretty penny) but I agree that the powers themselves are still there.
As for ‘jumping all over this’, I would maintain that LIT still looks badly damaged whoever is right or wrong between Salmond and Moore and there may still be a question over keeping things quiet. In terms of grace in accepting there’s more to it than at first seemed (1) I’m waiting to see whether tax varying powers lapses in 2007 or 2010 and, anyway; (2) my suggesting it is MMoore who is perhaps most likely of anyone to resign saw to that.
#58 by cynicalHighlander on November 20, 2010 - 7:07 pm
Alan Trench
#59 by Malc on November 20, 2010 - 7:39 pm
I already posted that yesterday – though some folk appear to be unimpressed with his analysis…
#60 by cynicalHighlander on November 20, 2010 - 7:53 pm
Sorry missed that one as I meant to post it in reply to Erchie as he quoted from it.
Lets see if Patrick and/or others bring it up at FM’s questions if they feel they have grounds.
#61 by Steve on November 20, 2010 - 8:43 pm
As the hosts of this website will know, I was really up for using the 3p tax as a way of taking the pain out of the cuts, and I was really pleased to see Patrick Harvie promoting this as an idea.
Let’s be honest though, even if it had been a possibility, it would have been a regressive tax as it only would have applied to the basic rate, and would still have let those who could afford to pay more (and many of those who got us into this mess) relatively speaking get away with it.
There’s a lot of negative comment aimed at the SNP, but given Alex Salmond’s rebuttal, I am not sure what to think about that, it’s not immediately obvious who is most at fault. I would say though that the idea that people voted for the 3p power is rubbish. People voted for a Parliament with tax raising powers, but quite how it was decided that these powers should be limited and regressive, I don’t know. Are wew sure the SVR is what people wanted, I imagine they’d much have preferred at the very least to put 3p on higher rate as well.
But from an SNP point of view, why would they be interested in maintaining the SVR when they were looking to implement Local Income Tax which would have been progressive? The council tax freeze might not have been in the SNP manifesto, but as a way of reducing the overall burden of local taxation (which was in their manifesto “fairer and lower taxation”) it was a way of achieiving the tax cut they were offering a little bit at a time (70million a year). Next year the council tax freeze will have reduced the overall council tax burden by 280 million, which was about the size of tax cut being offered under a LIT of 3p.
But the problem was there wasn’t a majority in the Parliament for LIT. And this is where the Green Party is massively to blame. For a party with only 2 seats in the parliament and therefore no hope of implementing their own preferred land value tax, to scupper the chance to bring in a local income tax in place of the council tax was a terrible, terrible move. LIT is progressive, council tax is regressive, why did the greens decide that the status quo is in any way preferable to a progressive income tax?
Patrick Harvie’s recent argument that 3p on basic rate is not ideal, but better than the alternative of doing nothing, equally applied when the SNP were promoting LIT. The green’s new found pragmatism would have come in very handy back then.
Let’s imagine the greens had supported LIT, we’d have it by now, and instead of arguing for a regressive tax increase we can’t deliver, the greens would now have been arguing for a progressive increase to income tax that could easily be applied.
A massive missed opportunity.
#62 by Jeff on November 20, 2010 - 8:58 pm
Interesting angle Steve and it’s a persuasive point to suggest that the Greens are culpable for our being lumbered with Council Tax, although one shouldn’t completely absolve Labour and the Conservatives just because expectations of how far they are willing to compromise happen to be lower.
I would take your point further and spin the angle around by saying this – the SNP dropped their plans for a Local Income Tax before even putting it to a vote. I may be being pedantic here but was it really over for LIT? Were the Greens holding out for concessions only to be denied that opportunity by a premature towel throw from John Swinney?
LIT was a missed opportunity, but it’s not immediately clear whose fault that was and I would also argue that the recession wiped away any public appetite there was for the idea anyway.
LVT is now on the table and deserves consideration alongside LIT, maybe that’s the new opportunity that needs to be grasped?
#63 by Steve on November 20, 2010 - 9:19 pm
I never understood why the SNP didn’t bring forward legislation on LIT, so I take your point.
I think we should bring in both LIT and LVT to replace Council Tax and Domestic rates. The SNP talk about not having many levers to promote economic growth, but I’m sure I’ve seen evidence somewhere that cities in America that have moved over to LVT (as opposed to taxes based on capital values of buildings) have seen economic growth as a result.
#64 by Jeff on November 20, 2010 - 9:22 pm
I never considered having both LVT and LIT but, yeah, why not. As you suggest, perhaps LVT could be a form of ‘rate’ and LIT a straight swap for Council Tax.
One thing is for sure, either or is better than neither nor…
#65 by Jeff on November 20, 2010 - 8:51 pm
Not sure how many people have signed up for the Times paywall by handing Murdoch his 30 coins of silver, but the Scottish Times picked this LIT angle up in today’s edition:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article2815327.ece
#66 by Erchie on November 20, 2010 - 10:04 pm
The only reason to put forward legislation you know will be killed is to try and embarrass those opposing it.
The recieved wisdom, particularly in a hostile press, is that legislation is not passed and, as we saw recently in the Herald, is the SNP failing Manifesto commitments.
Otherwise why bring up something that will be killed just to open up accusations of being weak?
It’s not adult, but it is how it is
#67 by Steve on November 21, 2010 - 10:42 am
I don’t agree with your first sentence. There are some countries out there where the minority government will introduce legislation that, by the time it is enacted, can be quite different from what was introduced.
So for example, and in a very idealistic world, the Scottish Government could have put forward legislation on local taxation on the basis that everyone agreed the council tax was bad, but the parliamentary process itself would be a way of finding a suitable replacement.
We need to get out of a majority government mindset, and move to a more fluid approach that builds consensus across parties.
I also think when Wendy Alexander had her “bring it on” moment, the Scottish Government should have jumped on the chance and introduced a referendum bill.
On your press accusing the SNP of broken promises, doesn’t that happen anyway?
#68 by Indy on November 21, 2010 - 10:23 am
Fitalass I will take it that you are being sincere in suggesting that John Swinney should have made a statement to parliament which pre-empted the outcome of discussions between HMRC and the Scottish Government on how much the Scottish Government had to pay to replicate what the previous Scottish Executive had already paid for in terms of functionality. Presumably you think that is OK – since that is in fact what Michael Moore has done, choosing to brief the press and opposition politicians before responding to a request from Scottish Government officials for talks. In point of fact it is not really OK though it sets a precedent in terms of what the SNP Government may be able to do in future.
But the point that all of you overlook is that the tax varying powers are going to be replaced anyway. It’s as if there is some collective amnesia affecting the Calman supporting parties – and I don’t blame them for that because the proposals are a pig in a poke, entirely political in nature and have been condemned by economists left right and centre as being utterly incompetent. But here is the thing – the UK Government is going to implement them. They were in the Queens Speech. Legislation is being drawn up as we speak. The Bill is being introduced and will be going through the legislative process by the time of the Scottish elections next year.
It’s a bizarre situation that the parties who supported Calman powers seem to have forgotten that they have won while the party that opposes Calman, the SNP, cannot seem to find a way to get anyone to recognise reality, never mind listen to them about why the tax powers outlined in Calman are such a bad idea. And here an extra twist in the tail – the UK Government is clearly going to try and make Scottish taxpayers pay for the privelige of losing hundreds of millions of pounds of their own money into the bargain.
#69 by Steve on November 21, 2010 - 10:57 am
I completely agree that Calman is rubbish, and it is amazing that we are having this change forced on Scotland, without a referendum, and without the agreement of our own Government.
But what is even more shocking is that no-one seems all that bothered.
#70 by Jeff on November 21, 2010 - 8:15 pm
I don’t believe everyone is overlooking the fact that the tax varying powers will soon be replaced. I accept, in light of the First Minister’s letter, that Calman coming in is a valid reason not to needlessly cough up £7m. But that’s not the only worm that has made an escape from this particular can.
What I think many who are sympathetic to the SNP are overlooking is:
(1) we didn’t know back in 2007 that Calman was coming in so if (if!) this £50k fee was stopped then and it wasn’t made publicly aware, why was that decision taken and why was it not announced?
(2) why did John Swinney suggest in the Parliament that he had considered using the tax-varying powers for next year’s budget when it wasn’t an option available to him?
The public (surprise, surprise) does not have the information to get answers to those questions but I think it has a right to know.
#71 by Indy on November 21, 2010 - 11:45 am
They are not bothered Steve because they don’t know about it. At the risk of sounding like a crazed cybernat the media controls the political agenda in Scotland to an extremely unhealthy extent and effectively decides what people will know and what the political debate will revolve around.
#72 by Jeff on November 21, 2010 - 8:06 pm
Just to follow on from that Indy, I just typed in “Alex Salmond letter” into Google to re-read what he wrote to Michael Moore. None of the results on the first page related to this story, not even the ‘latest news’.
There remain questions for both sides but, yes, extremely unhealthy indeed…
#73 by Exiled Nat on November 21, 2010 - 11:53 am
This is actually a win for the SNP and a massive OG for the unionists.
The HMRC are saying it would take £7M to administer a database of Scots for tax collection.
So the traditional nonsense spouted by the “let’s not have a referendum and let the people decide” unionist parties about independence being far too costly, is purely a myth.
Westminister and the HMRC were getting away with fraud. Everyone has an address for tax purposes and we know which postcodes are Scottish. £7M – that’s nothing but theft.
The SNP, once again, but Scotland first, while Iain Gray is puppeted from Westminster.
I’ll end on a question for unionist. How much would tax have had to be raised for the scheme to be revenue neutral to Scotland?
And after you answer, thanks for agreeing the nats have saved Scotland money .
#74 by Jeff on November 21, 2010 - 8:09 pm
I agree with you that refusing to pay the £7m is (or should be) a win for the SNP, whether the word gets out is another matter of course.
I still can’t work out whether the option expired in 2007. If that is the case, then it’s not altogether an SNP-win, whether that’s perception or practical terms.
#75 by Erchie on November 21, 2010 - 1:50 pm
Actually Wendy Alexander betrayed a huge lack of knowledge with her ‘bring it on’.
Rules of the Parliament prevent such a bill being just introduced like that, but then again, I don’t think she believes rules apply to her
#76 by neil craig on November 21, 2010 - 1:55 pm
Salmond on the TV an hour ago said that ge didn’t expect the computer uipgarde to be completed before 2012. That would make it 12 years since we paid for the first reprogramming which, in the computer world, is not exactly doing it to often. It may well be that the civil service have f’d it up getting a far more expensive revamp than they could have – they have done this repeatedly – but the Scottish civil servivce have demonstrated no higher standard of competence.
It was also pointed out that only a few days ago John Swinney’s bucget speech said he had “decided not to use the tax varying power” which, if the decision to throw away the power was deliberate is certainly a deliberate lie to parliament on the most constitutionally important speech he has to make. I incline even more heavily to the nore SNP friendly theory that they were just too incompetent to know what they were doing, but am open to persuasion. Either way the “we meant to do that” defence makes a total mockery of the previous SNP defence for not running the economy successfully thatr it was because they didn’t have the necessary, but unstated, powers to do so.
#77 by Jeff on November 21, 2010 - 2:36 pm
Yep, I’m with you Neil, benefit of the doubt extends only as far as believing Swinney made an honest mistake with a muddle of what tax powers were available and when, but no further than that.
I don’t often agree with the Scotland on Sunday’s Editorial but today’s saying that the Parliament deserves a clarification and perhaps even an apology makes sense to me.
#78 by Erchie on November 21, 2010 - 3:48 pm
I know you Green folk who kindly host this forum support the imposition of the 3 pence SVR max, and have accepted Michael moore’s version of events, but there are some points you fail to consider.
1) Unless you are saying the FM publically lied, the SG is awaiting a reply to clarification of this £7million charge. That request was put in some months ago, the first response they had was Michael Moore’s letter.
2) HMRC was forced to privatise their IT about 15 years ago. Now, as we know, the private sector is infinitely more capable than the public sector, ergo, this notion that it would take the private sector 5 years (first announced to SG in 2008 until proposed 2013 delivery) is palpably ludicrous.
I do agree the Parliament deserves an apology, from Michael Moore. If he was, in fact, “Scotland’s man in the cabinet” then, if he truly believed the situation as his letter presents, he had a duty to inform at least the SG months ago.
#79 by Jeff on November 21, 2010 - 4:00 pm
I don’t necessarily disagree with you Erchie but quite separate to those two
points is the question of whether the tax-varying powers were allowed to lapse in 2007 and, if so, whether John Swinney knew this to be the case. That Salmond hasn’t stated outright that this isn’t the case suggests, to me, that Swinney is open to the charge of misleading the Parliament with his direct quote below:
“Within the Parliament’s existing revenue powers, we have explored options for maximising our income. We have been mindful of the need to consider the effect of the significant tax rises that the UK Government has announced before we act. I therefore confirm that we will not raise the Scottish variable rate of income tax.”
How can a Finance Secretary have considered using a power in a 2011/12 budget when it wasn’t available
to be used until 2013?
A clarification is required and, quite possibly, an apology. That’s not to say there aren’t other questions that need asked of Michael
Moore or other involved parties.
#80 by Steve on November 21, 2010 - 8:45 pm
Even if HMRC had fixed their IT, and we’d been paying for the upkeep of the records, how on earth could a budget to be passed in February deliver a tax change in April? That’s a month and a half, not the 10 months we would expect and HMRC would say they need. So if John Swinney was considering using the SVR at all, it could not possibly have been for the year 2011/12.
So it must have been a subsequent year, given he’s got a three year budget to work with it could have been that he considered it for either 2012/13 or 2013/14.
I am also fairly sure that Alex Salmond said the 3p increase wold take a couple of years to impement some time not long before the Michael Moore letter came out.
So one answer Swinney could give is, I considered the possibility of a 3 year budget including a tax increase in year three, but rejected it.
#81 by Jeff on November 21, 2010 - 9:04 pm
I’m not putting words in John Swinney’s mouth Steve, he said:
“Within the Parliament’s existing revenue powers, we have explored options for maximising our income. We have been mindful of the need to consider the effect of the significant tax rises that the UK Government has announced before we act. I therefore confirm that we will not raise the Scottish variable rate of income tax.”
How is that relevant in a statement for a one year budget and how is that not misleading the Parliament if the earliest the power can be used is 2013?
If John Swinney meant 2013/14 (in his 2011/12 budget statement) then he should have been clearer about it and I accept that it’s not clear who knew what and when but why is it so painfully slow to find that out?
#82 by Steve on November 21, 2010 - 10:43 pm
I think you’re probably right. On the politics show in which Patrick Harvie defended the use of SVR (14 Nov) was there anyone from the Scottish Government on, and did they say anything about it? I have a feeling that Alex Salmond was on and said it couldn’t be used for a couple of years, but I might be wrong and it’s not on iplayer any more. If he did, then I suggest that’s the killer fact for your case that John Swinney misled Parliament in the quote above.
#83 by Erchie on November 21, 2010 - 4:16 pm
The tax varying powers have not lapsed
They are still there
The question is is the ability to COLLECT them still there, and the fault for that seems to be with HMRC, not the SG,no matter what their politics
#84 by Jeff on November 21, 2010 - 4:18 pm
Ok, fair enough. I didn’t mean the powers had lapsed, just the ability to exercise that power. Te overriding point that John Swinney may have misled Parliament still stands, don’t you agree?
#85 by Erchie on November 21, 2010 - 4:17 pm
And, as someone who works in IT, I don’t buy HMRC’s stated timescale
#86 by Erchie on November 21, 2010 - 4:40 pm
Jeff, no I do not agree for the reason stated above, SG had sought clarification from HMRC about this £7 million cost. As far as SG seemed to know the mechanisms were still in place, this news that they were not comes out of nowhere from the Coalition
And seems fishy to me in any case
#87 by Tocasaid on November 21, 2010 - 4:42 pm
Anyone have the feeling that Scotland’s been held to ransom? Surely this is a boost for any party, SNP or Greens, who seek independence or at least FULL tax raising powers.
Whoever told greedy London to take their ransom demand and to stuff ‘far nach bi a’ grian a’ deà rrsadh’, deserves a pat on the back.
#88 by Fitalass on November 21, 2010 - 5:19 pm
“LIT was a missed opportunity, but it’s not immediately clear whose fault that was and I would also argue that the recession wiped away any public appetite there was for the idea anyway.”
Jeff, way back when John Swinney announces his plans for LIT they were very poorly received and resulted in the first real brakes being applied to the SNP honeymoon juggernaut. The problem was two fold, very poor presentation of the policy, and then they fell apart immediately under scrutiny from opposition parties, the media and the public.
IIRC, up until then polling figures indicated that the public was in favour of LIT, but almost immediately after wards we saw a quite clear reversal of this in subsequent polls. Happy to be corrected if I have misremembered. But I suspect it was public opinion that also played a hand here.
#89 by Fitalass on November 21, 2010 - 5:25 pm
Indy, the SNP drop a clanger on this one by simple not being honest and up front, and they have quite correctly been called on this.
It should never have been left to a new Secretary of State for Scotland to tell us what Salmond/Swinney and Murphy/Brown/Darling failed to do.
That for me is still the over riding issue here, and I have yet to here any of these politicians explain their silence on the issue for four years.
On this occasion, lets not shot the messenger.
#90 by Erchie on November 21, 2010 - 5:47 pm
No, by all means let’s shoot the messenger, if the message is false.
As to LIT, your memory is faulty, there was no dismantling of the idea, the opposition parties just set their face against it, and thus it was dead.
It’s hard to build cross-party consensus in those circumstances, yet again the Liberals betraying their own principles. If they had worked with the SNP they might have found the LIT ideas incorporated some of their own notions as a compromise, they didn’t, and thus we are where we are, with parties that prefer stagnation to sein anything succeed, even their own ideas, under the SNP
#91 by Dubbieside on November 21, 2010 - 6:30 pm
The Local Income Tax initiate failed because it contained one fatal flaw. it was proposed by the SNP.
This was the policy that the Lib Dems were in favor of but then said they would vote against.
The fact that it would have been a progressive fair tax, that would have been a benefit to Scotland, could not be considered . Pensioners on fixed limited incomes, with large family homes, are the people worst affected by the present unfair tax.
Just imagine a fair and progressive tax based on the ability to pay in Scotland, and the discredited council tax in England and Wales, where it will continue to raise above inflation. I remember English pensioners being jailed for none payment of this tax.
That is why the Labour party panicked about LIT and it had to be stopped at all costs. Remember this was the tax that HRMC said they could not collect. This was the initiative that the Labour party, because they knew its popularity, said that their alternative to the unfair council tax would be announced within weeks. To be fair they never said how many weeks, 1000, 2000 or what?
The SNP then made the fatal flaw, after being told the unionist party’s would vote down LIT, of deciding not to waste parliamentary time by bringing it forward. They should have introduced the bill and let the unionists vote it down.
LIT will still be a very popular proposal, and should be included in the next SNP manifesto, with a commitment to put it before parliament whatever the opposition.
#92 by neil craig on November 21, 2010 - 6:41 pm
My opinion – if the other parties aren’t equally useless they must call a vote of confidence http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/11/snp-negate-our-devolution-vote-through.html
#93 by Dubbieside on November 21, 2010 - 7:02 pm
Your opinion, pity the other parties do not have to round spherical objects needed.
Turkeys and Christmas come to mind.