Today’s apology expression of regret from the Finance Secretary will be a fitting conclusion to a muddle that now no longer needs to take up much more of the Chamber’s time.
To agree that an apology is appropriate is not necessarily to say that the SNP were wrong to stand up to HMRC’s demands. An alternative Scottish Government may well have meekly acceded to the requests for £7m of money from the taxman. The SNP stood firm but were unable to thread the accompanying political needle and were apparently unwilling to be sufficiently upfront about the situation. Today’s discomfiture is the small price they must pay for this error.
It has been suggested that the Nats would have been apoplectic with fury had an alternative Scottish Government done the same. This is not entirely convincing and perhaps even seeks to make a caricature of the independence campaign. Sure, there would have been pragmatic synthetic outrage and genuine indignation that they’d been kept out of the loop for so long and misled in Parliament, as other parties are currently expressing, but in the current context, anyone would do well to be truly seething about saving money for a power that looks unlikely to ever be used.
There is good news and bad news to take from this. The Scottish Government has helped to set Scotland’s stall out against paying for any fixed costs that may emanate from the Scotland Bill, which could be published as early as St Andrew’s Day next week. This is as it should be, as clearly stated in the Scotland Act, the very basis of Scottish devolution and the Parliament.
The bad news is the SNP’s perceived lack of understanding around ‘wooden dollars’ that need to flow between entities within an organisation. There’s a thin line between negotiating for a better deal and just not playing the game as it needs to be played in order to work as it should. Don’t pay the £7m for an IT system you thought you’d already paid for, sure, we can all get onboard with that, but why was the measly £50k cancelled way back in 2007? The SNP, for obvious reasons, has questions over whether it can be a team player in a UK context. This episode gives a slight hint that the party can come up short on occasion.
However, this is of minor and, as the First Minister put it, “academic” concern so hopefully the Green Party’s calls for resignations can now be quietly brushed aside as there are sufficient facts in the open and an apology today aimed at drawing a line under the issue. This is no David Laws moment after all.
There is a budget to pass, a budget that would leave Scotland £1bn in the red if it failed, and John Swinney’s deft manoeuvrings in years gone by testify that he is the right person for this task.
Apologise and move on. It worked for Nicola Sturgeon, it should work for John Swinney too.
#1 by James on November 24, 2010 - 10:14 am
If he’s going to express proper regret he’ll have to diverge from the “we wuz right all along” text of the motion in his name pretty hard.
S3M-07477 John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP): That the Parliament notes that the Scottish variable rate (SVR) remains a power in statute; further notes the substantial investment required to make the SVR operate in a way compatible with HM Revenue and Custom’s IT system; believes that such expenditure requires careful consideration at a time of huge public spending pressures; further believes that this expenditure requires to be assessed in the context that the SVR is due to be replaced by a new taxation system; calls on the UK Government to specify the costs of its Calman taxation proposals so that the Scottish Parliament can judge whether these costs should be met and that the Scottish Parliament should be informed of these costs before considering whether to give approval to the proposed UK legislation, and records the fact that such costs, under the HM Treasury’s own statement of funding policy, should be borne by the UK Government, all of which demonstrates the need for the Scottish Parliament to have full financial responsibility.
#2 by Indy on November 24, 2010 - 10:36 am
According to Alex Neil the 50,000 was cancelled by HMRC not the Scottish Government. It is clearly ludicrous – and always was – to argue that the SG would have refused to pay 50,000 quid for something. In the context of the overall budget that is literally chickenfeed.
As for James’ comments – if feeling is really as strong as we are led to believe it is open to the opposition parties to a) vote against the motion, b) place an amendment into the budget to insist that the SG pays whatever sum HMRC demands, c) if the SNP won’t do that they can vote against the budget and ultimately insist on an early election.
#3 by Jeff on November 24, 2010 - 10:50 am
Quite possibly the worst use of “literally” I’ve yet seen Indy but remarkable that the £50k was cancelled by HMRC so thanks for pointing out. I need to start watching Newsnight Scotland more! (assuming that’s where you heard it).
That aspect of it was what confused me the most actually so if it was HMRC’s doing then, bizarre as that would be, I can well understand why the Finance Secretary wants to drag attention back to the bigger picture of who should pay for Calman proposals going forward.
James, you seem to think Swinney should be in the stocks, presumably borne out of some frustration that you didn’t get the election policy (and scalp) your party was hoping for, but, minor errors to one side, I can think of much better places for such a talented man and I can see no reason why all of the parties in the Chamber shouldn’t sign the motion. I don’t see it as a ‘we wuz right all along’ but rather as an appropriate shift in focus.
I thought there should have been some contrition for seemingly misleading the chamber, that now looks likely so surely you agree that the top priority becomes preparing for next week’s Scotland Bill if it’s now the only show in town?
#4 by Richard Thomson on November 24, 2010 - 12:41 pm
So, to recap: The power remains in statute. The £50k annual payment was cancelled by HMRC. The first the SG was asked to contribute was when a demand arrived for £7m earlier this year. Not unreasonably, the SG queried this. The first response to this query came not to the government, but in what amounted to a press release from Michael Moore which carried the very clear subtext that the UK gvt now expects the SG to pick up the administrative tab for any Calman tax changes into the bargain.
So really, what JS stands accused of is of not informing the chamer that the SVR power which still exists was not in a position to be activated on anything other than an extended timescale (which he may not have known himself, since he never actually cancelled any payments!); or alternatively, of not informing the chamber that he’d written to HMRC about their £7m demand, and therefore not leaving himself open to unionist accusations of ‘picking fights’.
Given the hyperbolic nonsense we’ve been hearing from the Greens, Labour and the Lib Dems over the past few days about sovereignty and sabotaging devolution, it could well be that a mildly chastened John Swinney is the only one who emerges with any credit from this.
#5 by Jeff on November 24, 2010 - 12:54 pm
That may be so Richard but if all that trickles down onto the public’s collective consciousnes is ‘SNP lose tax powers’ and ‘Finance Secretary apologises’ then it can hardly go down as a good week for Team SNP. I wish I could give the dear voters more credit than that but, well…..
#6 by Richard Thomson on November 24, 2010 - 1:05 pm
Well, indeed. Like I said a few days ago, MM’s SPAD deserves a payrise for this one…
#7 by Paul on November 24, 2010 - 10:57 am
An issue that “no longer needs to take up much more of the Chamber’s time” I can’t decide if you are optimistic or deluded 😉
Indy: continuing questions about who did what and when is exactly why the government shouldn’t have kept quiet about the whole thing. That’s what they should apologise for, and they should also specifically apologise to any party that now have to change their manifestos (dunno how much that would cost,btw?)
I hope Swinney takes the Sturgeon approach, and say they will learn from this and hope to not do it again.
btw, “Sure, there would have been pragmatic synthetic outrage” Are you suggesting that Lab/Lib/Con have real outrage over this issue, and it is not a chance to score a political point? And this is why the SNP need to learn from the mistake. The commentors defending this and trying to concentrate on the £7 mil should look and see what is really “upsetting” the other parties.
#8 by Jeff on November 24, 2010 - 11:09 am
Paul,
“I can’t decide if you are optimistic or deluded” I hope that isn’t an exhaustive list of your options. Which particular strand of this issue would you wish MSPs wasted time over with Calman on its way to be bulldozed onto the statute book with many, many aspects of it still yet to be discussed?
And I don’t think there is genuine ‘outrage’, that’s far too strong a word, even for the Greens who in good faith wanted tax-raising to form part of their manifesto. I do think there is genuine indignation which is quite a different thing altogether.
We get so used to hearing politicians say they are outraged that I think some people have lost sight of what the word means. If you want a reminder, check out Lib Dem HQ after lunchtime as a few thousands students will be there to remind you 😉
#9 by Paul on November 24, 2010 - 1:04 pm
I meant that I can’t decide if you are “optimistic or deluded” if you think you think MSPs are going to let it lie at this. Didn’t mean that I want it carried on for ages myself. I’d like to see it put to bed today.
#10 by Jeff on November 24, 2010 - 2:19 pm
Ah, this was your key line I misunderstood Paul:
“Sure, there would have been pragmatic synthetic outrage†Are you suggesting that Lab/Lib/Con have real outrage over this issue, and it is not a chance to score a political point?
I had assumed there was a typo as I thought it was quite clear that my saying that any SNP “outrage” would’ve been synthetic meant that any current “outrage” has the same artificial feel to it.
#11 by Indy on November 24, 2010 - 11:35 am
I genuinely don’t see why the Greens need to change their manifesto.
The assertion that the SNP allowed the Scottish Parliament’s tax raising powers to lapse is simply wrong. The Scottish Parliament at this exact moment still has the same tax raising powers it has always had – although they are due to be superseded by the Calman powers.
It would be perfectly possible for the Greens, should they be elected to government, to say we want to use these powers and we want to use them immediately. They would probably have to pay a pretty penny for it but that would be their choice just as it was the SNPs choice not to pay it.
#12 by CassiusClaymore on November 24, 2010 - 2:42 pm
The core problem for the SNP is that the media have been only too happy to pick up on the lie (sorry, no other word for it) originated and perpetuated by the other parties that the SVR had been (somehow) decommissioned by the SNP. It’s a classic ‘big lie’, and unfortunately it seems to have worked.
More generally, on the costs of administering Calman, in what meaningful sense will we actually have tax-varying powers, if they are only exercisable at a price to be determined by HM Treasury? In effect, the Treasury can prevent something they don’t like just by sticking an enormous price tag on it. This isn’t proper devolution, and it isn’t the ‘respect agenda’ either.
How quickly Moore has become a “Secretary of State against Scotland”.
CC
#13 by Una on November 24, 2010 - 3:47 pm
ach CC when did the opposition ever let betterment of the nation get in the way of givin’ the SNP a good kickin’? For goodness sake they are doing a fine job, proving Scottish parliamentarians to be small-minded fools squabbling over (bad) processes. Makes you proud!
#14 by CassiusClaymore on November 24, 2010 - 4:29 pm
Una, sadly you are correct.
More importantly, it seems from this afternoon’s debate that the administrative ability to exercise the SVR lapsed on or prior to 14 May 2007. John Swinney was appointed on 16 May 2007.
James, would you like to clear his name with the same ferocity that you besmirched it?
CC
#15 by Stuart Winton on November 24, 2010 - 8:07 pm
CC, Jeff et al …But why didn’t the SNP kick up a stink about this years ago; it was all surely an open goal for Nationalist grievance? Whatever the precise course of events, one of the two planks of devolution was in abeyance, and HMRC in London wanted megabucks to retain it.
For what it’s worth I reckon it’s because if the SNP made a meal of it they they’d be portrayed as wanting to resurrect the “Penny for Scotlandâ€, which clearly none of the main parties want to do, because they know it would be electorally suicidal.
[Also posted in James’s thread – sorry, I didn’t realise there were two :0)]
#16 by Jeff on November 24, 2010 - 8:44 pm
Yep, I think that must be it. Can’t come up with another reason. How ironic that the SNP’s holding off causing a fuss may have come back to bite them.
#17 by somepapfaedundee on November 24, 2010 - 9:20 pm
It is difficult to find another plausible rationale.
A final wee straw to make the SNP stop bending over backwards to appear reasobanble all the time, and take the gloves off?
#18 by Doug Daniel on November 25, 2010 - 12:58 am
Let’s hope so. The idea of Iain Gray, Andy Kerr, Jackie Baillie and Richard Baker making up the bulk of the next government fills me with dread. We can’t let it happen.