When you go into government, you get stuff wrong. Even the best governments do. Even – whisper it – Green governments have made mistakes in other countries. The voters and the media spot it, but it’s hardest on the activists who worked so hard to get their colleagues elected. What’s curious to me is the difference in how the various parties’ activists react.
Labour’s remaining left took pride in many of the TB/GB achievements – devolution, minimum wage etc, but still have regrets over a legacy that includes an undemocratic House of Lords and two continuing foreign wars. None of this critique was held back.
Lib Dem activists are catching up now, on fees, VAT, PR and so on, and even though Tory activists are getting most of what they want right now, many wish their Ministers were a tad more Eurosceptic. The online noise about it from their own side is sizeable and unavoidable.
It’s pretty obvious to everyone outside the SNP that it is a major mistake to have let a democratically-sealed power lapse in private in 2007, and then to have misled Parliament about it.
So what has the response of SNP activists been? On Twitter they circulate Salmond’s evasive and incomplete letter as if it answered the whole case. Yet their blogging activists are virtually silent about it, even the stars whose writing I read assiduously. Nothing from Calum Cashley, Will Patterson, Lallands Peat Worrier, Rob Gibson, nor even the disgraced Montague Burton, while Subrosa is silent. (I’ll look daft if they post on it now, but that’s a price worth paying to see the explanations, to be honest.)
The admirable Joan McAlpine did post on it, but it’s just Salmond’s letter with a short intro which neglects to address why Parliament wasn’t told about this decision in 2007 and simply talks about the cost, not the principle. After her, you have to get to Moridura, the wilder fringes of cybernatdom, who also reprints the same letter and has apparently forgotten that the SNP called for the SVR to be used in previous years.
Compare this to the Lib Dems. For all their party’s faults, their bloggers aren’t afraid to call them on it. Just to give a couple of examples, take Stephen Glenn or Caron Lindsay on fees. They can see that the issue has damaged their party, but that their continued defence of the principle may help do some good, even though it puts them in other bloggers’ firing line. It’s not the first time I’ve had cause to point out their merits either.
Are the Nat bloggers too embarrassed to write about this issue? Or do they really really think this isn’t a spectacular dereliction of duty? Seriously, what would they have written in 2006 if McConnell had let the tax-varying power lapse in 2003 without drawing it to Parliament’s attention? Like their MSPs, have they concluded that absolute loyalty is required irrespective of the circumstances? Has independent thought, like independent tax powers, died in the SNP?
One-word answers in the negative will be mocked. Let’s have some real answers.
#1 by Andy on November 21, 2010 - 7:10 pm
At the end of the day, if the Scottish parliament approved the use of this power, then HMRC and would have to undertake their legal obligations to collect this. I’m not sure of the wording of the Scotland Act, but I’m sure that it’s not too specific on the details of collecting the revenue.
For once, I think the SNP government were right to no longer pay HMRC to maintain the system, particularly if they did not intend to use it. Presumably the upgrades to the tax system would have required paying for whether or not SG paid the ongoing maintenance contract.
If any future government wishes to use the varying power, then surely it is up to HMRC to ensure that their systems are able to collect any and all potential sources of revenue that have been legislated for?
#2 by Erchie on November 21, 2010 - 7:23 pm
SVR is a regressive tax power. LIT is a progressive taxpower
It has not lapsed, it is still there. You keep saying it has lapsed when it hasn’t.
HMRC said two years ago “we’re going to replace the IT System for the collection of taxes”
Three months HMRC say they are unable to collect it without an extra £7 million on top of a previous £12 million for the previous system
The SNP administration asked “why? Especially when you are replacing it with Calman”
HMRC never replied
Michael Moore posted his letter to all and sundry
Alex Salmond posted a reply saying that the facts were not as Mr Moore said
I think that is a reasonable summation of where we are from the previous thread.
#3 by Erchie on November 21, 2010 - 7:28 pm
Also, SVR wasn’t a big deal up till now because none of the four parties likely to form a Government was proposing to use it.
Only the Green Party had, and at present they are not in a position to influence policy, I used to think that was sad, the last couple of day on here I am no longer sure
#4 by CassiusClaymore on November 21, 2010 - 7:46 pm
James
You continue to repeat the lie that the tax-varying power has lapsed. It has not. It cannot lapse, and can only be removed by (Westminster) legislation.
It’s no wonder your party isn’t taken seriously when you are reduced to continually repeating falsehoods. The reality is that you’ve been caught out – you took Michael Moore’s words as gospel, and they’ve now been exposed as being completely misleading.
As Kevin McKenna correctly noted in the Observer today:-
“Imagine how Barack Obama would feel if the finance minister of the Turks and Caicos Islands told him how to recalibrate the economy. That’s how Swinney must have felt when the Greens began to admonish him”
CC
#5 by Dubbieside on November 21, 2010 - 7:59 pm
You asked for answers on the last thread, the same answers you are asking for here. Doug Daniel and Indy gave you more than one word answers, and you ran away.
By the way it must be hell being mocked by an intellect like yours, but I suppose we will just have to grin and bear it.
I used to think the Greens, as small and insignificant as they are, had a useful role to play at Holyrood, as a counter balance to the “main” partys, and at least keep the agenda moving green, albeit one small step at a time.
#6 by Mr. Mxyzptlk on November 21, 2010 - 8:02 pm
The Cypernats long ago signed up to the SS code of morality who’s motto was
Our Honour is Loyalty
and so will perpetuate any lie or falsehood twist facts subvert or hide the truth or any evidence thereof without any moral qualm in single minded pursuit of their Nationalist cause
#7 by James Kelly on November 21, 2010 - 8:41 pm
James, I blogged on it a couple of days ago, mainly to say I just think the whole thing is a non-issue because everyone knew the power wasn’t going to be used anyway, and frankly was barely worth having. I suspect the reason other Nationalist bloggers haven’t even bothered mentioning it is that they similarly think it’s spectacularly unimportant.
Erchie and Cassius are, of course, quite right that the power remains absolutely intact.
#8 by Burdzeyeview on November 21, 2010 - 8:44 pm
Good post James and well observed. I get a little fed up with the uber loyalty of SNP supporting bloggers though I do understand totally where it comes from. I haven’t commented on it cos it would be a mebbes aye, mebbes naw post – furious that SNP did this but also think Moore has been somewhat inappropriate. And frankly I get fed up with the debate being about the semantics of process. What good are powers if no one will say what they will do with them… present Scottish Green company excepted of course.
So I have blogged on this part of it and it’s up tomorrow morning.
There is very little defence to the SNP doing this, unless they are being extremely tricksy. There is something else behind this methinks… Or else it is an administrative error of massive proportions and civil servant heids should roll…
#9 by Erchie on November 21, 2010 - 8:54 pm
So.
If Bloggers blog about it and dont think it is a big deal they are loyal to a fascistic level?
If they don’t blog about it then they’ve failed.
What you are saying is that you will only accept posts on it that criticise the SNP, perhaps your loyalty lies elsewhere
MY point of view i that so far the SG have a stronger case, but we need to know more before getting the guillotine out, though I think Michael Moore’s head is looking like the one for the block
#10 by Erchie on November 21, 2010 - 9:02 pm
In your case burd, your loyalty, from your blog, lies with the Labour Party.
You are praising the “alcohol comission”, a body set up to try and give the Labour Party a logical reason to oppose SNP ideas on alcohol, and which failed.
A “commission” that was found to have no evidence to back up the conclusions that it had STARTED with
That, instead of the SNP Minimum pricing hitting the poor, the “floor price” was in fact more regressive
That had to admit that they had no grounds to criticise the Sheffied University study
That fixated on caffeine
That ignored opinion from Health and Law Professionals
I will confess, your point of view does require much loyalty.
#11 by Malc on November 21, 2010 - 9:03 pm
Can I point out that I haven’t blogged about it because I think this is mountains and molehills territory – and I disagree with both Jeff and James on the issue. I do agree that Lib Dem bloggers have been good at arguing their corner when they disagree with coalition (take a bow Caron & Stephen) and Nat bloggers have been conspicuous by their silence on several issues when the SNP have perhaps been on the wrong side of things. But I agree with Erchie above – if you don’t think its an issue, you don’t blog about it. And I haven’t.
Related – I can understand why the Greens are annoyed – it knocks their policy for six.
#12 by Steve on November 21, 2010 - 9:13 pm
Right, first let me say I’m not an SNP supporter. But let’s suppose you are, what exactly have they done wrong in Government? Not much. Delivered on what they can in their manifesto, where they’ve failed it’s been because of shoddy unprincipled and opportunistic opposition, mainly from Labour.
How does making a decision to save a few million and not telling anyone about it compare to iraq, or to abandoning your stance on tuition fees (or any of the other lib dem let downs of which there are many). And as for the Tories, they’ve always been vocally divided on big issues like europe.
Maybe the snp supporters aren’t complaining about their government because there isn’t much to complain about.
#13 by Fitalass on November 21, 2010 - 9:17 pm
“Michael Moore posted his letter to all and sundry
Alex Salmond posted a reply saying that the facts were not as Mr Moore said
I think that is a reasonable summation of where we are from the previous thread.”
No, that is not a reasonable summation of where we are from the previous thread. The SNP have still not explained why they didn’t at anytime think that the opposition parties or the public had the right know what the situation was at anytime over the last three years. And I would be asking the very same questions of who ever was in charge at Holyrood if something like this had come to light on their watch so late in the day, and from a source other than the Scottish government.
And I think that Micheal Moore should be commended for deciding to make this info public when it was clearly obvious that the current SNP government had no intention of doing so. Especially in light of an upcoming election at Holyrood. The SNP need to be explaining their position rather than criticising other politicians for being honest where they were not.
#14 by Erchie on November 21, 2010 - 9:29 pm
Fitalass
Your reply ignores utterly the HMRC giving notice in 2008 that the system would be changing
Then 2010 saying we have an idea of what we need to do, cough up £7m and i will be ready in 3 years time
The SG asked for clarification and a meeting to discuss
No clarification came, only Mr Moore’s letter
Do you deny this sequence of events?
#15 by Fitalass on November 21, 2010 - 9:41 pm
I still want to know why the opposition parties and the public were not made privvy to all this information at some point over the last three and half years, But to not share the fact that the SNP had taken the decision to not cough up £7m for a facility that was not going to be available for a couple of years anyway ranks pretty highly as a bit of info that opposition parties had a right to know about as soon as possible with manifesto’s to write and campaigns to plan for in the upcoming Holyrood elections.
And again, I think that this will turn out to be the most pressing reason why Michael Moore took the decision to write the letter he did at this time. And more importantly, why it was also sent to the opposition parties and made public.
#16 by Steve on November 21, 2010 - 10:23 pm
The snp took the decision to stop paying for upkeep of the SVR in 2007. Were they trying to secretly scupper any future government’s decision to implement the svr in order to bail us out of a financial crisis as bad as any seen in decades? Doubt it. Don’t forget, back then we had brought an end to boom and bust, the Scottish Budget was set to go up in generous inflation busting increments year on year.
The SNP saw their job as being effective managers of Scotland’s finances, their stategy was to reassure everyone that they weren’t as scary as Labour would have us believe.
So when they came into Government, they quickly set about reducing government waste on things like glossy documents for every little policy announcement, branded pens and post its and mugs, stuff like that. They also put an end to PFI, and made the radical decision that they would actually try to spend the budget rather than hand tens of millions back to the uk treasury at the end of each financial year as the Lib/Lab coalition did on a regular basis.
There was probably quite a lot of this work, and I imagine John Swinney spent quite a bit of his first few weeks and months in power cancelling wasteful spending and maximising useful spending. You can imagine that just one of many decisions he was asked to make during this period was, do you want to spend a few million upgrading HMRC IT systems so that the SVR (which absolutely no-one was in favour of using at the time, not even the greens) could be used? Not exactly a tough call given the political and financial climate at the time, and I can see why it might not even occur to him that this should be announced formally to the parliament. After all, the Lib/Lab executive did a lot worse stuff which they never announced, and so there would have been a culture of just getting on with it.
I reckon that the failiure to announce this at the time was an honest oversight. If they had announced it or consulted the other parties, what would they have said? Would Labour really have demanded the SNP cough up the cash to upkeep the SVR, leaving them open to accusations of planning to increase taxes, which unfortunately seems to be electorally very damaging?
No, we’d have had the same result as we have now. The problem is, if the SNP put their hands up to this, it’s a massive and undeserved political victory for the other parties, and they can’t afford to allow that to happen this close to an election. So they are trying to spin their way out of it.
#17 by James on November 21, 2010 - 10:51 pm
It’s a decision they simply shouldn’t have taken without asking Parliament, and which Parliament clearly wouldn’t have let them take. Even the last Labour-led administration were small-n nationalist enough to keep the powers active.
If Michael Moore is lying, which I suppose is possible, and if London Labour/HMRC had indeed been unreasonable in 2007, then why on earth did Scottish Ministers not complain publicly? I mean, that’s their normal (and understandable) approach when Westminster’s being unfair. Doesn’t stack up.
#18 by Doug Daniel on November 21, 2010 - 10:34 pm
This is the problem with this story – there are two issues, and they have been completely confused.
The reason the new system won’t be up and running for three years is because of the £7 million IT upgrade. This is an issue that the SG thought was still under discussion, whereas Moore’s letter suggests the SG’s letter saying “this is our position, tell us yours” has been interpreted as “£7 million? Aye, ower oor deid bodies, ye fuds!”
The £50,000 annual fee (questionable in itself) was to keep the old system ticking over, ready to be switched on at a moment’s notice (moment = 10 months…), but this is not why SVR would take three years to be implemented. Whether the SNP should have told people about this is a different matter, but it’s the £7 million upgrade which seems to be the main bit of this story, and negotiations were thought to be still ongoing on this. You don’t go blabbing to people when you’re still negotiating things – it’s unprofessional, and it’s exactly the kind of thing that would usually see the SNP getting accused of picking fights in public with Westminster.
#19 by Dubbieside on November 21, 2010 - 9:54 pm
The only issue here is the fact that the SNP were waiting on a reply from HMRC.
Why was there no reply since 20th August? Did anyone in the ConDem nation block HMRC from replying to the SNP letter?
Why did Moore go public?
Why did his letter contain parts about the costs of devolution that, to be charitable were misleading, if not totally untrue? Did his not exactly overworked civil servants not give him the correct information?
P.S. James maybe others have not blogged on this is because after Moores letter came out they waited until they knew the facts before writing, then Alex Salmonds letter spelt out facts that were omitted from Moores letter.
P.P.S. Do not worry about looking daft.
#20 by Dubbieside on November 21, 2010 - 9:59 pm
Erchie
Scotland does not have an alcohol problem we have a caffeine problem. You must have seen all these Costa Coffee cups lying around where the local neds gather.
#21 by Doug Daniel on November 21, 2010 - 10:10 pm
I wouldn’t say the fees and SVR issues are completely comparable. The Lib Dems have gone back on a specific pledge on tuition fees – not only is this a fact, but it’s also a complete U-turn, going from “we want to get rid of fees” to “we want to increase fees”. As a result, not even the most ardent, loyal Lib Dem supporter with blinkers on could possibly deny what they’ve done, and would never again be taken seriously if they tried. Not only that, it’s just impossible to find a narrative from which to defend the party on without looking like a complete hypocrite.
Contrast this with the SVR issue. For a start, the whole debacle is clouded with misinformation and half-truths. Michael Moore may or may not have hit the target with some of his initial letter, but the fact is he (deliberately?) left some very important information out, like the fact the SNP are still waiting for a response from HRMC, how much the upgrade was going to be, and when the new system would have been in place. The whole thing reads like someone who has just an inkling of the situation firing off a letter with barely the basic facts to hand, and to be honest as soon as he wrote “I am not privy to the dialogue which took place…”, he should have thrown a glass of water in his face, closed his word processor without saving, and gone and found out what the dialogue had been. Clearly, the HMRC and Scotland Office aren’t very good at communicating to each other, otherwise Moore might have realised that, as far as the Scottish Government were concerned, negotiations were still ongoing.
Here’s the problem (for me, anyway). There may be an issue for the SNP to address in amongst all this, but it would be wrong to address it while there are still so many lies clouding the story. The media are either ignoring Salmond’s letter completely (like the BBC) or are treating it as a pithy aside to tack onto the end of their articles as a brief mention in the last paragraph (like everyone else). I’m not going to start laying into the SNP while they are still being pilloried for things that either haven’t really happened, or were the fault of HMRC.
Until the media stop promoting a lie (that a decision by the SNP in 2007 has led to us losing our sole pathetic tax varying “power” until 2013/2014), then I for one will not be lambasting the SNP for anything in this mess. Pretend HMRC hadn’t decided to upgrade their IT system and demand £7 million for it in July, and the story is very different.
Don’t worry, the second the SNP do a complete U-turn on a key policy like independence or nuclear power, I’ll be on here telling everyone what a bunch of liars they are, just like the Lib Dem bloggers have been doing for their party.
#22 by DougtheDug on November 21, 2010 - 10:12 pm
As Erchie and CassiusClaymore have pointed out the power to levy a SVR on income tax is still there and has not, “lapsed”, it is still in the 1998 Scotland Act which can only be repealed by Westminster.
The money was never going to come directly from HMRC anyway. Read the Act (Section 77) and it is plain what Scotland gets is simply an estimate of the amount which the additional rate would add to Scottish income tax and the money does not come directly from HMRC.
So looking at it in that light, the fuss is about the inability of the new HMRC computer systems to recover the sum of money from Scottish taxpayers which the Treasury will independently estimate and pay into the Scottish consolidated fund for each year of an additional Scottish rate. That is a problem for Westminster not for Scotland.
I’d like all the correspondence between the Scottish Government and HMRC to be published online to clear up any doubts as to what the sequence of events was.
What I would like clarified are:
1. a) Michael Moore claimed the arrangement and payment lapsed in 2007.
1. b) Alex Salmond’s letter says that HMRC said to the Scottish Government in 2007 that the system required additional work and said in 2008 that they were installing a new IT system. What is not clear is if HMRC asked for more money in 2007 or intimated to the Scottish Government how long the current arrangement was worth continuing with in light of the coming system change.
2. a) Alex Salmond says in his letter that the Scottish Government asked for information on how the new system would affect the functionality of the 3p in the pound tax power. I assume this was in 2008 but the date the correspondence started is not made clear. In July of this year the Scottish Government was asked to pay £7 Million in order to pay for the new HMRC systems to have the ability to recover the estimated tax which would be paid out by the Treasury. They refused and asked for talks in August. Michael Moore’s letter is the first official response to their request for talks.
2. b) Michael Moore’s letter does not mention the £7 Million request for upgrades to HMRC’s new system nor in fact that there is a new HMRC system in place. Reading the letter it appears that the reason for the delay is all down to the Scottish Government failing to keep up the maintenance payments on the original system. Why does Michael Moore’s letter not lay out plainly the costs of the new system and that in fact there was a change to the systems used in the original agreement and why has the HMRC not responded to a request for talks?
3. The Scottish SVR is going to disappear when the Calman proposals are implemented. Alex Salmond says that this letter is the first shot in getting any changes to HMRC’s systems and all ongoing costs for Calman funded out of the Scottish grant when they should be funded out of central government as this is a change imposed by Westminster. Why should the Scottish Government pay £7 Million for a system change which should be paid for out of Central funds according to HM Treasury’s recently-updated, “Statement of Funding Policy”, paragraph 3.2.8, for a tax power which is going to be superseded very shortly anyway, at least by the end of this current Westminster Government in 2015.
Michael Moore says all administrative costs falling on HMRC because of devolution should be paid for by Scotland. Alex Salmond quotes a treasury letter which implies that any unilateral changes made by Westminster will be paid for by Westminster which would include the changes to the HMRC systems. We need clarity on this issue.
#23 by Doug Daniel on November 21, 2010 - 10:47 pm
That’s the best attempt I’ve seen yet at sorting out all the ins and outs of this story, a story which is a textbook example of how trying to simplify things too much leads to all sorts of misinformation.
If the media had just waited to hear Salmond’s side of the story first, we could have avoided a big mess. Strange that Purcell was afforded time to explain his side of things before papers started running with his story a few months ago…
#24 by Erchie on November 21, 2010 - 10:15 pm
Absolutely Doug
Have to have the guts to criticise your chosen party when they foul up
For a start off, I am not too sure about Nicola Sturgeon’s choice of hair clour
#25 by Doug Daniel on November 21, 2010 - 10:38 pm
Or her choice of X-Factor contestants. Katie? Really, Nicola?
#26 by Erchie on November 21, 2010 - 10:54 pm
You’re wrong about Purcell, he wasn’t afforded time to explain, before anyone knew there might be any issues the beeb was broadcasting Lorraine Davidson and Hamish MacDonnell’s hagiography
#27 by Doug Daniel on November 21, 2010 - 11:15 pm
Hmmm… You’ve maybe got a point there, the problems with the reporting of the Purcell story seemed more about keeping the bad stuff back as long as possible, rather than chucking as much mud as possible at first and leaving it to stick while the truth eked out afterwards, which is what seems to have happened here. Bad comparison.
#28 by cynicalHighlander on November 21, 2010 - 11:26 pm
This seems more like a Nat bash for the sake of and bringing the LibDems as being more on the ball in blogging this non story the answer is simple. Trying to cover up there own shortcomings because they have nothing to be proud of.
#29 by somepapfaedundee on November 21, 2010 - 11:49 pm
James,
does Moore’s letter say that that the SVR mechanisms at HMRC lapsed in 2007 because the Scottish Government didn’t pay?
As i read it it says –
* I heard Swinney’s speech.
* re: the above, you couldn’t do SVR anyway
* the previous arrangements lapsed in 2007
* Moore thinks Scottish Govt should pay for tax n’ stuff in principle
* Moore says he doesn’t know what went on earlier, but does know Scot Govt didn’t cough up (7m?) in August 2010.
As far as I can see, it doesn’t make any direct claim that the prior contract ceased because the Scottish Govt didn’t pay.
I doubt that ther’s only one possible reason why the prior arrangements might have lapsed and I’d appreciate knowing (as i’m sure most would) what it was (they are?) in fact.
As easy as it is to speculate that the cause was Scottish Govt not paying 50k’s and the effect was that the system functionality lapses (spurious or highly punitive anyway), alternative speculations could be made i’m sure, but premature speculation is a mug’s game imo.
Clearly the *exact* situation around start of the ‘lapse’ needs to be brought out into the light.
As has been commented above, the nationalist bloggers are usually quite vocal in defense of the SNP. So, given the silence you note, perhaps they just waiting for more facts before going into attack/defense mode.
Perhaps, therefore, maybe the libdem bloggers simply trumpet rather than trump.
Enlightened by some the visceral response here though, better nation indeed 😉
btw, do you (or anyone else) know why the HMRC site still says they are prepared to implement SVR on request (on the actual PAYE pages about coding for it)? It’s also revealing as to the underwhelming apparent complexity of the processing required.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/pommanual/PAYE13145.htm
#30 by Subrosa on November 22, 2010 - 12:00 am
Actually James, I did say something about it on Friday morning. Not a lot I grant you but I wasn’t silent.
http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2010/11/we-cannae-dae-that-say-councils.html
At the time I published the post there was no stooshie and I said I thought it a good idea. Why should we have been paying HMRC for this in the first place? What a nonsense.
#31 by James on November 22, 2010 - 7:38 am
As per Twitter, sorry, I didn’t see this at the end of a post about Councils.
#32 by Doug Daniel on November 22, 2010 - 3:08 am
Interesting article I found from the Edinburgh Evening News from just before Michael Moore’s letter – http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/Millions-spent-on-taxation-system.6626150.jp. I’ve blogged my thoughts in case anyone is interested in discussing it specifically.
#33 by Subrosa on November 22, 2010 - 10:02 am
That’s ok James. As I said on Twitter it was newly reported and I didn’t feel it warranted a post of its own. I still don’t.
#34 by Indy on November 22, 2010 - 10:33 am
The answer is that no-one in the SNP thinks it is a spectacular dereliction of duty. Simple as that.
Whether Birdzeye View likes it or not this IS a debate about a process. It’s a debate about an IT system upgrade when you boil it down and an IT system that is the property and the responsibility of HMRC not the Scottish Government.
#35 by Dubbieside on November 22, 2010 - 11:23 am
I have a question here related to this taxing question.
If the SNP government refuse to pay for the computer changes needed to implement adjustable tax rates for Scotland needed for Calman, does this mean that Calman is dead?
Will that then become an election issue, the SNP say no to paying money to HMRC, and Labour (Labour and Lib Dems being the same thing in 2011, vote Lib Dem get Labour) and the torys saying yes we will pay £x of Scotlands money so Westminster can reduce Scotlands pocket money further?
I know in terms of the devolution act there is provision at PRESENT that the devolved countries do not pay to implement changes brought forward by Westminster, but remember these are unionists we are dealing with.
#36 by neil craig on November 22, 2010 - 2:28 pm
“Green governments have made mistakes in other countries.”
I don’t think they have. I don’t think there have been any Green governments merely some where the greens have been a minority influence.
I would quite like to see a Green government – somewhere else – since the closure of almost all their grid, ending of movement of any goods except by bicycle & firing of any productive worker would produce such a catastrophe as to make Haiti look well run & end the possibility of them ever being elected anywhere else again.
#37 by Lallands Peat Worrier on November 22, 2010 - 3:51 pm
I take Malc’s point above – this must be a real frustration for the Greenies, since it fundamentally robs them (you) of their (your) election argument on increased Scottish taxation vs. cuts. Or at least insofar as you are thirled to campaigning on institutionally realisable goals – as opposed to aspirational general arguments about the sort of state Scotland ought to have, what balance of welfare, public services – etcetera, etcetera.
If one was of a mindset which particularly emphasises institutional politics, and thinks of Green electoral progress in terms of articulating a plausible, practicable, credible Green alternative – the smart will be felt twice as strongly because one would have internalised the now easily-deployed press criticism – “it can’t be done”.
#38 by Indy on November 22, 2010 - 4:26 pm
It doesn’t really mean that it can’t be done. If we take everything at face value the SNP is saying no we’re not paying 7 million to get a particular functionality added to HMRC’s upgraded computer systems but it is perfectly open to the Greens to say that they would pay that money and perhaps would be prepared to pay extra to get the work done within ten months. It would be their choice to accept liability and to pay that money over, just as it is the SNP’s choice not to.
If you read Michael Moore’s letter it says “However I do know that the Scottish Government confirmed in August this year that it was not able to commit the necessary resources to enable HMRC to proceed with work on PAYE systems to allow the SVR to be available in the first tax year after the 2011 election.”
That implies that, had they handed over the 7 million quid, the PAYE systems would have allowed the SVR to be available in the first tax year after the 2011 election (although that is flatly contradicted by Alex Salmond). So it seems reasonable to me that, on the basis of Michael Moore’s letter, HMRC should be able to get the database into pretty good shape a lot faster than indicated.
True M Moore goes on to say that “As the system has not been funded and maintained to allow for delivery within the ten month time frame under the original arrangements, HMRC would, in fact, now
need two years’ notice in order to invoke the SVR.” but that is just bureacratic talk. There is no actual reason why they need two years notice.
Pingback: Well, shut my mouth and paint me red! « The Will Patterson Notebook
#39 by Tocasaid on November 22, 2010 - 10:28 pm
Only pedants seem to think this is important. I support independence but am not party political. However, the SNP did the right thing here. Why pay London’s ransom when your main Unionist rivals are promising Calman? Never mind paying for a system no one is planning on using.
I wouldn’t trust a Lib Dem as far as I could flush him into the Forth. Apart from lying to the voters, they’re notoriously bad at representing their constituents on local matters. Taigh na Croich’ orra!
#40 by Jeff on November 22, 2010 - 10:46 pm
I’m not sure if there’s such a thing as being ‘too’ pedantic in the carefully worded, tightly crafted, tightrope-ridden world of law and politics but I take your point tocasaid. I’m certainly settling into wait-and-see mode, it may all have already blown over or opposition parties may yet get a scalp through some sort of apology.
I suspect FMQs is when we’ll find out.