Â
£33bn, spending that directly impacts millions of Scots, a decision from which the shape of the election campaign will no doubt be formed and a deep-seated entrenchment of party positions borne out of 4 years of bad blood that borders on out-and-out hatred. Roll up, roll up, it’s the final big vote and Holyrood Battle Royale before Parliament closes its doors and we get to have our say.
Â
Now, there are two comparisons to be made when each of the opposition parties consider John Swinney’s proposed Budget:
Â
(1)Â Â Â Â Is it more or less better than what I would do?
(2)    Is it better than doing nothing and reverting to last year’s budget?
Â
Many of the parties have already decided that the answer to the first question is No. The Greens are steadfastly against the meek ‘passing on’ of Tory cuts without raising revenue to safeguard public services and jobs. Labour believes it would create a budget that is more focused on jobs, regeneration in Glasgow and growth. The Lib Dems seem to be pushing for support for poorer students and a stronger clampdown on high pay in the public sector.
Â
All perfectly valid and perfectly reasonable pitches to a watching public but I do worry that each of the three parties above have not fully contemplated the second comparison, the 2011/12 budget reverting to 2010/11 in the absence of any deal.
Â
One needs look no further than the bald fact that last year’s budget has £1bn too much in it for it to be applicable to the year ahead. So, from a Green, Labour and Lib Dem perspective, they must all surely conclude that to accept John Swinney’s budget is better than to use the prior year’s. Whether this philosophy can find its way through the fog of parliamentary war and manifest itself in the voting next week remains to be seen.
Â
And, well, if Patrick, Iain and Tavish all gamble that public perception will be that it is SNP obstinance that is blocking a Budget deal rather than Opposition intransigence, a damaging deadlock may yet be realised.
Â
The Greens are seeking to mark themselves out as different to all four of the main parties in the coming election on not just environmental factors but economic concerns too so perhaps their opposition has a more understandable slant to it, if no less forgivable in the event that no budget actually gets passed at the end of the day.
Â
I cannot see Labour doing anything other than voting against anything that the SNP proposes between now and May and so it will be the Lib Dems, I strongly suspect and certainly hope, that will blink, abstain and thus allow the Budget to proceed, as long as the Tesco Tax element is stripped out that is.
Â
However, misjudged brinkmanship is something that Scott, Gray and Harvie are well capable of and a flaw that their respective parties have naively already displayed at Budget time during this parliamentary term. There’s not much of a safety net for the coming few weeks and if these opposition leaders focus on the gains that can be made from gambling on everything rather than the losses for us all if no deal is reached, then Parliament’s standing may be about to sink to an all time low.
Â
Hold on to your hats, it could be a very bumpy 9 days up to the final vote.
Going hell for lather into yet another budget soap opera
Jan 31
#1 by Indy on January 31, 2011 - 2:21 pm
it would be more accurate to say that the Greens want to increase the amount of tax Scottish people pay in order to compensate for the cuts handed on by the Tory coalition.
Labour want to avoid the issue of what they would do about the cuts altogether because it is much easier to blame the SNP (but really we all know they take the same position as the Greens – put up council tax).
The Tories want to pretend that the cuts can be dealt with simply by making wealthy people pay for their prescriptions and getting rid of some of those dreadful oiks in the public sector, who are just a bunch of slackers anyway.
The Lib Dems, if I understood Tavish Scott correctly at the past two FMQs, think that sacking NHS consultants who earn over 100 grand would be a good starting point for dealing with the cuts – which are nothing to do with them, oh no.
Margo isn’t bothered but will make sure she gets some money for some pet project in Lothians region so she can demonstrate why there is a point to voting for her.
The SNP, having had their anti cuts platform roundly rebuffed by the Scottish people in the Westminster election, has therefore presented a balanced budget with the resources available to them for all the other parties to tear apart and fight over.
Such fun. I don’t believe in knighthoods but if I did John Swinney would be top of my list for getting one.
PS; Incidentally, considering that over 50 ;per cent of the SNP Government’s capital spending has been in and around Glasgow and that Glasgow has consistently received the highest local government spend per head in mainland Scotland – as well as the highest housing spend – it would be really hard to see how Labour could increase spending in Glasgow without sparking off some kind of civil war! This is an issue that has been bubbling away for a long time and may well come to a head over the budget negotiations.
#2 by James on January 31, 2011 - 2:28 pm
Jeff, it’s not brinksmanship to regard a Budget as unsuitable for Scotland. Alex Salmond has already pledged to bring back a better Budget if this one falls, and I would welcome him being given the opportunity to do so.
As it stands, John Swinney is merely George Osborne’s man in Edinburgh, delivering the Tories’ cuts agenda. Shame on any party that votes for that.
#3 by Indy on January 31, 2011 - 2:36 pm
The Scottish people voted for that James.
#4 by Jeff on January 31, 2011 - 2:53 pm
I’d agree with you if the only consideration is – ‘Is the Green budget better than the SNP budget’ but that would be to ignore the consideration of the SNP budget vs the 2010 budget and the very real risk of a Government trying to spend £34bn/£35bn when it only has £33bn in the bank.
I’m not saying that it is borne out of malice but it does concern me that you don’t see how the Greens+Labour+Lib Dem positions are a form of brinkmanship.
#5 by Indy on January 31, 2011 - 3:02 pm
That’s not going to happen though. It is a form of brinksmanship but I don’t believe it will lead to public sector bodies setting budgets that cannot be funded.
If the Budget is voted down then we will have an early election and budget setting by public sector bodies will await the outcome.
#6 by James on January 31, 2011 - 3:26 pm
Also, Jeff, is your argument that any Budget which is based on the Osborne Block Grant plus any additional revenue should go through? It’s only marginally more persuasive than the Tory line at Stage One – “this is a vote on whether Scotland should have a Budget at all”.
#7 by Jeff on January 31, 2011 - 4:03 pm
No, of course that’s not my argument. I would very much like to see the ‘tartax tax’ lever being in play and it being pulled pretty hard, as you well know.
Â
My argument here though is that opposition parties should respect the fact that John Swinney gets to have first bite at the draft cherry. Opposition parties can publicly state their differences, push for political compromises with the meetings that are no doubt going on even now and basically make as much noise and hay as possible but when crunch time comes, a separate consideration has to be made and that is whether it is best to just grudgingly go with what’s on offer or whether the consequences of voting the existing budget down are worth it (and I’m not convinced that an early election means that reverting to last year’s budget won’t ultimately happen).
Â
At that point of the second consideration though, the merits of the tartan tax (or whatever else didn’t make it into the final Swinney draft) are effectively out the window as there is no majority for your preferred budget.
You think you’re right but you’ve got 2 MSPs, the SNP think its right and they’ve got 40-odd and form the Government. One must fall in line with the other and it’s pretty clear who will win the perception war.
Â
I do think the Green argument that the other parties are passing on Tory cuts is an excellent one to make and potentially lucrative come May but I would say you folks have to pick your battles. A couple of abstentions to make sure Patrick and Robin are not seen as the bogeymen might, might!, not be a bad idea.
#8 by James on January 31, 2011 - 4:10 pm
The Budget/cuts/economy/public services is indeed the battle we’ve chosen, so I don’t see us abstaining on a budget that sticks so close to the Tory cuts agenda.
Bottom line is this: there are two deals out there for John to do. First, he can be centre-left like he says he is, boldly identify the most progressive sources of revenue available to him, get our support and make it impossible for Labour to oppose without looking absurd, and get a majority against the Westminster Coalition. Second, he can cosy up to the Coalition and aim to get their support – he’s halfway there already, and the Libs would look daft opposing the type of cuts their Ministers are implementing at a UK level.
Given he’s so far gone for option two, why should we endorse that?
#9 by Jeff on January 31, 2011 - 4:21 pm
Fair enough James.
I did say that your opposition was more credible than Labour’s and Lib Dems for those very reasons.
#10 by Doug Daniel on January 31, 2011 - 5:02 pm
Thing is, Swinney could ask Labour to tell him exactly how their budget would look, implement that to the letter, and they’d still vote against it. Labour don’t care how it makes them look, they just want to make the SNP look like the helpless government which, to be perfectly honest, they pretty much currently are.
#11 by Erchie on February 4, 2011 - 5:02 pm
That’s not only harsh it is unfair
Since the other parties, including the Greens, voted down measures to give the SG some different tax raising powers to allow them to spend to their own priorities then it is THOSE parties, including the Greens. that are doing the CHancellor’s dirty work
#12 by James on February 6, 2011 - 10:22 am
What measures are you talking about? I can’t see any occasion where Greens voted against Scottish Government tax-raising powers, nor even what that could mean.
#13 by James on January 31, 2011 - 3:25 pm
Salmond’s pledge to bring back a better budget.
Don’t forget, when it was voted down in 2009 the Libs got back on board for the cost of two postage stamps. I’m sure John’s not that worried.
#14 by Indy on January 31, 2011 - 4:05 pm
Neither Labour nor the SNP have anything to lose from an early election. Labour would probably prefer it so they can take advantage of their lead in the oolls and minimise the amount of scrutiny they come under. WIthin the SNP there also an appetite to get on with it.
So it’s really up to the other parties. The Lib Dems are perhaps the most interestingly placed.
#15 by steve on January 31, 2011 - 6:46 pm
A word of advice to the greens. I admire your tartan tax move, as it presents a real alternative to the “four flavours of cuts” on offer from the four main parties. But inconveniently for the greens, the tartan tax hits basic rate tac payers hardest, at the same time as mortgages look likely to increase, inflation is high and pay is reducing for many in real terms. And vat just went up.
So you need to say why putting up taxes for this group is better than putting up with the cuts. The problem is, it’s easier for an individual to picture the impact of a tax increase on their family than it is to imagine what the impact of the cuts will be.
So I suggest you earmark all or most of the tartan tax money for specific environmental projects designed to help us meet our emissions reduction targets and create new jobs. I’d set up a special fund, call it the green growth fund or something. I think people still don’t realise how bad things could get, partly thanks to the bigger parties kidding on that a few tweaks is all that’s needed.
I think people are much more likely to vote for a tax increase if there is a specific benefit they can see they’ll get for their money. Plus it becomes easier to defend when the other parties attack it.
#16 by Jeff on January 31, 2011 - 8:24 pm
Fine comment Steve, and sage advice.
I’ve always thought the same applies to independence, it needs a tangible, relevant reason that people can revolve around. Soninfolloe your logic, agree with it and I guess we’ll both have to wait and see what happens in the next ~96 days.
#17 by Douglas McLellan on February 1, 2011 - 12:30 am
Whilst I disagree with raising taxes and am not a fan of hypothecated taxation you do raise the point that under Green plans for using the SVR it will be the lowest paid earners who will have to pay more of their income in taxes than anyone else.
I have yet to see an argument that says this is a good thing.
#18 by An Duine Gruamach on January 31, 2011 - 8:02 pm
James:
“First, he can be centre-left like he says he is, boldly identify the most progressive sources of revenue available to him…”
You mean like some sort of tax on out-of-town retailers?
#19 by James on January 31, 2011 - 10:05 pm
Perhaps like that, we won’t oppose it, but it’s hardly on the right scale. We’re talking about £1.3bn of cuts and a £30m revenue-raising measure. That’s less than fortieth of the cuts taken care of. And yes, I know it’s not got majority support in Parliament, and yes, I agree Labour in particular look absurd opposing it, but I think John should at least have opened discussions on revenue in advance with the other parties.
#20 by Indy on January 31, 2011 - 10:20 pm
You are also talking about the fact that the average Scottish family is already going to be worse off by an average of £112 a month when inflation combined with VAT and National Insurance increases is taken into account.
How much more are you wanting to take off them?
#21 by James on January 31, 2011 - 10:35 pm
I understand that taxes are paid by people. Are you prepared to accept that cuts to public services directly affect people too, predominantly not the rich? This pretence that the cuts are more progressive than increases in taxes on those in work is infuriating and unsubstantiated.
#22 by Douglas McLellan on February 1, 2011 - 1:11 am
If I had faith in the public sector and felt that public services (as a whole) were not bloated and wasting cash I could see where you are coming from.
However, I used to work in the charity sector in Fife and both Fife Council and NHS Fife wasted public money on things it didnt need to spend money on.
Both before and after the 2007 elections there were many stories in the press in Fife from council staff workers who were complaining that all they were doing were twiddling thing thumbs doing nothing. A key reason for this was the extraordinary amount of cash thrown at the public sector in Scotland since devolution. Every new initiative by the Scottish Government had funding attached to it and was passed to local government to implement. Lacking in any kind of staff planning or forward thinking each new initiative then had staff recruited to the council payroll, despite previous initiatives going to end within a short period of time and those staff still employed by the council. And try suggesting to them or their union that since their work has come to an end and its time to leave and the vitriol that is given back is intense. This went on for almost 10 years.
Basic human responses to things have also added to the pressures. The McCrone agreement saw some better pay and conditions for teachers. Fair enough. But then Headteachers wanted to maintain the pay differentials so also got a pay rise. Then the education department managers saw their staff getting pay rises and wanted one as well, all the way up the chain to the Directors Of Education wanting one. That meant the other directors of departments also wanted pay rises as well. Which then filtered down the pay scales all the way to the bottom of each department. As for the entire equal pay debacle….
Moving on to the NHS in Fife – this organisation sought, more than several times, to needlessly replicate good and successful voluntary sector health projects thinking that the projects could scale up and that the NHS could do them better. Despite the pleas of the voluntary sector organisations involved NHS Fife ended their funding and set up their own service. And then found out that due to mistrust of the NHS (mainly GPs), the lack of local community knowledge of the staff involved and the lack of willingness to help a person on their terms rather than the NHS one-size-fits-all approach that the number of people being helped was less than a third of the people the smaller, cheaper voluntary sector organisation was. And because of these low figures the service was not continued. From cheap success to expensive failure in a few short years. Well done, the NHS!
Even right now there are people in local authorities not understanding the effect (financially) of their decisions. Day care support for older people is a fairly cheap method of providing support, mental stimulation and hot meals to vulnerable older people. Yet many day care centres are seeing their hours reduced as the council wants to reduce the cost of the grant/Service Level Agreement. Yet, and this is the kicker, it will cost the council *more* to have a person come in and deliver support at home including hot meals and incontinence care. And that is the immediate increase in costs. Forcing older people into social isolation will have mental impacts which then have physical impacts which will then force the council and NHS to pay more in care costs in the future. This does not appear to register in the public sector. Public sector staff at the coal face know all of this. It is a pity that the vast army of people not delivering services dont.
The public sector in Fife gets over £1.1bn in public cash. Thats over £3k per person. But how much of that is well spent and how much is wasted? Is it fair to ask people to pay more taxes so they can be wasted?
#23 by Indy on February 1, 2011 - 11:37 am
Yes of course I accept that. But you can’t just say that you are going to find a progressive way to tax people as though that is a simple matter.
How exactly are you going to do that?
Let’s put some figures on it. We’ll take the gross median weekly earnings in Scotland as defined in ASHE. That gives us Scotland-specific numbers of people as well as their median income. Obviously these are just illustrative figures but it gives us an idea of what we are talking about.
Managers and senior officials (279,000) gross weekly pay £670.
Professional occupations (324,000) gross weekly pay £655.
Associate professionals and technical (358,000) gross weekly pay £480.
Skilled trades (188,000) gross weekly pay £448.
Process, plant & machine operatives (135,000) gross weekly pay £403 .
Administrative & secretarial (250,000) gross weekly pay £321.
Personal services (228,000) gross weekly pay £281.
Elementary occupations (288,000) gross weekly pay £219.
Sales & customer service (177,000) gross weekly pay £192.
So clearly you want to tax the managers and professionals more and there are (according to these figures) around 603,000 of them.
But how can you target that group of people without also bringing in the 943,000 who are already struggling to cope with inflation etc with earnings of less than £400 a week and who are just not in a position to pay more?
And what about the “squeezed middle” – the 681,000 people earning between 4 – 500 a week? Are you so sure that they can afford to pay more, given that their income is already being reduced and they are highly likely to be on a pay freeze?
I will refrain from harping on about the fact that the SNP’s local income tax policy would have solved this problem as it is a very obvious point).
#24 by Laura on February 1, 2011 - 9:14 pm
you won’t oppose it? That’s pretty lukewarm for a tax on big supermarkets – I thought the greens would heartily approve! And if even something like that can’t get through, really, what does that tell you about the other options you are holding out for.
#25 by James on February 1, 2011 - 9:34 pm
Laura, I understand where you’re coming from, but it’s a drop in the ocean of the cuts, less than a 40th of what has been removed from the block grant, and it’s a long way from a fair and comprehensive look at how we tax land/assets. I think with some discussion in advance it would have been possible to find something that worked for JS, Labour and ourselves. The various Tories, sure, no. But it’s them he’ll have to rely on now.
#26 by somepapfaedundee on January 31, 2011 - 11:33 pm
Two questions –
For those who’d rather not ‘pass on cuts’, which specific cuts are you going to seek to avoid?
What specifically is it that the Green party are going to say that distinguishes them?
#27 by fitalass on February 1, 2011 - 12:22 am
“The Tories want to pretend that the cuts can be dealt with simply by making wealthy people pay for their prescriptions and getting rid of some of those dreadful oiks in the public sector, who are just a bunch of slackers anyway”
Really?? Well when an SNP supporter puts it like that, it must be the case.
#28 by CassiusClaymore on February 1, 2011 - 10:13 am
We could always try not wasting the taxpayers’ money in the first place….
Just as an example, I see that Edinburgh Council have tendered for £100K of legal advice in suing the Scottish Govt. over their rates. No doubt the Scottish Govt. will be doing something similar. It’s the public sector, so there will be a cost over-run.
So, say £250K in legal bills to resolve a dispute entirely between public sector bodies. Absolutely ridiculous. Hard-pressed taxpayers shouldn’t be shelling out for this sort of nonsense.
As for the Greens – surprised that they are looking for a such a regressive tax rise. Hiking the basic rate hurts low earners, not high earners. If you earn, say, £150K then 3p on the basic rate makes no difference to you, but it’s a killer for someone on the average wage. And it sends out the message, loud and clear – “Scotland is a high tax environment. Do not move here. Do not do business here. We’ll take your money, and waste it on rubbish”.
CC
#29 by CassiusClaymore on February 1, 2011 - 11:20 am
Dounglas #20, didn’t see your post, so sorry for covering the same ground. I agree with you completely, and it mystifies me why more focus isn’t on spending our money more sensibly – rather than just continually taking more of it.
Of course, politicians don’t see it as our money in the first place….
CC
#30 by Douglas McLellan on February 1, 2011 - 1:20 pm
Thats ok. It adds to the weight of evidence. You highlight the legal bills. I wonder how much each council spends needlessly in Public Affairs, Lobbying, Media Monitoring as well as Design & Communication staff etc.
Since the Greens find it infuriating that people are question the need to tax the lowest earners to stop “cuts” I think it would be a good piece of research to conduct an examination of council spend in terms of:
1. What they are legally obligated to provide via legislation (i.e. education, social work etc).
2. What the spend that is directly related to the above, but not legally enforced upon them.
3. What they spend on things that they want to spend on but are not obligated to do so (i.e. local priorities).
4. What they spend on things that make them feel good but are not really that necessary and should be cut before services are – like council newsletters.
If points one and two are not being met then fine, work out a way of taking more taxes from me as I know the legislation and it underpins a society I am comfortable living in and supporting.
If points three and four are considerable (and they are) then surely the most vulnerable would not be affected by the council not delivering them at the this stage due to the fact that services for the vulnerable are in points one and two.
#31 by Indy on February 1, 2011 - 4:08 pm
I agree with that, I don’t think councils or any public sector bodies should spend money on any of that stuff.
But I feel compelled to point out that, in doing so, they are just apeing the private sector which is what many people have been encouraging them to do for many years!
If anything good comes out of this I would like it to be that public sector bodies realise that they don’t need a brand. They are not businesses. They are not in competition with anybody so it doesn’t matter a hoot what their logo looks like. The only thing they need to care about is whether people are happy with the services they get, not whether their letterhead is stylish enough.
#32 by Douglas McLellan on February 1, 2011 - 7:25 pm
There are good (as well as bad) approaches in the private sector. Proper planning for a start. Your point about councils seeking to have a ‘brand’ is excellent and so true. How much money is spent on this type of thing that could be directed to frontline services?
I like the corporate image that Fife Council has adopted: a picture of a bridge – but the angle is leaving Fife towards Edinburgh. Not the best message to promote is it?