Did the SNP’s Penny For Scotland cost them the 1999 election? Eddie Barnes seems to think so, in an otherwise fair blog post on the Steamie. Sure, it was their most notable campaign slogan, and sure, they definitely didn’t win in 1999.
But was that what the 1999 election was about? I’d argue that 1999 was primarily about the mere fact of the Parliament itself. New Labour were still in honeymoon mode down south, boom and bust was supposedly over forever, and voting for a Parliament itself was the exciting political step for most of the electorate.
In 1997 45.5% of Scotland had voted Labour and just 22% SNP. Just two years later, following the supposedly disastrous Penny For Scotland campaign, the SNP were up 5% on that on the list and up nearly 7% in the constituencies.
In 2002, under John Swinney, they dropped the policy because Labour were then raising NI and so circumstances had changed. Understandable logic (and the David McLetchie quote in there is still fresh, incidentally). And this decision was surely in line with the smart advice that people are lying when they tell pollsters they want better services and are prepared to pay for them?
Yet the 2003 result was much worse for the new-style low-tax (or steady-tax, they would say) SNP. Their vote fell on the 1999 level by 5% in the constituencies and 6.5% on the list. Would it have gone better for them with a retained Penny For Scotland? Who knows. That’s the problem with “political science”: it’s not science, there are no repeatable experiments, and no controls.
Furthermore, even if they’d got a better result in 2003 than 1999 it wouldn’t have proved the point. Scientists and skeptic bloggers always remind us not to confuse correlation with causation. Ice-cream sales don’t increase deaths by drowning, nor do firefighters increase the size of fires. The same is true in politics. The factors are much more complicated and the temptation to fall back on explanations that suit pre-existing perspectives is strong.
Was the change of SNP leadership not more of a reason for the 2003 switch away from them? Or perhaps the view that Labour wouldn’t be radical in office and the SNP couldn’t replace them led to the support for Greens and Socialists. And their narrow 2007 success was surely more about a credible alternative government in waiting (and FM in waiting) taking on a tired administration, one tied to the increasingly unpopular Blair government. It certainly wasn’t because they still weren’t proposing a Penny For Scotland and that fact had taken four years to sink in.
Eddie suggests we Greens won’t get “a thumping vote of support” for identifying cuts we wouldn’t make and progressive ways to boost Scotland’s budget. Maybe he’ll be proved right, but if no other party in Parliament were to put a practical alternative to the cuts within Holyrood’s existing powers into their manifesto then the Scottish electorate would be looking forward to a much narrower choice. Whatever 2003 shows, more than a third of the electorate were at least ready to back parties with positions to the left of where the SNP (and Labour) are now.
#1 by cynicalHighlander on January 6, 2011 - 8:36 pm
Wilson and Swinney were not born leaders and that was the problem with the SNP as they needed someone with natural charisma to blend thoughts.
As to the Green’s tax raising under the present devolution set up showws them as not fit for purpose as any tax increse will be detrimental to Scotland.
Stephen Maxwell is theTreasurer of the Scottish Independence Convention.
Flawed Scotland Bill Tax Proposals – A Trap for Labour
OT The Nation
#2 by Indy on January 6, 2011 - 9:14 pm
No the penny for Scotland did not cost the SNP the 99 election.
Couple of points on the general issue of cuts/taxation/progressive politics.
1. On the SNP handing on Westminster cuts. The SNP campaigned in the Westminster election to get a mandate to oppose the cuts – remember more nats less cuts? We
didn’t get one. Labour won the election in Scotland with 42 per cent of the vote and Labour were going to introduce three quarters of the Tory cuts. People who voted Labour therefore voted for cuts, as did people who voted Lib Dem and Tory. Between them the three unionist,cuts-supporting parties got over 75 per cent of the Scottish
vote in May 2010 while the SNP got around 20 per cent & Greens got just less than 1 per cent.
Like it or not, therefore, the Scottish people voted for a cuts agenda, albeit the majority for only three quarters of the cuts that are happening now. If the rest of the UK had voted the same way as Scotland. Labour would be in government and the cuts would still be happening. They would be slightly less painful – but they would still be happening. That is why the SNP is not going to strike poses and claim to be speaking on behalf of the Scottish people to Westminster in opposing the cuts. We opposed the cuts – but that is not how people voted. And it would clearly be ridiculous for the Greens claim to be speaking on behalf of the people on the same basis.
So in reality the SNP are “handing down Westminster’s cuts” because that is what the Scottish people voted for. We don’t like it any more than you do – but you have to
accept the democratic outcome of an election even if you think the voters were wrong. The SNP will of course continue to make the case for independence as the only
way to avoid having our finances and public services determined by Westminster. But we are not going to claim a democratic mandate to break away from Westminster’s
financial control when we don’t have that mandate. That leaves us – as it would any devolved administration – in the position of having the size of our budget determined by Westminster and, if Westminster cuts our budget, we all have to live with the consequences.
2. On taxation. The Green position, in the devolved context, is essentially to deal with the cuts by making ordinary families and individuals pay for them through tax rises. That is not progressive – how could you possibly think it is – but that is the position you will go into the election with. The only people who would vote for
that are people who can afford to, which means a relatively small number of middle class people. With clever targeting the Greens I believe could pick up a couple of extra seats from those people – and I’m not knocking their willingness to pay more towards public services but they are only willing to do that because they can. Try campaigning in a few working class areas and telling people that they ought to be willing to pay more, while the bankers go on pocketing their massive bonuses, because that is the progressive thing to do.
The SNP does not agree with the Green position and is not going to agree with it in a month of Sundays, so it looks inevitable that you will be voting against the budget. Why do we not agree with you? It’s simple. At a time when people are losing their jobs, when they are already paying more in VAT and when wages are falling well behind inflation we think it is wrong and unfair to increase the tax burden on individuals and families, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet.
Rather than joining in the mainstream UK consensus that it is quite OK to punish ordinary people for the failures of casino capitalism and incompetent government from Westminster – because we’re all in it together etc etc – the SNP will no doubt use the opportunity to point out that, as
long as we are governed by Westminster, idiots like George Osborne will have the power to control not only our budget but our economy and will do so in the interests of his own kind, not in the interests of Scotland. As long as we agree to this arrangement, we will lack the economic powers to grow our economy and create more jobs and we will also lack the opportunity to prioritise spending outwith devolved areas – e.g. we will have to watch Westminster protecting the £100 billion lifetime cost of Trident, while cutting spending on health, education, housing etc – cuts which are then handed on to the Scottish Government.
If people don’t like that they know what to do – support independence. There isn’t really a halfway house, no matter how much unionist or devolutionist parties try
to pretend that there is. No doubt there will also be mention made of the oil revenues which could, if Scotland was independent, be used to improve public services but will, as long as we are governed by Westminster, disappear into the gaping maw of the Treasury never to be seen again.
That will be the SNP position. As a nationalist I do not see why Scotland should accept the straightjacket of
Westminster rule and a devolution settlement within which the main option open to us to raise revenues is the one that you support – to tax people, not wealth. I believe there is a better way.
The voters will decide and we will all see where we stand after the election, whenever may be.
#3 by Stuart on January 6, 2011 - 10:01 pm
Hi Indy,
In response to your comment- fair enough. I’ve tried endlessly to convince nats to see that something has to be done to curb UK Westminster cuts now, but its quite clear you will only do something when you get independence.
The one point I did want to make was in response to… “you support – to tax people, not wealth. I believe there is a better way.”
Well this is exactly what a Land Value Tax does- taxes wealth NOT income or people. So its down to this, what’s possible, sooner? Implementing an LVT in Scotland, or independence?
#4 by NoOffenceAlan on January 6, 2011 - 10:06 pm
I think another major factor for the SNP in 1999 was Kosovo. The SNP made a big thing of opposing the establishment position.
IMO, it wasn’t the actual stance taken in itself that was the problem, but the fact that the Scottish voters would have rather heard about the SNP’s plans for Scotland, instead of The Balkans. ‘Grandstanding’ in other words.
#5 by James on January 6, 2011 - 10:20 pm
I agree it was a bit of a side issue for most, but was Iraq in 2003? I doubt it, yet the vote fell. I like John Swinney personally whatever the policy differences I have with him, and he’s a very professional politician, but I guess he didn’t seem like FM material to the public.
#6 by Malc on January 7, 2011 - 11:37 am
Whether you are FM material or not may not really matter. Arguably Iain Gray is the least FM-like of all the party leaders, yet he may still end the election in the hot seat. I think it was much more to do with entrenchment of position (and the mess the SNP made of candidate selections in 2003 didn’t help).
#7 by Jeff on January 7, 2011 - 1:45 pm
It won’t matter once the votes are counted of course Malc but I don’t think people are saying they’ll vote Labour to these pollsters because they are having an indepth discussion with themselves about who would make a better FM, who has a better Cabinet behind them and where devolved Scotland goes from here. Maybe I’m being too harsh on Scots and not giving them enough credit but I think there’s still a factor in these polls, which may yet change in some way, which is based on a general distaste of the Tories and Labour is, for now, seen as the protest vote.
#8 by Malc on January 7, 2011 - 1:52 pm
Sorry – was my comment not that clear? I agree. My point was that James was arguing Swinney wasn’t FM material in 2003 and lost because of it; Iain Gray isn’t FM material in 2011, but will likely still win. Nothing to do with the person – just that voters are entrenched in their “Tories at Westminster, must vote Labour to protest” position. Which is what you said.
#9 by Jeff on January 7, 2011 - 2:18 pm
Not that clear, no, but never mind.
I still think there is scope for that result to change in 2011 once voters realise they are not voting to replace those at Westminster and the SNP can do just as good a job of facing up to Cameron/Clegg as Gray can (if not better). But we’ll see. I still have Labour down to win it of course….
#10 by Indy on January 7, 2011 - 9:32 am
Hi Stuart
What precisely do you think can be done to “curb” Westminster cuts without independence?
As long as Westminster has the power to decide how much of our own money is handed back to us by way of a grant they have the power to cut the amount by however much they please.
What you – and the Greens – are proposing is not to stop Westminster cutting Scotland’s budget. What you are proposing is to increase taxation in Scotland, by whatever means, in order to compensate for the UK Government’s decision to cut the amount of our own money that they give back to us.
#11 by James on January 7, 2011 - 10:26 am
It’s called fiscal responsibility. If we want to avoid the cuts – can we agree on that? – we need to raise the money to do so as fairly as possible. The Scottish Parliament is the only institution in the country with the powers to do so (especially seeing as John Swinney has gutted local government’s independence of action). If your policy is inaction and Tory cuts until independence, then independence will never come, and I for one regret that.
#12 by Indy on January 7, 2011 - 10:33 am
No it’s not called fiscal responsibility, it’s called fiscal dependency.
There may or may not be an argument for LVT, I have downloaded Andy Wightman’s paper but not really had time to get my head round it yet.
However – regardless of whether LVT is a better form of taxation than council tax/business rates – you are still proposing to increase the amount raised within Scotland in order to compensate for the cut in funding coming from Westminster. So I would argue you are proposing to pass on Westminster’s spending cuts every bit as much as you accuse the SNP of doing.
Independence will only come when enough people decide they do not want Westminster to control our economy and public spending any more.
#13 by neil craig on January 7, 2011 - 2:11 pm
It is certainly a sign of the lack of any diversity in Scotland’s political class that none of them even want to discuss using what is (or was) our major economic power.
Personally I think the Tories would become the largest party if they had the gumption to promise a 3p cut. All the science of economics also shows it would significantly improve our economy.
On the other hand those who want ever greater government believe economic decline is a price worth paying for motre government spending & that has certainly been Scotland’s recent history.
Either way the electorate are entitled to a choice. It simply cannot be the case that the majority of supporters of each individual party believe that we live in the best of all possible tax rates.
#14 by Jeff on January 7, 2011 - 2:16 pm
Thoroughly agree with that Neil.
Incidentally, I would like to see this on a large billboard somewhere:
“Either way the electorate are entitled to a choice. It simply cannot be the case that the majority of supporters of each individual party believe that we live in the best of all possible tax rates.”
(preferably with a Scottish Green Party logo beneath it)
#15 by Indy on January 7, 2011 - 2:40 pm
OMG. Income tax is only our major economic power because it is practically our only economic power.
This is the fundamental problem.
Income tax may account for the biggest single source of revenue but it is still only about a quarter or 30 per cent of government revenue or thereabouts – don’t know the exact figure (and it would probably be disputed anyway depending on whether or not you included oil revenues). Raising or lowering income tax is not and never will be a magic bullet solution to Scotland’s economic because it is a tax levied on people, not businesses or profits. That’s what I meant when I said that the Greens want to tax people not wealth.
This may be too long to fit on a billboard but surely it is obvious?
#16 by Jeff on January 7, 2011 - 3:20 pm
Hang on, everyone understands that the SNP wants independence because it wants the full basket of powers, VAT, Corporation Tax, National Insurance, the whole lot. And that’s fine.
However, in a devolved election, it is only fair for a humble Scottish citizen to ask what the next Government will do here and now with the powers that they do have. The one “major economic power†that the SNP has is to vary income tax.
That’s fine if the SNP (and Labour and the Lib Dems and the Tories) all want to keep those rates at precisely the same level; let that be your policy and let those people who don’t consider independence as a top priority vote accordingly.
As Neil says, it doesn’t give the public much of a ‘choice’ though, does it?
#17 by Indy on January 7, 2011 - 3:40 pm
Jeff if any political party wants to go round the doors of Scotland telling voters they want to increase their tax then they are absolutely free to do that.
The SNP won’t – and that’s a good thing because I for one would not enjoy saying to people yeah OK I realise that you are struggling just now, you are worried about making mortgage payments when you have a massive heating bill to pay from the winter and you’ve just had a pay cut and, yes, I agree that it is outrageous that the bankers are still getting to trouser these massive bonuses and that so many top companies pay not one single penny in tax – but there’s hee haw we can do about that so we’re going to tax you instead. Can we rely on your vote?
After the first hundred or so doors getting slammed in my face it might start to get a bit wearing.
#18 by Jeff on January 7, 2011 - 3:56 pm
This from an activist whose party was offering the same policy only two elections ago?
Of course there is a realistic element to all of this where a sitting Government has to be risk-averse to an extent but I don’t think as many people would slam those doors in your face as you suggest.
One thing to remember, the current tax rates were set only after decisions taken by alternative Labour and Conservative Governments. The challenge isn’t for the SNP to explain whether they will increase or decrease tax but why they think that the current tax rates are at the correct level.
There is a subtle difference there and to focus on the former is borne out of a timid fear of getting battered in the polls while the latter is borne out of a philosophy and a logic that I for one would like to see more politicians get involved with.
And the end of the day, some people want taxes to go down (Neil), some people want taxes to stay the same (your good self) and some people want taxes to go up (me). All views are valid and that’s where a good debate can emanate from. That looks unlikely unless Greens get a seat at the top table.
#19 by James on January 7, 2011 - 4:24 pm
And Indy, you’re also knocking on doors where people work for the public sector doing useful work but facing redundancy, where people believe we should have a better social safety net for the poor, and where people rely on public services.
The SNP may be prepared to wring their hands and blame London, but you will have nothing constructive to offer those members of the public.
#20 by neil craig on January 7, 2011 - 3:53 pm
Indy you seem to be implicitly agreeing with me that if the Conservatives (or any other party that could credibly promise it) were to promise a 3p tax cut they would gain a massive swing.
Considering that there is no real difference between the parties on anything that is actually going to happen that would certainly bring the election to life.
#21 by Daniel on January 8, 2011 - 5:10 pm
Cut 3p from Tax and have deeper cuts to public services?!
I can’t see that as an election winning policy. Would sir like their NHS cut by 5% or 15%?
#22 by Indy on January 7, 2011 - 5:28 pm
Jeff – two elections ago we were not in the middle of the worst recession anyone can remember. Yes I know we may no longer technically be in recession but as far as most punters are concerned it feels like it. The current tax rates are correct precisely because they are not susceptible to change. People need a bit of stability at this time. It would be completely crazy to cut taxes but equally it would be incredibly unfair to raise them.
James – just over 25 per cent of people work for the public sector. Many of them are on a low wage and those on over 21,000 will be on a wage freeze – and they are on a wage freeze so that compulsory redundancies can be avoided. They are already dealing with VAT increases, increased electricity/gas prices and general inflation. In other words they are already suffering and do not want to see their tax bills go up any more than anyone else does.
Neil – no party will go into the election offering a 3p tax cut because it would mean the collapse of many public services which people rely on.
#23 by neil craig on January 8, 2011 - 6:02 pm
3p would be just about equal to the £1 billion we subsidise windmills with. So not absolutely necessary to cut the number of government inspectors, quangoists & other parasites who eat up 60% of the Scottish economy & impoverish us now & the next generation more.
Anyway i am not sure that Indy & Daniel are right that though almost almost all electors would slam the door on anybody wanting higher taxes an overwhelming majority would feel similarly about any reduction. There is only one way to find out.
On Daniel’s specific point – since we spend about 20% more per head on the NHS than the English a 5 or 15% cut to cut taxes by 3p would not seem to require a complete collapse of all our hospitals. The degree of padding, incompetence & outright fraud in our public “services” seems difficuult to understimate (eg the new Forth bridge costing 8 times what the old one did). I do not think the socialist cause is served by defending such fraud in the name of socialism (though the fraudster’s cause clearly is).
#24 by Observer on January 8, 2011 - 7:08 pm
Why exactly should Scots vote to pay more tax to compensate for the ideologically motivated actions of the Conservative-led government in Westminster?
I could see an argument for varying tax raising powers if there was still a Labour government, because although they would have to cut, they would not be doing it with the same vengeance as the Conservative-led government are, so we know that a lot of the pain being handed down is not necessary.
I think whoever can capture that mood – that we really don’t need to bring the deficit down that quickly – that it really isn’t fair that vital public sector workers (& any non vital ones have gone or are going now through the massive waves of voluntary redundancy & early retirement) need to take a pay cut when the bankers are paying themselves the same lavish bonuses – will win votes.
Frankly I’m damned if I can see why I should pay more tax to make up for George Osborne.
Both the SNP & the Greens need to spell out that what the Conservative-led government are doing is not necessary. We are not facing a sovereign debt crisis. We don’t need to bring the deficit down at the rate the Con-Dems claim we do, & the result of their actions imposed on Scotland will mean poorer services & higher unemployment. The latter will be a case of deja vu for those of us who lived through the Thatcher years.
That is why the anti-Tory vote is still so strong. People will vote for whoever they think will stop them.
#25 by neil craig on January 9, 2011 - 1:44 pm
“I could see an argument for varying tax raising powers if there was still a Labour government, because although they would have to cut, they would not be doing it with the same vengeance as the Conservative-led government are, so we know that a lot of the pain being handed down is not necessary.”
You mean that if Labour decide not to balance the budget then, by definition it is never “necessary” to do so. This sort of logic may work when serious discussion is censored but the present state of the economy proves it is nonsense.