Is Alex Salmond a progressive or a conservative? Has he run a centre-left administration or a centre-right one? The question still gets asked because there is evidence pointing in both directions. This election, if the polls are in the right, gives Scotland a chance to get either version. But voting SNP on the list would, curiously, be an abstention on that crucial question.
His instincts on international affairs are certainly more left than Labour’s or the Lib Dems. The SNP was clearly opposed to the Iraq war, and there has been no sign of a wobble over Trident either. But these are issues that aren’t decided at Holyrood, so remain tangential at best to this election.
On tax, despite the massive slew of propaganda from the SNP, he’s clearly a natural conservative. Council Tax is regressive, and freezing it saves the richest the most. An effective tax cut, it also hurts the poorest most, the people most likely to rely on public services. The freeze is funded, the SNP say – which means £70m was given with one hand while £654m was taken away with the other.
The £1.3bn of cuts which John Swinney handed on in his last budget also show the priorities pretty clearly, with housing, education and public transport all put under pressure to allow a continued road-building programme.
This might be mere electoralism, an effort not to scare the horses again with a Penny for Scotland, even though the need for additional revenue now is much greater than it was in 1999. But I suspect it’s where his heart lies – as is the desire to cut corporation tax and follow at least some parts of the Irish model, including a substantial programme of speculative borrowing if the Calman powers arrive.
On the environment, the 100% renewable pledge looks good, until you see that for the SNP it also means retaining all the climate-busting generating capacity for sale. I’d agree there’s a massive economic opportunity that comes with a shift to renewables, but that seems the only point of green energy for the SNP: otherwise they wouldn’t have rammed a new coal plant into the National Planning Framework.
And would an SNP administration have secured the backing of so many turbo-capitalists and right-wing newspapers if it were even vaguely left? For every jailed socialist pleading to be allowed to vote for the SNP there are five tax-cutting businessmen hailing the Salmond record. Not to mention the fondness between Salmond and the egregious wingnut birther and eviction specialist Donald Trump.
But the SNP is, contrary to popular opinion, more than just Alex Salmond. There are many genuine progressives in the party, not many perhaps amongst the Ministerial team, but there are plenty in and around the party who see the opportunities independence could bring for a genuinely fairer Scotland, with a more redistributive tax settlement and priority given to essential services, not 1960s style vanity infrastructure projects. It’s what Chris Harvie was trying to get at last week, despite his four wasted years as a loyal button-pusher. It’s where the outriders for a better nationalism like Pat Kane and Bella Caledonia come in.
Some of the polls suggest that the SNP plus the Greens would make 65+, with the usual media frothing about independence as if it’s the only issue our politics should be about. But all the polls also indicate that the SNP plus the Tories would make 65+, enough for a continuation of the unofficial alliance, especially over budget matters, which has set the tone since 2007.
No other party has voted with the SNP on every single budget vote, and no party did so more enthusiastically than the Tories earlier this year when the cuts had to be passed on. I like Derek Brownlee personally, and I hope the predictions that he will lose his own seat are wrong, but he has been John’s loyal little helper not just to annoy their mutual enemy, but also because this is a genuine meeting of minds.
The Tories know what holding the balance would bring them – especially if they come back as the only way (other than with Labour support) that Bruce Crawford can make a majority with a single party. That scenario will put the Tory thumb on the SNP scales, and I fear we will see five years of a deepening squeeze on public services, five more years where the car remains king, and where the dash continues for the last, dirtiest, most unsafe oil in Scottish waters.
There is another possible outcome – a strong enough Green vote to push the SNP towards their more progressive instincts and yes, to vote against them where they seek to put big business ahead of the people or Scotland’s environment. The polls show we could be heading that way. But make no mistake, the only plausible alternative to a Tory-tinged SNP government right now looks like a good result for the only out-and-out progressive party in the last Parliament: a substantial Green block at Holyrood.
#1 by James on May 1, 2011 - 4:40 pm
“On tax, despite the massive slew of propaganda from the SNP, he’s clearly a natural conservative. Council Tax is regressive, and freezing it saves the richest the most. An effective tax cut, it also hurts the poorest most, the people most likely to rely on public services.”
I’m sorry, but that’s completely the wrong way round. Cutting a regressive tax favours the poor more than the rich. If Council Tax had been increased in line with inflation since 2007, that would mean it would be 15-20% higher in nominal terms than freezing it. High income / wealthy individuals can easily afford tax increases in line with inflation. Low income / poor individuals, particularly people on fixed incomes (ie pensioners), can’t.
The only way what you say makes any sense is if you are referring to someone who was exempt from council tax in the first place, then has a reduced service from Government.
#2 by James on May 1, 2011 - 4:44 pm
It’s a flawed tax, agreed, but the freeze (and even more so the complete failure to revalue) definitely save the richest the most. Unusual though it may be, George Foulkes is right here.
#3 by aonghas on May 1, 2011 - 5:17 pm
Hilarious innit. Reducing the impact of a regressive tax by lowering it in real terms – regressive, apparently.
#4 by James on May 1, 2011 - 5:28 pm
Logically, therefore, the most progressive thing to do in your terms would be to scrap CT and not replace it. You do know what the money gets spent on, right?
#5 by aonghas on May 2, 2011 - 2:15 pm
Depends how you fill the void – if you fund it with an income tax rise then the replacement tax is more ‘progressive’. In the pantheon of taxes, reducing a regressive one is going to increase the ‘progressiveness’ of what’s left. Freezing the council tax in Scotland is just achieved by bunging the councils more block grant cash behind the scenes. Are you arguing that regressive taxation is still good because it means higher taxation? Not convinced 🙂
#6 by Colin on May 1, 2011 - 4:45 pm
I agree with much of what you say, but I think your comments on the council tax are a bit off the mark. Surely freezing a regressive tax is not a regressive act?
#7 by James on May 1, 2011 - 4:52 pm
The biggest savings are at the top, and those on CT benefit save nothing. Plus cuts to services, which are an inevitable and direct consequence, are certainly regressive.
#8 by Ali Miller on May 1, 2011 - 4:56 pm
“The £1.3bn of cuts which John Swinney handed on in his last budget also show the priorities pretty clearly, with housing, education and public transport all put under pressure to allow a continued road-building programme.”
A third of the Scottish Government’s money is allocated to our National Health Service, the flagship of Social Democracy. Despite the £1.3 Billion cut you refer to, spending of the NHS was protected by the SNP, and will be in future. They have also looked to reduce private sector from involvement within the NHS, for example the new Southern Gerneral will be built with direct capital.
Its hard to take your opinion serouisly when you ignore the SNPs record in regard to a full THIRD of the budget.
#9 by James on May 1, 2011 - 5:03 pm
I agree about the Southern General – good project, and properly procured. That’ll save us a lot of money in the long term.
But housing got cut by £235m. And my figure was wrong for local authorities – it should be £654m not £435m. And further education lost £33.5m. Public transport’s down. Need I go on?
#10 by aonghas on May 1, 2011 - 5:21 pm
The SNP’s energy policy is indeed a bit loopy – spend loads to build expensive unreliable energy infrastructure, then sell the economical, reliable energy to England, while charging the locals for the expensive stuff. But not to worry – somehow there’ll be an economical benefit to be had.
But the good part is that when reality strikes, we’ll still have power stations capable of supplying the power we need. Quite sly that, Alex.
#11 by Simon on May 1, 2011 - 5:37 pm
Problem with SNP and Greens, they both live in a little bubble. The poorest will get clobbered by fuel poverty and cuts, that will increase the homeless, will increase starvation. People need jobs, not imports. They need hope, not lies. The people of Scotland need an ethical and caring Scottish parliament, that welcomes all, not exclusive Nationalism. Tax the rich corporations, don’t do deals with them, don’t let them buy you.
34,500 Pensioners died over past four years from the cold. While £45 Billion was pulled from thin air, to rescue RBS.
Investment in Green energy adds 14% to fuel bills, causing fuel poverty.
Instead of wasting money on daft tram schemes, so the elite in Edinburgh can travel in a tram; why not make Public Transport free, for everyone?
SNP and SGP, along with the others would be a disaster for Scotland.
#12 by Doug Daniel on May 1, 2011 - 6:22 pm
“Tax the rich corporations” – well, the SNP tried that at the last budget, but were stopped from doing so by pretty much everyone. Mainly because the Westminster Three are all backed by large supermarkets in one way or another.
And, erm, who wanted to scrap the trams? Ah yes, the SNP. Were they the ones to bail out the banks too? Well no – they don’t even have the powers to do so.
Trying to work out which party you support is pretty difficult – you’ve pretty much ruled out every single party with that post, unless the SSP no longer support independence.
#13 by Simon on May 1, 2011 - 8:00 pm
SSP are the only party, that will protect the vulnerable from Holyrood and Westminster. SSP want an Independent Scottish Socialist Republic, SNP have decided to only get the independence card out at elections. SGP are Royalist.
SNP are backed by a Newspaper and a Bus company; May 5th will see those at Holyrood pay for their mistakes, over past four years.
#14 by James on May 1, 2011 - 9:17 pm
Usual nonsense.
#15 by Richard on May 1, 2011 - 7:36 pm
“Tax the rich corporations, don’t do deals with them”
And then what happens? The rich corporations go somewhere else and take all their money with them, so the whole country loses out. The difficulty is in finding the right balance.
“34,500 Pensioners died over past four years from the cold. While £45 Billion was pulled from thin air, to rescue RBS.”
Not sure where that 34,500 comes from; was that just Scotland? or UK? If RBS had been allowed to go under, there would have been a lot more people in dire straits. Not that this has anything to do with the Scottish Government though, so pretty off-topic.
“Instead of wasting money on daft tram schemes”
Don’t you remember, the SNP tried to scrap the trams, but were prevented by all the other parties closing ranks?
#16 by Daniel J on May 1, 2011 - 8:00 pm
Tesco Tax was £30 million, while something it still wouldnt be enough.. the cuts would still have overwhelmingly been passed on.
Similar to the Tories and the rise in North Sea oil tax, does that make them left wing suddenly? No.
#17 by An Duine Gruamach on May 1, 2011 - 10:31 pm
Struggling to figure out where you got “exclusive Nationalism” from. This is the SNP, we’re talking about, no?
#18 by pat kane on May 1, 2011 - 6:10 pm
Hmm. Are Salmond/Swinney neo-liberal conservatives in social-democratic camouflage? I doubt it, post-Crash, post Alan Greenspan’s despair, with Joe Stiglitz available at the end of an e-mail.
However, if SNP leadership are serious about sustainabilty as the theme of economic, technological and social renewal, the dots will eventually have to be joined up. One of the connections being to a different regime of returns on capital investment for green economic renewal, one which is longer-term and seeks less instant reward – which militates against an entirely open and minimally-regulated economy of the pre-Crash kind. It’s “financial innovation”, but not as we know it (at least Scottish Futures Fund shows that innovaton can go in a public-goods direction).
On roads/bridges: I like Mike Small’s suggestion at Bella Caledonia of shifting to capital investment in waterways and ferries, which is at least a positive response to the SNP’s commitment to infrastructural investment. But I’d suggest we need a more refined response to the questions of mobility across sparsely-populated Scotland from Greens than just a blanket anti-roads position (Chris Harvie could roll these out for you in a snap).
On “establishment” Alex: Duncan Hamilton rather elegantly laid out the “New Establishment” strategy in the SoS today. I hear all this. But… For Scottish Greens, I suppose the question is whether they think it’s worth supporting a bourgeois-nationalist hegemony in Scotland, which is building momentum towards independence or maximal powers, conducted under a modern system of proportional voting. And to do so in order to finally be in a polity where the political field might be as well disposed towards left-green policies as whole regions – maybe the nation – of Germany is at the moment.
I don’t want to moderate any party’s militancy in a combative election – I would lay a bet that many Scots have enjoyed the Greens clarity and personability in this contest. But I would only counsel that there’s maybe a tide of history swelling that you want to be part of – and that, though it might be internally satisfying to tar the SNP as the same-old-same-old capitalist Scotland, you might be missing a very big opportunity indeed if that stops you from building an effective relationship with them.
#19 by Doug Daniel on May 1, 2011 - 6:12 pm
The SNP want to ditch council tax, but the Tories like it (since they introduced it in the first place, they probably don’t want to admit it’s rubbish) and Labour like it too. The Lib Dems don’t like it, but were too interested in playing party politics last term to help the SNP do anything about it. Not to mention the fact that any changes to local government taxation would take considerably longer than a day to implement, meaning people would still need to pay council tax in the meantime.
So with all that in mind, how was the SNP supposed to mitigate the effects of council tax on low income households during the past four years, other than by freezing it? Okay, so high earners saved more, but does that mean you avoid helping out low earners just because it happens to save more money for high earners? That sounds like cutting-your-nose-off logic to me.
The SNP’s reason for the freeze is quite simple: they want to replace council tax, but until that can be done, they don’t want people having to fork out for the massive hikes in tax suffered under the Laboural Democrat coalition. Admittedly, it seems a bit daft to have a further five year freeze without a plan for replacing it, but not as daft as the other parties blindly following the same policy purely because it was such a vote winner for the SNP, rather than because they want to replace council tax too (except the Lib Dems, perhaps).
#20 by NConway on May 1, 2011 - 6:58 pm
Type your comment here
I have to agree with Pat,
personally I agree with the Greens on certain issues however the SNP have a broader church of policies and membership and I would rather the SNP got in with a larger mandate and hopefully with the Green support we will have a referendum with two questions along the lines of ” do you want Scotland to become a full member of the international community similar to New Zealand where the queen would remain our head of sate or do you want Scotland to remain part of the UK but with complete fiscal autonomy ? and then we can build a Greener fairer more Scandinavian country.
#21 by Rev. S. Campbell on May 1, 2011 - 10:15 pm
Like pretty much everyone else, I have to point out that this is misleading bollocks. While the bare facts are true – if the freeze saves a poor family £100 it’ll probably save a rich one £200 or whatever – that misses the point by such an implausibly massive distance that it’s impossible not to conclude it’s deliberately disingenuous.
The fact is, £100 to a poor family IS in any meaningful sense more than £200 to a rich one. £100 is the difference between being able to pay your winter fuel bill and not. If you’re wealthy, £200 is what you spend on wine when you host a dinner party.
Until such times as a replacement to the Council Tax can command a majority in Parliament, freezing it is the most cost-effectively progressive measure available. Means-testing is expensive and flawed: it would almost certainly cost more than the amount it would claw back from the relatively small amount of wealthy families, and as is always the case with means-testing, poor families would lose out through not claiming their entitlement for one reason or another.
It’s clear you have an agenda in criticising this policy. It does the credibility of your argument no favours.
#22 by Steve on May 3, 2011 - 9:43 am
“freezing it is the most cost-effectively progressive measure available.”
If you want to talk about misleading bollocks, that takes the biscuit.
The freeze costs £70m but gives £58m to taxpayers in Scotland and £12m to the UK Government Department for Work and Pensions, at the same time as failing to give a single penny of help to the absolute poorest in society.
How on earth can you describe spending £12m to hand out £58m to everyone apart from the poorest as anything other than a massive waste of money?
Anyone with a basic understanding could come up with a better policy than that, and if the SNP really cared about people on low incomes, or those who’ll suffer the most under the cuts, they would have.
The CT freeze may be a vote winner, but it’s a rubbish policy.
#23 by Rev. S. Campbell on May 3, 2011 - 10:23 pm
The absolute poorest don’t need any help with Council Tax, because they don’t pay it.
But please – share with us your alternative *that could command a majority in Parliament*.
#24 by GHmltn on May 1, 2011 - 11:54 pm
Can’t help thinking the Greens are not a progressive movement – they are the Greens!
#25 by James on May 2, 2011 - 1:50 am
You keep using that word progressive.
#26 by douglas clark on May 2, 2011 - 12:22 am
Pat Kane @ 17,
I dunno where james is going with his argument, it seems to be to deny that the SNP are basically a social democratic, and fairly green party.
There are opportunities in green energy – which greens would reject, apparently out of hand – for simple straightforward tidal power schemes: y’know dams and such like across the various Firths that we have.
These ideas are old technology and they work. Projects like that have huge capital costs, think Hoover dam. But they produce renewable energy for as long as they stand. The Rance tidal dam in France has been in operation since 1966. Getting us, at the very least FFA would allow us to look at capitalising that sort of investment.
This is becoming another convenient polarisation in Scottish politics, a desperation to see difference rather than common ground.
I think james is looking for list votes…..
#27 by James on May 2, 2011 - 1:49 am
I’m looking at the evidence. What tidal power schemes have we rejected?
#28 by douglas clark on May 2, 2011 - 11:21 am
James,
Will this do you?
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/26-01-09-Barrage.html
#29 by James on May 2, 2011 - 12:07 pm
Wrong Green party, but nice try.
#30 by douglas clark on May 2, 2011 - 1:35 pm
James,
Are you saying the Scottish Greens would be more realistic?
#31 by James on May 2, 2011 - 1:48 pm
We’ve supported every tidal project I’m aware of that’s been proposed for Scotland, if that’s what you mean.
#32 by Ross on May 2, 2011 - 3:43 pm
I don’t think this is a matter of James grabbing list votes at all. He is looking at the realisitc differecnes between the two parties.
The SNP have been very effective with their Green camouflage but they go on to support projects like the forth road bridge, motorway expansion, aviation expansion etc.
#33 by Ewan Dow on May 2, 2011 - 7:09 pm
James, I see you’re being a bit naughty with the argument that the Council Tax Freeze has led to a cut in services. As I said to you on Twitter, no it hasn’t.
Scottish Councils have received additional funding to the value of a 3.4% rise in council tax per year over the past four years. This has been allocated via the Government’s Revenue Grant allocation to councils which makes up 60.6% of their income.
Non domestic rates make up 12.1%, Sales, fees and charges make up 12.8% and other income is 3.8%.
That leaves council tax making up only 10.7% of Scottish local government’s income or £1.91 Billion.
SO to a council, council tax is at the margins of their income and as I said before they’ve had increases of approx 3.4% every year for the past four. Inflation during the same period has only averaged 2.9% so they’ve had increases above the CPI.
The cuts in services are of a concequence of the Westminster Tory/Lib coallition’s £1.3 Billion cuts not the Council Tax freeze.
And yes I know I’ve opened a can of worms on the debate re managing Tory led cuts versus the Greens’ position but I’m not convinced that the Greens’ position is workable (I certainly can’t afford a higher rate of income tax and its only the basic rate than can be changed not the top rate)
But please, lets keep that debate on facts and not mislead folk that the Council Tax freeze is in anyway responsible for service reductions.
#34 by James on May 2, 2011 - 11:01 pm
Honestly, see table 14.02 of the last Scottish Budget. Local government cuts – above and beyond the reduced revenue from the CT freeze – was cut by £635m over the year. You have some exciting and misleading numbers there. But John’s Budget tells the truth.
#35 by John Ruddy on May 2, 2011 - 11:13 pm
After all, why did Angus Council have to close 4 Libraries in 2010, if there were no funding issues because of the Council Tax freeze?
#36 by Ewan Dow on May 3, 2011 - 11:44 am
You’d need to ask the Angus Alliance for the specifics on that John, but local government funding faces a number of problems most of which are linked to the archaic way that the local government finance settlement is divided.
For instance the indicators that are used to decide where grant support is allocated tend to be historic by, in some cases, up to 4 or 5 years. In effect council areas with population decreases can receive funding for services that are no longer needed or provided whilst councils with population increases have to find the money to provide services now and might not receive central government funding for a few years for that service.
One of the main problems is the fact that the local government finance settlement is agreed between the Scottish Government and CoSLA and the big Labour council have resisted for years any attempts to change the formula, this is primarily as Glasgow is the biggest beneficiary of the current system whilst the likes of Edinburgh, Perth and Kinross, Angus and Aberdeenshire loose out.
#37 by John Ruddy on May 4, 2011 - 2:39 pm
Well, the Angus Alliance would say they had to make cuts, and these were the most palatable they could make.
But my point is that they still had to make cuts. And the only explanation is that costs went up by more than income, ie the council tax freeze wasnt fully funded.
#38 by Ewan Dow on May 3, 2011 - 11:39 am
Not sure local government finance figures can ever be described as exciting and these are certainly not misleading ones as they come from the Scottish Government’s Scottish Local Government Financial Statistics 2009-10 Report.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/02/21143624/0
These figures are the correct figures for council income in the last year for which figures are available. These reports are always compiled after the financial year is ended as: a) Council Tax and NDR collection rates seldom if ever reach the hoped for 100% rate, b) its only at the year end that councils know how much they’ve received from fees and charges.
Turning to your point James, council tax income doesn’t even feature in table 14.02 you quote above so how that’s evidence that the council tax freeze has meant service cuts I’m not sure.
I did say in my original post that there is indeed a cut in local government funding (via the general Revenue Grant) but this is totally seperate from anything to do with tax freezes and its utterly wrong to try and link the two.
John’s budget does tell the truth – the UK Tory/Lib Dem coallition has slashed Scotland’s funding by £1.3 billion and it would be daft to pretend otherwise.
If folk want to see these cuts reduced by higher taxation they’ve got the chance to do that on Thursday but my reading of the Scottish electorate is that they don’t really want to do that and are more satisfied by the excellent management of public sector finances shown by John Swinney over the past four years and want more of the same.
#39 by John Ruddy on May 2, 2011 - 10:46 pm
I think the SNP have done very well to be a good balancing act – to appear to be anti-tory here in the north east, for instance, while being anti-Labour in the west. That way they mop up the protest votes, which is why more people vote for them than support independance.
#40 by douglas clark on May 3, 2011 - 7:42 am
Ross @ 30,
‘Green camouflage’?
Have a look at this:
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/scottish-news/2330-windpower-scotland.html
A reasonable green objective is to give up on the internal combustion engine, it is not to give up on individual transport. Hence we’ll need roads whether it is electric or hydrogen or any other type of vehicle that runs on them.
Due to the economic downturn passenger numbers travelling through the major Scottish airports have taken a bit of a dunt recently. However the overall trend is upwards and personally I feel airlines should be required to do 100% carbon offsetting.
Pingback: The SNP and Independence |
Pingback: Travel in hope on the super-powered milk-van of devolved Scotland | Caledonian Mercury - Pat Kane