If you need a reminder of the stuttering halt that the UK economy has come to this year, even after the tumult of 2008 is taken into account, then you need only read the following excerpt from Alistair Darling’s 2010 budget delivery:
“This year … I expect the economy to grow by between 1 and 1.5 percent. I will bring my forecast for 2011 in line with that of the Bank of England, to growth of between 3 and 3.5 percent.”
The IMF downgraded the UK’s growth forecast to 1.1%, less than a third of what Alistair had forecast less than two years ago (his Dec 2009 forecast was 3.75%).
It is within this climate of anaemic growth that John Swinney had to stand up in front of the Scottish Parliament yesterday to explain how he would balance the books for the coming years, albeit safe in the knowledge that all of his fellow SNP MSPs would vote in favour of whatever he said.
So, how will the Scottish Government square the circle of meeting manifesto commitments (freezing council tax, protecting NHS spending) and keeping existing benefits (free tuition, free care for the elderly) with a shrinking pot of cash over the next few years.
Well, taken directly from John Swinney’s statement, we will see the following:
– The pay policy for 2012-13 therefore extends the freeze on basic pay and suspends access to bonuses for a further year. My aim is that 2012-13 will be the last year of a pay freeze and we may be able to see modest increases in the years that follow.
– I propose that the business rates paid by large retailers of both tobacco and alcohol will be increased by a supplement from 1st April 2012.
– We are reducing organisational costs, including a reduction of 18% in the core Scottish Government’s operating costs over three years and with a requirement that all public bodies will bear down on their own comparable costs.
– In addition, I have taken a decision on the local government capital settlement that, maintains their share of the total capital funding across the period, but will be reprofiled over the remainder of this Parliament. This reflects the Government’s wish to maximise the availability of capital spending and recognises that local government has the power to borrow in order to supplement their capital budgets. We will work with our partners in local government to see to what extent this can sensibly be used to maximise capital expenditure, which is critical to economic recovery.
Let’s look at some of the key items in turn:
Tesco Tax
This one was always a no-brainer, even if the papers are trying to whip up a storm about it today. If those with the deepest pockets need to carry most of the cuts can, then Tesco and other major retailers are near the front of the queue. Add to that the angle that John Swinney is targetting retailers of problem-creating products of alcohol and tobacco to raise revenue and this is a measure that is coming in one year too late, but is welcome nonetheless.
Public Sector Pay Freeze
I’m sure if John Swinney could freeze the pay of private sector workers then he would have done too. The alternative to freezing public sector pay is sacking some people and increasing the pay of others. A freeze therefore is the clearest way of reducing the pain and showing we’re all in this together. Again, a relatively straightforward decision for John Swinney to make. Noone likes their pay going down in real terms but I’m sure we can all agree that that is preferable to losing one’s job entirely.
Councils
This is where things start to get interesting. SNP MSPs are protesting to Westminster that they do not have the necessary economic levers to manoeuvre their way through the economic storm. And yet, those same SNP MSPs, with John Swinney at the helm, seem comfortable enough to place restrictions on individual councils in order to centralise decision-making and push priorities at Holyrood. Perhaps that is the most efficient use of taxpayers money but there is more than hint of hypocrisy about it. Why shouldn’t we let individual council areas decide if they want to pay more Council Tax in order to have more, better local services? Is it right that the SNP have councils in a financial arm lock just to help make them electable?
The Scottish Government is effectively taking capital spend from councils in order to pay for capital spend of Holyrood projects, leaving those councils to have to borrow instead. Fair? Probably not. I don’t think I’d want my local council taking out too big a loan just as the cost of borrowing is reaching new heights. We saw with the Icesave debacle that councils are not always the smartest when it comes to where to place deposits so the less finance decisions the better. That said, there is no arguing that the Council Tax freeze is a bad thing for families feeling the squeeze in a good number of ways, so that side of the coin has to be kept in perspective.
All in all, on the face of it, there is a distinct lack of shocks, surprises or, well, serious pain here and at some point one has to decide that John Swinney is not so much putting off the inevitable but actually making the numbers add up year after year and getting Scotland through the eye of the needle/storm (delete as appropriate depending on your analogy preference).
The clues as to the weak spots in John Swinney’s arguments must come from the Shadow Finance Secretaries from the opposition parties:
Labour’s Richard Baker had this to say: “We must assume there has been extensive consultation with major retailers to make sure this proposal is fit for purpose unlike the previous attempt. For a government that is meant to be keen on economic recovery, there are some savage cuts that will not help that cause.”
Attacking the budget over the Tesco Tax is, for me, solid evidence that this is a solid budget. It is small and medium-sized businesses that are facing the worst of this economic crisis and furthermore there is an argument in favour of rebalancing the marketplace more in favour of the smaller retailers out there anyway. We don’t need more Tescos so why is charging it higher rates bad for economic recovery?
The Conservatives’ Gavin Brown has picked up the reins from ex-MSP Derek Brownlee with a forensic challenge to John Swinney’s positioning: “Their own document calculates a £1bn reduction in real terms for local government. They have completely backtracked on their pledge of four years ago to increase teacher numbers, they are making cuts to enterprise, innovation, the third sector, Skills Development Scotland, higher and further education and housing and regeneration.”
This is undoubtedly the weak point of the budget for the year ahead, shifting the risk and the responsibility over to councils and potentially scapegoating them. Gavin is right to question this perceived shortfall and hopefully all stakeholders will be clear what their budgets mean for the next three years, as there is clearly currently confusion and suspicion.
Patrick Harvie for the Greens noted: “There is something fundamentally wrong with a spending plan where the motorways budget is over three times the size of the housing and regeneration budget, and these figures are moving in opposite directions every year. It’s very easy for Alex Salmond to call for a summit on high fuel bills but his Government has consistently failed to deliver the £100million a year home insulation programme that fuel poverty campaigners have been asking for year after year at budget time.”
Patrick is, as usual, very much correct. I stayed in rickety cottages in Norway last week that had better insulation and glazing than quite possibly every house I’ve ever lived in in Scotland. It’s bizarre that homes in cities in Scotland can be freezing but a little hut that looks out onto the North Atlantic Ocean can be toasty with minimal heating required. It is a crisis that Scots either do not care for or truly do not appreciate and, either way, much like road-building programs, the Greens rightful protests will fall on deaf ears as usual.
Willie Rennie said: “The SNP have delayed making any decisions for a year. Today they are still not making the right choices. Their priority is not the economy but on getting tough choices off their desks and onto someone else’s. The Scottish Government must take responsibility for their part in getting Scotland back on the road to economic recovery and acknowledge the key decisions taken by the UK Government to achieve this.”
It’s all a bit jumbled there for my liking. Perhaps trying to attack the SNP on too many fronts prevents one key point from getting through, a regular Lib Dem fault these days. Willie doesn’t say what the “right choices” are so how do we know that the SNP choices are the wrong ones? Furthermore, John Swinney spelled out in detail what his plans are for Scotland’s economic recovery and the Plan MacB has been trailed for days. I don’t think the Lib Dems can expect to get away with ignoring the detail and just claiming, urging people to believe, what it is that the Lib Dems want to believe.
So, all in all, once again, the Scottish Government has (so far) managed to keep all the tartan goodies since 1999 intact, maintain the promises of its manifesto and seemingly not have to inflict too deep cuts on the Scottish public. Do we need to know how John Swinney does it as long as he can? Well, yes, we do need to know and there is still a risk of Scotland’s finances unravelling.
Indeed, rather than any political chicanery, trickery or sleight of hand, our undoing might end up being that growth forecast of 1.1%, already down from 3.75%, dropping much, much lower and Scotland’s budget falling past a tipping point that even our beloved Finance Secretary cannot salvage an appropriate budget from.
I suspect John Swinney has worried eyes on Greece, Italy and Portugal just as much as the EU Finance Secretaries do.
But so far, so good.
#1 by Doug Daniel on September 22, 2011 - 10:55 am
“We must assume there has been extensive consultation with major retailers to make sure this proposal is fit for purpose unlike the previous attempt.”
Is that how Labour works then? “Hello Mr Big Retailer, we’re thinking of introducing a levy on large retailers such as yourself. How would you like us to implement it in order to minimise the amount of extra tax you actually have to pay?”
Perhaps if Mr Baker ever goes back to his justice brief, he’ll tell us criminals should get a say in how long their sentence is.
#2 by Aidan on September 22, 2011 - 12:03 pm
The numbers add up because they’re legally obliged too. That’s not the same thing as John Swinney magically removing pain.
Flat cash is a 5% year on year cut, it’s actually probably a bit more for most services because they’re more likely to use things with higher rates than the main CPI baskets such as energy.
But not everybody get’s flat cash, here’s some choice cuts:
SAAS – student support, 20M
Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council (that’s universities and colleges) – 240M, mostly from colleges, how’s that for investing in our future?
Funding for further and adult education is being reduced by 1/3rd, as is the funding for improving employability which is already a miserly 1.7m down to 1.2m.
Housing and regeneration’s had a 100m off it, or a 20% cut.
There’s some pretty deep cuts to the most vulnerable people in 1/3rd in cash terms for care & justice, and workforce and capacity’s down about 12% in cash. “Safer Children, Stronger Families” is a great program, but it doesn’t actually deal with the most vulnerable and most at-risk. That’s the responsibility of the programs that are being cut.
Yes, there’s a shift to preventative spending, but it’s at the cost of those who are currently actually at risk. The SNP are, in effect, giving up on them. Which is pretty sickening.
There’s a 20% cash cut in business development, so we’ll be spending money on concrete boondongles to prop up Bovis while simultaneously reducing the funding for the bits of our economy which will bring growth.
Rural enterprise is off by more than half, and rural communities funding is down by 2/3rds in cash terms!
As you pointed out, there’s some good stuff in there too but to charactarise this as the work of a fiscal genius, unmatched in our time is ridiculous. It’s very good at “look! over here!” shiny but when you get it into the detail there are some very disturbing cuts targeted at those with the weakest voices in programs with dull sounding names covered up by higher funding for programs with lofty names and more middle class impact.
Good grief! No pain? Pull the other one, they’re both broken but I’m on tramadol.
#3 by Jeff on September 22, 2011 - 12:57 pm
A very detailed breakdown there Aidan, nice work. There are two sides to every transaction though so, as has always been my problem with Labour, it’s not enough to say that x, y & z are not getting enough money, you have to also say what of a, b or c you would cut in order to top up x, y & z.
I’m sure each of the points you make are worthy, but I just don’t see any remaining flab across the board that Swinney could channel into these areas, which I’m sure he’d love to do. Maybe you can?
#4 by Aidan on September 22, 2011 - 1:04 pm
Uh, I did particularly single out the move of revenue spending to capital spending as particularly destructive. That’s a big chunk of cash right there.
My main point was that your assertion that ” there is a distinct lack of shocks, surprises or, well, serious pain”. There is a lot of pain in there, for a lot of people. You can’t just hand wave that away with “well you must simultaneously present alternative or your argument isn’t valid”.
I’ll have my team work out a full alternative budget and get back to you.
#5 by Bobby Fabulous on September 22, 2011 - 9:09 pm
If you’re a window cleaner and times are hard, you might have to turn down the heating a bit even if it means your kids are cold. What you DON’T do is sell your ladders, because then there’s no hope of business improving in the future.
Neither Swinney nor the SNP has claimed, so far as I’ve seen, that this is a “no pain” budget. Labour in Westminster pissed all the money away (how many billions spunked on the failed NHS IT system? How many wasted on the abandoned ID cards? How many on our imperial adventures in the desert? How many on PFI?), the Tories and Lib Dems are crucifying the nation to pay back the deficit, and the Scottish Government – bereft of serious economic powers – is doing the best it can to limit the damage.
Of course there’s going to be pain. Of course some of it is going to fall on the poor. In fact, it’s more or less mathematically inevitable that whatever you do, in circumstances like these MOST of it will fall on the poor, because they’re existing at the margins where even the smallest loss can be a hammer blow.
Nonetheless, as was repeatedly pointed out yesterday, if you’ve got 100 people and you need to make a 5% saving, it’s better to cut everyone’s pay by 5% and keep them all in work than keep the pay the same but make five of them redundant.
Unless you want to argue for higher unemployment, of course. But Labour don’t have the guts to do that, because facing up to reality is tough and it’s a lot easier just to carp from the sidelines and say, when challenged, “Ah, but it’s not our job to come up with an alternative”.
Labour had 13 years in power and did sod-all for the poor. Inequality increased as Mandelson’s mates got filthy rich, and the tired old cry of “We introduced the minimum wage!” means nothing when you also oversaw massive unchecked house price inflation, massive unchecked rent inflation and massive unchecked fuel inflation which outstripped the paltry MW many times over, and left ordinary people so badly off that even those in full-time work had to claim benefits to make ends meet.
So spare us your crocodile tears for the poor now. You had over a decade to save them, and all you did was rob their pensions, sell off their gold for pennies, send their sons and daughters off to die in foreign lands for a pack of lies, and destroy any hope they had of ever owning a home.
#6 by JPJ2 on September 22, 2011 - 12:15 pm
Aidan,
I think you are likely to find that the majority (probably literally) of voters living in Scotland will recognise that Swinney has made the best of a very bad job-but I suppose that is what is really worrying you, is it not?
#7 by Aidan on September 22, 2011 - 12:29 pm
No, what’s worrying me are the cuts to highly vulnerable people. If Scottish voters think Swinney is making the best of a bad job it’s because Labour is failing to hold him to account.
That’s also worrying me, but not nearly as much as what he’s actually doing.
#8 by Don McC on September 22, 2011 - 7:25 pm
Aidan, the Grayman was on BBC Scotland yesterday condemming the budget but when asked what he would have cut instead, he refused to answer the question, just repeatedly claimed he wouldn’t have done what Swinney has done. As usual, nothing constructive, just pure negativety. You can’t hold the government to account if nobody listens to you and people simply switch off when the grayman comes on the radio because we’ve heard it all before and it’s life draining to hear him drone on and on and on.
Hopefully a new leader will help Labour actually do a decent job of opposition.
#9 by Iain Menzies on September 22, 2011 - 1:05 pm
I wouldn’t be too sure of that. in the house where I live there are three voters, only one, me, is aware that we had a Scottish budget yesterday. and thats only because I wanted to watch the daily politics and got stuck with BBC Scotland.
Never under estimate how much people don’t give a damn between elections.
#10 by CassiusClaymore on September 22, 2011 - 1:13 pm
Aidan
Perhaps JS would have had more cash to play with if Labour hadn’t comprehensively wrecked the UK economy (not for the first time).
If you disagree with JS’s cuts, what would you have cut instead?
CC
#11 by Doug Daniel on September 22, 2011 - 1:34 pm
CC – as Aidan has explained to Jeff at the top, it’s perfectly legitimate to carp from the sidelines without backing up your arguments by providing alternatives.
Constructive criticism is soooooo over-rated.
#12 by Dubbieside on September 22, 2011 - 2:06 pm
Doug
It is also London Labours default position that they would far rather have the Scottish budget dictated to by the Torys at Westminster, rather than have Scots at Holyrood control their own finances.
At least Murphy is finally getting the message.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2011/09/22/jim-murphy-no-reason-to-vote-for-labour-86908-23437937/
P.S. Choice of finance secretary, Swinney or Baker! no really that was the choice for us in May.
#13 by Aidan on September 22, 2011 - 3:23 pm
pointing out that the rhetoric is completely divorced from the reality, and pointing out £750m I think is being misused isn’t exactly “carping from the sidelines”.
#14 by GMcM on September 22, 2011 - 3:52 pm
Aidan I agree with your points. There is a lot of pain in there while the SNP try to maintain unsustainable cuts which help better off people most.
The SNP have also failed to deliver on their promise to protect NHS funding – not heard much about that though?!
Do the SNP not find it highly hypocritical to cry foul on the financial levers they control (or can’t) while they simultaneously grab money from local authorities removing their democratic authority?
Correct me if I’m wrong (which I often am), did the SNP not promise to deliver more localism? The unfair council tax freeze (see what I did there) and now the removal of funding to local authorities so they can borrow to fill the gap are just a few more nails in the coffin of that policy.
How many months have the SNP been in power since the election again? I think they’re trying to outdo their broken promise record of 2007. If they do I will be impressed; it’s quite a target to reach.
#15 by Bobby Fabulous on September 23, 2011 - 1:04 am
“How many months have the SNP been in power since the election again? I think they’re trying to outdo their broken promise record of 2007. If they do I will be impressed; it’s quite a target to reach.”
I imagine the SNP will be most anxious to impress you. After all, you seem a fair-minded and impartial floating voter. Quite a few people seemed to be oddly happy with their terrible record of broken promises in May, though. Has anyone told you the election result yet?
#16 by Doug Daniel on September 23, 2011 - 10:54 am
Labour promised reform in the House of Lords when they were elected in 1997. 13 years later they still hadn’t done it.
#17 by Bobby Fabulous on September 23, 2011 - 1:24 pm
And let’s not forget their promise of electoral reform back in ’97 either.
#18 by Allan on September 22, 2011 - 7:24 pm
True.
Any time I see Waters or Matheson on the television carping on about cuts to key services, my first thought is always “Why don’t you take a pay cut then… about 50% should cover it”.
It’s simply astonishing that heads of services and councilors are still on the same, or with improved, salaries.
#19 by Indy on September 23, 2011 - 7:43 am
I agree with your comments about high earners but the thing is these people have contracts. It’s not so easy to just cut their pay or change their terms and conditions. And if you make them redundant there are big payouts that have to go along with that. There is a lesson for the future there – if councils have any sense they will put a cap on what anybody can be paid in future but it doesn’t really help deal with the present.
As for cuncillors, they are on a salary of about 16,000. So they are not living high on the hog. Indeed many of the councillors I know understand perfectly well why the council tax freeze is so important to people struggling to pay their mortgages and bills because they are in the same position themselves.
#20 by CassiusClaymore on September 22, 2011 - 3:42 pm
Aidan
What would you cut?
Very simple question……
CC
#21 by Aidan on September 22, 2011 - 3:51 pm
You missed the repeated bits where I say moving funding for rural business to the capital budget is a mistake didn’t you?
Seeesh.
#22 by CassiusClaymore on September 22, 2011 - 4:10 pm
Aidan
So – if you were to take over tomorrow, you’d cut the capital budget. By how much? What else would you cut?
CC
#23 by Indy on September 22, 2011 - 4:37 pm
Couple of basic points.
1. The Scottish Government’s capital funding has been cut by almost 40 per cent. If they actually cut capital spending by that amount it would be disastrous for the economy, just disastrous. That is why they have shifted 750 million into capital spending.
2. In order to maximise capital spending local authorities need to use their borrowing powers to the full, as does the Scottish Government. Together, they can raise a lot more. I am not aware of anybody, other than the Tories and Lib Dems, who believes that maximising capital spending is not necessary at this time. PFI is not an option and the Scottish Government’s borrowing powers at present are limited to that’s why local government borrowing powers also have to be used.
3. If Labour is against that approach they are quite at liberty to campaign to cut capital spending and increase council tax in the local government elections next year. But if they do that, they will lose even more heavily than they did in May, thus cementing the SNP’s grip of local as well as national government. Is that really what Labour wants?
#24 by Aidan on September 22, 2011 - 5:09 pm
Couple of basic points.
1. Capital spending is important because it’s one way that government can maintain aggregate demand (AD)
2. House building, regeneration and businesses development are more effective means of boosting AD and have a better long term return
3. Taking money to do this from the most vulnerable in society is unconscionable.
#25 by Allan on September 22, 2011 - 7:28 pm
“3. Taking money to do this from the most vulnerable in society is unconscionable.”
So explain why Waters, Matheson & Willie Rennie are campaigning to scrap the Council tax freeze at a time when many people cannot afford it.
To echo the point made above, if you are struggling for money for public services cut your own exorbitant wages.
#26 by Aidan on September 22, 2011 - 8:16 pm
Because the worst off in our society are already exempt from Council Tax.
#27 by Indy on September 23, 2011 - 8:00 am
That’s so glib Aidan. Do you really believe that only people who get benefits are poor? Have you never heard of the working poor? Have you never met any pensioners living on a modest occupational pension?
The other day I was listening to the radio and the Call Kaye programme was on, they were talking about the budget but in terms of individual budgets, how people and families are managing to balance their own budgets. It might be instructive for you to listen to it since you seem so divorced from real life experience.
There was one lady in particular who struck me. She was retired and finding it quite hard going but she was quite proud that she was managing and was phoning in to pass on her tips, like switching to supermarket own brands etc. Kaye asked her if she had made any other changes to her lifestyle and she said oh yes, I used to meet up with my pals once a week for lunch or a coffee but we don’t do that any more because it is too expensive but we are all still managing to get by.
According to you she is not poor. She and her friends can’t even afford to meet up for a coffee or lunch any more but she isn’t poor.
Dom’t you realise how many, many thousands of people like that lady out there? Cutting back on “luxuries” like going out for a coffee, switching to the cheapest possible supermarket own brand products, putting on their heating and doing their washing overnight because it’s cheaper than doing it during the day, buyinjg their clothes from charity shops because you can really get some quite nice stuff there. Scrimping and scraping in every way possible so they can go on paying their bills and managing to get by. But they are not poor according to you so they don’t count.
#28 by Aidan on September 23, 2011 - 11:44 pm
Don’t put words in my mouth and answer the original point *you* brought up about capital spending.
You’re normally better than this sort of ad hominem.
(Also, I have heard of the working poor, perhaps you’ll be surprised to learn that you can claim council tax benefit in work?).
#29 by Indy on September 24, 2011 - 8:48 am
Well let us look at your exact words. “The worst off in society are already exempt from council tax”.
No they are not.
You must know as well as I do that many people who are just above the threshhold for benefits are, in terms of their disposable income, worse off than people who do qualify for benefits. Because they have to pay everything. They have to pay full rent or make mortgage payments, they have to pay full council tax, they also have to cope with rising fuel bills and food bills, higher transport costs and if they have young children they have to pay childcare costs as well.
You must know that working class peoples incomes have been flatlining for many years – that’s what tax credits were about, trying to pull family incomes up a bit. But it’s not enough when the cost of housing and the cost of living has increased so far in excess of income.
Is that not the reason we are in this whole economic mess? Too many people using credit cards to cover living expenses because their whole salary goes into paying the mortgage/rent and other bills. I mean I know it’s fashionable in some circles to say that the massive levels of household debt are down to people taking too many holidays or buying fancy tellies but you know that is crap don’t you?
And when so many households are struggling to make ends meet month to month you don’t want to add to the burden. Rather, you want to try and make things easier by doing stuff like freezing council tax, ending prescription charges and making sure that people don’t have to get into even more debt if they want to do something crazy like going to university.
#30 by Aidan on September 24, 2011 - 10:40 am
how does any of this relate to moving the revenue budget for housing and regeneration to the capital budget for road building?
#31 by Allan on September 23, 2011 - 7:09 pm
So what about those adjacent to the worst off in society, who are earning a wee bit more money but still struggling?
#32 by Tormod on September 22, 2011 - 6:05 pm
Really, who are the most vulnerable in society you talk off? So labours and your default position is what on the budget exactly?
We need to spend more money from the special pixie money tree.
Labour could always put an amendment down if they so wished an of course explain which budget line will be effected?
#33 by Aidan on September 22, 2011 - 7:04 pm
Vulnerable children, for instance, in the form of reduced funding for childrens rights and well being and care & justice – table 9.04 here http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/09/22135416/13
#34 by Don McC on September 22, 2011 - 7:36 pm
Ah but Aidan, more is being spent on Early Years & Social Services Workforce and for the next year or so funding of children’s services is increasing. You might not agree how that pot of money is divided up across the children’s services but to claim that money is being taken from the most vulnerable in society is more than just being melodramatic, it’s downright lying.
Besides, we’ve been here before. You can’t limit everything to “the most vulnerable in society” because it takes you down a slippery road. Scottish Labour need to recognise that.
#35 by Aidan on September 22, 2011 - 8:09 pm
The money is being taken from people who the system has failed, and given to those it has not yet failed.There’s a case to be made for preventative spending but this is just giving up on people.
#36 by Bobby Fabulous on September 22, 2011 - 9:28 pm
Pretty much everyone who knows anything about it knows that money spent in the early years is enormously more productive and efficient than trying to fix problems later. Because prevention isn’t just better than cure for the victims, by a happy chance it’s a lot cheaper too.
#37 by Aidan on September 23, 2011 - 12:29 am
Yes, but in this case it does mean not so much robbing peter to pay paul as leaving peter to rot in a gutter to pay an already rich dave to build a bridge.
#38 by Bobby Fabulous on September 23, 2011 - 12:58 am
Well, the idea is to prevent Peter ending up in the gutter in the first place, thereby saving all the money that would have been needed to drag him out of it. Will it work? Only time will tell, but it’s a valid attempt to square the circle when you just don’t have the money to keep funding everything at the same level as before.
#39 by Aidan on September 23, 2011 - 1:01 am
Peter’s already in the gutter, has been for years.
#40 by Observer on September 22, 2011 - 7:25 pm
Who provides day to day support for vulnerable people? Councils & voluntary agencies funded by Councils.
Mr Swinney’s budget trick is based on shafting local authorities in the budget settlement. Maybe he thinks, no one like Councils, so they will just get the blame. But seriously – there are a lot of people who rely on Council services or services that Councils pay for so there is something to be worried about.
If we are looking for spend which boosts employment then I don’t know why he has cut the housing budget. That would seem an obvious spend, as well as meeting a demand for low cost housing.
I know he had a difficult job, but I don’t think he has quite pulled it off. He wants to fund the popular policies & headline projects to make the SNP look good before the referendum. I have a feeling that at least some if it is going to fall apart.
#41 by Indy on September 22, 2011 - 11:07 pm
Start from the basis that the SG capital budget has been cut by nearly 40 per cent. So that means there have to be cuts. But they are not of the magnitude that they are in England because the SNP has been able to shift money around a bit.
This is what Aidan is condemning. Let’s be clear – if Aidan had his way and the SG hadn’t shifted 750 million into capital spending there probably wouldn’t be any new social housing being built at all. Or we would be having to cancel the building of the new Southern General.
Local authorities have borrowing powers of their own. They should be using them to full effect – especially as the SG’s borrowing powers are so limited. The only argument against that is a Tory one, that government spending is not protecting jobs and helping get us through the recession.
Do you believe that?
#42 by Aidan on September 23, 2011 - 12:38 am
You realise that the housing capital budget is being cut by 1/3rd over the spending review, with a bit more in cash going to building roads right? (Table 13.0 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/09/22135416/18).
The housing and regeneration revenue budget, which is used to keep existing housing stock up to habitable standards, is being drastically cut.
#43 by Bobby Fabulous on September 23, 2011 - 12:53 am
Just so we’ve got it clear – is this a Labour activist criticising the SNP for inadequate investment in house-building? Remind us again how much social housing Labour built in their last term in office – SIX houses in four years, wasn’t it? I’m sure we’d all like to see the SNP do even more, but even in these extremely difficult times they’re going to eclipse Labour’s efforts by a factor of 100+.
#44 by Aidan on September 23, 2011 - 1:00 am
If this had been a Labour budget, which in fairness it probably could have been, I’d have been equally critical of it.
#45 by Bobby Fabulous on September 23, 2011 - 1:24 am
I doubt that very much. You’d have been saying what we’re saying now – “This isn’t perfect and we’d all like to do more, but in the face of reduced resources we have to make savings somewhere and we’re doing the best we can with very limited powers to fight the Tory cuts being imposed from Westminster.”
The difference is that the SNP want to free Scotland from having Tory governments in Westminster impose anything on it ever again, while Labour regards regular Tory governments as a price worth paying for staying in the Union, for reasons none of them ever seem quite able to explain, although they continually promise that they’re going to any minute now.
#46 by Indy on September 23, 2011 - 8:05 am
Yes I do realise it is being cut. As I have said repeatedly, and as you are surely aware, the Scottish Government’s capital budget has been cut by nearly 40 per cent.
That is precisely why the SG is shifting revenue spending into capital to try and lessen that blow.
And that is what you are condemning.
If you had your way the SG would be cutting capital spending even more.
#47 by Doug Daniel on September 23, 2011 - 11:00 am
So the Scottish budget is being cut by 40%, but the housing budget is only being cut by 33%?
I’m just going to leave that to other people to interpret what that 7% difference means…
#48 by Barbarian on September 22, 2011 - 8:31 pm
Ooo, lively debate!
I had a solid read of the bduget document (saddo, I know).
Bottom line is that Swinney has got deal with what money he has got. Most of the budget I agree with, but two areas of concern.
1. Forcing councils to borrow is a bit risky, since if we get a council that goes bust, who ends up bailing them out? Edinburgh and Aberdeen have enough problems as it is.
2. Tesco Tax won’t work in my opinion. Now, I am in favour of small businesses having favourable terms and the big retailers having their powers cut. But to simply tax the backside out of them – and using a feeble excuse on health grounds (hypocritical giving we have a strong export industry based in alcohol!) – is going to hit the customers. The retailers will simply hike their prices up. And in many areas there is little if any opportunity to shop around. Is the Scottish Government going to hammer the bus companies for polluting the atmosphere? Erm, nope.
To be fair to Swinney, he has a very difficult job, especially when your core funding is cut. I also think it would be fairer to see how things pan out over the next few months.
#49 by Bobby Fabulous on September 22, 2011 - 9:25 pm
“Now, I am in favour of small businesses having favourable terms and the big retailers having their powers cut. But to simply tax the backside out of them – and using a feeble excuse on health grounds (hypocritical giving we have a strong export industry based in alcohol!) – is going to hit the customers. The retailers will simply hike their prices up.”
That’s rarely how big retail works, because if there’s one thing that the supermarket chains are it’s competitive with each other. But even if it turned out to be true, so what? It would just make shopping with smaller shops more attractive, and in most senses that’s a good thing for the economy.
Pound spent for pound spent, small retailers employ more people and keep more money in their local area, rather than disappearing into the offshore accounts of the megaglobals for the accountants to work their tax-avoiding magic on. Unusually, this tax is a win-win.
#50 by Indy on September 22, 2011 - 11:10 pm
1. You are not going to get a council going bust because there are limits on what they can borrow, for that very reason.
2. It is not proposed to tax anything like the backside out of them. It’s something like 0.1 per cent of their profits.
#51 by Allan on September 23, 2011 - 7:24 pm
“Tesco Tax won’t work in my opinion. Now, I am in favour of small businesses having favourable terms and the big retailers having their powers cut. But to simply tax the backside out of them – and using a feeble excuse on health grounds (hypocritical giving we have a strong export industry based in alcohol!) – is going to hit the customers. The retailers will simply hike their prices up.”
Tesco Tax might work, but as Indy points out the Government are not exactly taxing “the backside out of them”. In any case, these companies make gargantuan profits and are hungry for more – which is why several of them indulge in Tax avoidance schemes. They are good for the money.
#52 by The Burd on September 23, 2011 - 8:46 pm
i think deterring customers from buying alcohol and fags is part of the mission…
#53 by Andrew BOD on September 22, 2011 - 8:45 pm
Dealing with a major revenue cut was always going to lead to wide-ranging attacks from opposition parties, especially since none of them need to work with the government to get the budget through parliament. And really, which opposition party was going to stick it’s head above the parapet and announce alternative spending cuts? All of the criticism is pretty predictable, much of it pure politicking.
Jeff, your point about Swinney leaving councils with the power to raise more of their revenue through CT increases is a good one, but that would be breaking a manifesto pledge which would have led to more direct criticism from opponents. It might’ve resulted in a quick loss of confidence in a government which is probably perceived to be holding it together in the face of severe economic pressure. And for those reasons, I think Swinney was right to continue with the freeze this year, but he’s got to find a way of paving the way for a controlled increase next year if the next few years of spending are to survive.
The biggest criticism and biggest economic danger for me is something which was revealed just today. The hike in business rates predicted over the next few years is enormous. This will create difficult conditions for businesses to grow, and it almost contradicts the Government’s assertion that control of Corporation tax, and in particular, the reduction of Corporation Tax in Scotland, would aid economic growth.
#54 by Jeff on September 22, 2011 - 10:54 pm
Douglas Fraser made a good point in his blog today. Businesses largely make decisions based on Operating Profit. Tax and fixed expenses are the financial lines least likely to hamper investment decisions. Furthermore, it’s worth noting that it’s retailers of cigarettes and alcohol that are being targeted and the latter will be getting a profit boost from minimum pricing soon enough anyway so it’s a win-win zero sum game in many instances that, furthermore, will aid small and medium sized businesses who are feeling the squeeze most.
#55 by DougtheDug on September 22, 2011 - 9:58 pm
Perhaps someone can correct me if I’m wrong but as far as I’m aware John Swinney cannot freeze the Council Tax as that tax is under the control of the Local Authorities.
What the SNP has done is to offer them compensation to freeze the tax. It’s an agreement not an order. If the Councils wish to reject that compensation and raise the council tax to a level they see fit to bring in extra revenue then that it is up to them.
#56 by Jeff on September 22, 2011 - 10:13 pm
Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as that. I don’t know the figures but the SG will give more money to councils if they freeze Council Tax, much more than could be raised through a reasonable increase in Council Tax. So yes, it’s an agreement rather than an order but the Councils only really ever had one option.
I don’t really see why Swinney can’t give the same amount of money and say ‘do what you like with Council tax’. That would arguably be proper local democracy but, that said, not many people are going to argue against having their C Tax held flat.
#57 by Indy on September 22, 2011 - 11:13 pm
The SG fund the council tax freeze each year assuming a 3 per cent increase. If a council decided it did not want to freeze the council tax it would not get the funding which is provided to compensate for that.
Why would John Swinney compensate a council for freezing council tax if it did not freeze the council tax?
#58 by Jeff on September 22, 2011 - 11:38 pm
Taking a step back from that, why should a Government be allowed to financially bribe councils to deliver its manifesto promise? Why not let democracy run its course?
#59 by Bobby Fabulous on September 22, 2011 - 11:56 pm
Funding isn’t bribery. Bribery isn’t normally conducted in full public view via the national media.
#60 by Jeff on September 23, 2011 - 12:01 am
It isn’t just “funding” though is it?
In my book, saying we’ll pay you less unless you do what we tell you is bribery.
#61 by DougtheDug on September 23, 2011 - 12:37 am
No, what the Government has done is said to the councils, fund the police numbers, personal care costs and education to our targets and keep your council tax frozen and we’ll pay for the extra staff, health costs and lost revenue.
If you’re saying that the SNP Government will take away more than the additional costs of these targets and the lost revenue in Council tax if the councils want to set their own targets and Council tax please provide the figures.
#62 by Aidan on September 23, 2011 - 12:41 am
Table 16.03 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/09/22135416/22 shows declining funding for police numbers.
#63 by Bobby Fabulous on September 23, 2011 - 12:48 am
“Table 16.03 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/09/22135416/22 shows declining funding for police numbers”
What does that have to do with bribing/blackmailing councils over implementing the SNP’s plans, which is the subject under discussion here? That table just shows that funding available is dropping regardless of what the councils do or don’t agree to. (Which is one reason why, to maintain police numbers, the Scottish Government is creating a single force to hopefully achieve significant efficiency savings.)
#64 by Aidan on September 23, 2011 - 1:01 am
so SNP policy is to keep the increased numbers of police while reducing the funding for them? Right…
#65 by Bobby Fabulous on September 23, 2011 - 1:10 am
Yes, that’s exactly the policy. Hence “efficiency savings”, the point of such savings being to deliver the same services for less money. Presumably you’d concede that it’s at least *theoretically possible* that reducing eight police forces into one might save some money and enable the same service to be provided on a smaller budget?
#66 by Jeff on September 23, 2011 - 8:21 am
True enough, except there is concern (raised by CPPR) that ‘efficiency savings’ are being used to hide what should only be described as cuts. The costs involved might be reduced but how cam anyone know if they are efficiency savings or cuts?
#67 by Bobby Fabulous on September 23, 2011 - 12:43 am
I’d call it pretty standard negotiating practice. If I want an IKEA wardrobe delivered and built for me instead of lugging it home myself in a flatpack and wrestling with the cartoons, it costs more. I have the choice, though, and there’s nothing criminal about IKEA flogging me the flatpack one and leaving me to my own devices if I don’t like their delivery charges.
#68 by Indy on September 23, 2011 - 8:10 am
Eh? For “democracy to run its course” surely you would need to have a political party standing for election on a platform of raising the council tax?
There isn’t one. And there won’t be one because any party that did that would be committing electoral suicide.
The majority of people want the council tax to stay frozen. So whether or not you agree with the policy it has a democratic mandate.
#69 by Observer on September 22, 2011 - 10:26 pm
The longer the Council Tax freeze goes on for, the more difficult it is going to be to un-freeze it. Perhaps that is part of the policy of replacing the Council Tax – making it an imperative, as people will come to regard un-freezing the tax as an assault on their established liberty not to pay any more Council Tax! Cutting taxes is probably a good idea, but it needs to be more targetted at people who genuinely can’t afford to pay tax, & would spend what tax they were given back in local economies. I don’t think the Council Tax freeze pushes all the right buttons there. The SNP govt don’t have access to any other taxation policy to tinker about with though, other than the Tesco Tax to collect much needed revenue, which I agree with, for the reasons Bobby Fabulous has outlined.
The key thing Swinney has to do is target. He has to use every bit of spend he has to boost employment & increase demand. That is a very difficult thing to do when he is also keeping one eye on the referendum, & he is at the mercy of the Westminster government on reserved policy. He is going to need to be a better wizard than Harry Potter.
#70 by Observer on September 22, 2011 - 10:31 pm
I should clarify that – he has to use every bit of spend he has once he has resourced essential services first, to boost employment & increase demand.
I don’t know how he thinks he can do that & also fund policies like free personal care for the elderly at the same time.
Something’s got to give.
#71 by Barbarian on September 22, 2011 - 10:55 pm
On the retail front, a little piece of information which is genuine, but for various reasons I will not disclose the source.
Many retailers, and especially the larger ones, are now operating with minimum staffing and no overtime. For those who do not know, many retailers authorise overtime based on the most recent sales, as this forms part of the business forecast.
As a result, some retailers are likely to have some problems coping. We all know how frustrating a long queue is, and if that happens then they can lose custom.
Business rates need to drop, as does corporation tax. What is also need desperately is the closure of tax loopholes. Swinney has his hands tied in many respects, so it is up to the Westminster SNP MPs to start pushing this, rather than asking stupid questions about polls in Scotland.
#72 by Andrew BOD on September 23, 2011 - 12:52 am
I too have sources which I cannot reveal, and from them there’s no doubting that staffing resource is closely linked to sales. However, it’s not necessarily related to sales minus tax, especially as most of the large retailers’ Head Offices are in London and the North of England, where Scotland is treated less like a country and much more like a region. So this so-called ‘Tesco Tax’ may prove insignificant to a retailer where 90% of it’s other UK business has no additional levy.
As Jeff mentioned earlier, Douglas Fraser has just pointed out that business rates are to increase dramatically over the next three years – 23%. Most of that increase does not directly relate to the supplementary tax on retailers who sell alcohol and tobacco and have a rateable value greater than £300,000. This is a much bigger deal, so unless business rates in the rest of the UK follow a similar trend, this policy may come back to haunt John Swinney.
#73 by Barbarian on September 23, 2011 - 7:24 pm
Forgot to mention that most large retailers base their staffing on projected sales. If the sales do not hit projections (there is a slight difference as to targets, I’m talking about high level here), then that is what forces an overtime ban.
I just do not agree with the “Tesco Tax”. It smacks as an attack on those organisations who donate to unionist parties. That is not how it is being presented, but some commentators on various blogs are cheering this tax for these very reasons.
I think Inverness is basically a “Tesco Town” now? The only competition is from smaller retailers, but while they would pick up some additional business, they lack the muscle that Tesco has. Big retailers are very good at promotion, while managing to maintain their profit margins in other ways.
But, as with everything in politics, we’ll have to wait and see what the outcome is.
#74 by Allan on September 23, 2011 - 7:41 pm
“What is also need desperately is the closure of tax loopholes.”
What doesn’t help is that the HMRC is patiently not fit for purpose. They apparently estimate that “£14 billion was lost through avoidance & evasion in 2008/9” (Osbornes Budget speech, March 2011), yet the treasury’s own estimate for the same period was “£42 billion”. Allied to the fact that David Hartnett has been negociating “sweethert” deals with Vodaphone & Goldman Sachs among others, its no wonder the country is swimming in debt.
Greece anyone?
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/03/23/does-the-treasury-have-any-clue-how-big-the-tax-gap-is/
#75 by Barbarian on September 24, 2011 - 1:29 am
HMRC was screwed up by Gordon Brown’s “reorganisation”.
Vodaphone was the most public and probably worst example of tax evasion. What was it? £4 BILLION?? That alone would have been a huge injection that could have started buying out a few NHS PFI deals.