Don’t panic CyberNats! Pete Wishart MP has not defected – this is his imagining of the kind of speech he’d like to hear the Scottish Labour leadership contenders make:
“Ladies and gentlemen, comrades, members of the press. Today I announce my candidacy for the leadership of the Labour Party of Scotland. These are exciting and challenging times. After that crushing defeat in May, it is time to rebuild and renew, to slay sacred cows and chart a new way ahead.
Yes, we were beaten in May because of poor leadership and badly thought-out policies. But the real reason we were beaten so comprehensively is because of a more fundamental problem, and that is for the past ten years the Labour Party has been at least ten steps behind the ambitions of the Scottish people. We have tried to disparage that ambition, neuter it and hold it back. With me as your leader, we will never be put in that position again.
Instead I want to lead that ambition, to work with its flow, to realise its potential. I want to lead a new Scotland, secure in its own skin and dependent on no-one but ourselves.
This is why comrades, that one of the first things I will do, as your leader, will be to commission a new internal body to look at our historic opposition to Scottish independence. As your leader, I will ask that body to look at how we could become a new voice for independence in Scotland, and how we could have a new 21st century relationship throughout these isles based on equality and mutual respect.
It is time comrades, to put our opposition to independence aside, to look at the national interest, and to work for a new and better future for all the people of Scotland.
It was the Labour Party that delivered the Scottish Parliament. It is the Labour Party that has throughout the decades championed the values of social justice and equality. Comrades, are we seriously saying that we cannot build on these fine founding principles in an independent Scotland? An independent Scotland that could be moulded in the Labour tradition?
The alternative is to have a Tory Government in Westminster continue to govern in Scotland, unwanted by the Scottish people and alien to our values. Are we really saying that it is preferable to have a Tory Government running all these reserved responsibilities rather than have them returned to Scotland and put under the democratic control of the Scottish people in ours, in Scotland’s, Parliament?
The alternative is unthinkable. To be lumped in with the Tories, once again, saying no to Scotland. To invent reasons why the Scots aren’t creative enough to make a success of their independence. We’ve done that before and it does not work. I will not talk down my fellow Scots any longer.
Comrades, our illogical and pathological hatred of the SNP has blinded us to what is right for the people of Scotland. It is now time for that to come to an end, to be on the right side of history and to do the right thing.”
(,,,,and a pig was seen flying past the window…….)
#1 by @dhothersall on October 13, 2011 - 1:38 pm
The world is such a black and white place to SNP folk. Independence solves all problems, the union causes all problems. It’s bizarre.
I look forward to a Scottish Labour leader’s speech which rouses us to lead Scotland’s ambition, realise its potential and help create a new Scots identity that isn’t based on separation, jealousy and bitterness, nor on the mis-telling of history and repetition of old wives tales, but on embracing the true story of co-operation we share with our neighbours, and continuing it to all of our advantage.
I look forward to it dismissing the SNP’s careful cloaking of fundamentalist anti-Englishness as “civic nationalism”, and our promoting the fact that being part of a global Labour movement is far better than being part of a parochial one.
I look forward to us acknowledging that separation is perfectly possible, but is simply not in our best interests.
#2 by Jeff on October 13, 2011 - 1:50 pm
“Independence solves all problems, the union causes all problems.” That’s not at all what this piece is saying and infact it is yourself with this comment that is making the issue black and white.
The SNP pushing hard for independence is its prerogative. I don’t see how Labour can get away with saying that independence is the wrong move without making a similarly full-throated argument in favour of the union.
It’s not for me to defend Pete’s comment, particularly as I fear it is just a little too snidily delivered. However, the central thrust of the piece is an as yet unanswered question – why should Scotland put up with being ruled by Conservative Governments when it could deliver a more Socialist, left-leaning future on its own?
The only charge you have back at the SNP that I can see from your comment is the tired jibe that the party is anti-English which, save from around the very fringes perhaps, is very much far from the case, particularly considering a number of Ministers were born in England, if I’m not mistaken.
So, sorry, I suspect Labour will have to do better than this to win hearts and minds…
#3 by @dhothersall on October 13, 2011 - 2:15 pm
The idea that the choice is between independence and a permanent Conservative government in the UK is patently absurd, given that 3 of the last four UK governments were Labour and the current one is a coalition because the Tories couldn’t even win in 2010.
And I did not say the SNP was anti-English. My point was that they are careful to mask the anti-English sentiment that drives much of the support for nationalism. Of course the SNP as a party is not anti-English. But there is significant anti-Englishness in the ranks of their supporters.
And I would reiterate that the thrust of this piece is that independence is somehow the embodiment of democracy, ambition and the future. In fact all of those things exist in Scotland no matter what its constitution, and the argument that they are dependent on separating from the UK is nonsense.
#4 by Jeff on October 13, 2011 - 2:24 pm
“The idea that the choice is between independence and a permanent Conservative government in the UK is patently absurd,”
I agree, but noone is saying that that is the choice and, with respect, trying to manipulate the parameters of the debate once again does you no favours. It would be equally absurd to say that the UK would enjoy constant Labour Governments. Let’s be honest, Ed Miliband is not looking like our next Prime Minister and the Lib Dems are going to get torn to pieces in 2015; a Tory majority looks likely. And even if it wasn’t likely, the argument still stands, why take the risk of letting Conservative principles permeate through Scotland via devolution?
Anti-English sentiment that exists outside of the SNP is as much Labour’s problem as it is the SNP’s, surely?
It is as anti-French, anti-Irish or ant-Norwegian for Scotland to wish to be independent as England would be on just as friendly and equal terms as these countries if that move to separation was ever realised.
And I disagree with your final paragraph; an independent Scotland would have more MEPs and more of a say in the EU if it was independent (i.e. strengthening its democracy) and it could achieve more if it had control of all powers for itself distinct from Conservative views down South (i.e. strengthening its ambition).
I envisage the rest of this decade being one with a Conservative Prime Minister at the helm. I like David Cameron as it happens, but I’d rather live in a country where it was a different party’s policies that held sway. How is that view not valid?
#5 by Indy on October 13, 2011 - 2:57 pm
It is not a choice between independence and permanent Conservative Government, it’s a choice between independence and Conservative Governments most of the time. You can make that choice but accept the consequences. Stop trying to play it both ways.
Exanple – the Welfare Bill. A lot of good speeches and anti-Tory fighting talk from Labour MSPs but what’s the point of it all in the end, when you still stand up for their right to decide welfare policy in Scotland?
You know we go round and round in circles and always come back to the same point. I was reading Douglas Alexander’s piece over at Labour Hame and it is so confused. He says Labour made a mistake in playing the anti-Tory card in the Scottish election. Well, no you didn’t. Your mistake was that nobody believed you. People voted Labour in 2010 as the best way to stop the Tories having power in Scotland again but the same people switched to the SNP in 2011 because they didn’t really believe that Labour even want to stop the Tories, never mind being capable of doing it. Of course there were many other reasons why voters switched to the SNP but that was one of them and was pretty crucial in my view in bringing Labour voters over.
Douglas Alexander makes the point that Scotland has come a long way since the days of Thatcherism and of course that is true – we have travelled an immense distance in some ways but in others we are back in the same place, having to fight against an ideology which is profoundly alien. I will say that again. Tory ideology is alien to Scotland. That will raise some hackles no doubt and lead to accusations of being anti-English but the evidence on my side is that so few people in Scotland vote for them – and it’s also why the Lib Dems were punished so hard for propping them up. And it will not make the slightest bit of difference if the Tories change their name here – without a fundamental change in what they stand for they will never rise higher than their current representation.
So what do we do now? Or, rather, what does Labour do? The last time Scotland was in this position the answer was the Scottish Parliament. So what is the answer now? Is it more powers for the parliament? Greater autonomy? What? Because if you don’t come up with an alternative to independence which allows Scotland to go forward and to break free of absolute Westminster rule in reserved areas then you have nothing. You cannot say to people that Scots just have to tread water and wait for voters down south to go back to Labour. That is taking the decision out of Scottish hands. Not acceptable any more.
#6 by Aidan on October 13, 2011 - 2:51 pm
The choice between independence and the status quo is a false dichotomy.
Labour delivered devolution, which can be reviewed and revised over time to deliver many of the same benefits as independence.
Independence is a complicated, one off event that allows for no revision of the inevitable errors that will occur in it’s negotiation.
It’s not necessarily an argument about where we are in 15, 20 years time. It’s about how we get there.
#7 by Indy on October 13, 2011 - 3:03 pm
Labour does not appear to suport your view. They seem to be edging backwards to a defence of the status quo.
#8 by Aidan on October 13, 2011 - 3:20 pm
Labour is quite clearly committed to furthering devolution.
#9 by Indy on October 13, 2011 - 3:32 pm
Really?
Is there a single leadership candidate who supports devolving the welfare system for example?
Where does “Team Scotland” stand on that?
What about having a “devo max” option in the referendum? Is there a single Labour leadership candidate prepared to even discuss that?
I don’t think so, they are all rowing back the way not forward.
#10 by Aidan on October 13, 2011 - 3:44 pm
I’m terribly sorry that none of the declared leadership candidates live up to your litmus test.
#11 by Indy on October 13, 2011 - 3:51 pm
Pick any litmus test you like Aidan.
In what areas are any of them suggesting any expansion in the powers of the parliament beyond the Scotland Bill?
#12 by James on October 13, 2011 - 3:53 pm
+1
#13 by Don McC on October 13, 2011 - 7:52 pm
On the subject of Team Scotland, doesn’t Ed’s move undermine the new Scottish Labour leader (in command of all he surveys!) before he’s even elected? After all, will Curran answer to the new leader or direct to Ed? And who dictates strategy?
Ed proves, yet again, that he gets Scotland!
#14 by Jeff on October 13, 2011 - 3:03 pm
I agree with you up to a point Aidan.
The most important linkage that needs to be broken with Westminster is fiscal dependency. The coalition is putting structures in place that will allow for less spending on health and education in England and Wales. Scotland is unwilling to put those structures in place as we are ideologically opposed to private bodies infiltrating the NHS and the idea of academies. However, we still get less spending as a result of the Barnett formula which is why, for now, independence vs the status quo is a reasonable way to structure the debate.
Once Scotland has fiscal autonomy, I will agree with you to an extent but, nonetheless, even with minimal powers reserved in London, is it worth Scotland taking the risk of Tories taking us into a War (in Iran?) that Scotland doesn’t want? Is it worth the risk of nuclear power (reserved) being foisted on Scotland via the back door? Is it worth the risk of abortion laws, state funding laws, social security rules, insolvency directives, treason decisions being taken in our name but against our will? Where does one draw the line? Where does the benefits of being inside the UK exceed the risks above?
It’s not enough for Labour to say that ‘independence vs status quo’ isn’t the right question, the third option has to be chosen, advanced and argued for. Where is Labour on that score exactly? How long does it need?
#15 by Aidan on October 13, 2011 - 3:21 pm
No, higher Scottish levels of public spending is why Holyrood needs tax powers. Powers contained in the Scotland Bill.
As for the fear mongering in the rest of your comment. Uhm. War with Iran? Treason? Really Jeff?
#16 by Jeff on October 13, 2011 - 3:37 pm
I don’t believe the prospect of the UK being involved in a War with Iran is as preposterous as you or I would like to think.
The powers contained in the Scotland Bill are a long way short of full fiscal autonomy and until that linkage is broken, I’m afraid I just don’t see the situation being workable or sustainable in the long term.
And Tony Blair called for regime change in Iran once.
I say once; it was only a month ago. I don’t believe the prospect of the UK being involved in a War with Iran is as preposterous as you or I would like to think.
#17 by Aidan on October 13, 2011 - 4:03 pm
That’s the crux of this – no particular constitutional state is sustainable in the long term.
Scottish political history both before and after the union of the crowns and then the Act of Union has been one of constant flux, change, revolution, revolt, counter revolution and altering the balance of power between the people, the church and the crown(s).
The best results have come from considered changes which have occurred on a gradual time scale allowing time for review, reflection and revision. That’s what devolution offers.
#18 by Indy on October 13, 2011 - 4:08 pm
Lol. Most of us only live for around 80 years give or take though. We don’t have centuries to hing about, we only have decades.
#19 by Don McC on October 13, 2011 - 7:46 pm
I think you’re being unfair, Indy. As wee Dougie Alexander confirmed in his speech, Scottish labour worked tirelessly for a hundred years to deliver home rule. It’s only unreasonable cybernats who expect progress to move faster than glacial pace. 😉
#20 by Doug Daniel on October 14, 2011 - 2:12 am
Aidan, you keep saying that devolution can deliver all the benefits of independence, yet there is nothing to suggest that any of the three unionist parties really want this to happen. The Tories obviously don’t; the Lib Dems are irrelevant; and none of the current candidates for the Leader of Labour in Scotland have given any indication that they are in favour of a radical change of direction to make Labour the champions of further devolution that you seem to think they currently are.
“Independence is a complicated, one off event”
Sorry, but what is so complicated about the concept of a country having full control of its powers? It’s not complicated, it’s positively simple – far more simple than the slow process of devolution, which doesn’t even guarantee that the flow of powers will continue in the same direction at all times, as can be seen by the Scotland Bill trying to take some devolved powers back.
You seem to be obsessed with this idea that there’s some big, scary disaster awaiting us if we go for independence, so we MUST cling onto the union at all costs. I just don’t get it. I mean seriously, where are all these examples throughout the world of countries becoming independent and then self-destructing in the way you seem to think Scotland will?
#21 by JPJ2 on October 13, 2011 - 2:23 pm
“look forward to it dismissing the SNP’s careful cloaking of fundamentalist anti-Englishness”
Grow up! If what you say were true then people like myself who are proud of our significant strand of English ancestry, together with the many SNP voters who are indisputably English by any definitipn, would have spotted it years ago and would not be voting SNP.
#22 by Doug Daniel on October 14, 2011 - 2:00 am
Wow Duncan, you really don’t understand what the SNP or independence are about at all, do you? Separation, jealousy, bitterness, anti-Englishness, parochial… You know, if that’s what the SNP really stood for, and if that was really what independence was about, then I might join the Labour party in their violent, visceral opposition to both. The thing is, you’re wrong. You’re so, so wrong.
“The world is such a black and white place to SNP folk. Independence solves all problems, the union causes all problems. It’s bizarre.”
This is straight out of the Unionist Book of Lies About Independence (or whatever tome it is you guys read that gives you these strange ideas). Independence doesn’t solve all problems; it merely provides us with the tools to solve the problems for ourselves, rather than having to rely on England suddenly moving away from its adherence to centre-right politics.
As for “global Labour movement”, that’s a good one. Have you actually paid any attention to the criticisms people have had of your party over the past 15 years? Being part of a global call to arms for the working classes is a nice idea, but it’s completely removed from the current reality. It’s a shame people such as yourself and Aidan refuse to see that your party has lost all connection with the working class, and are content to help prop up what is just another centre-right party concerned only with getting the votes of Middle England..
#23 by setindarkness on October 13, 2011 - 2:06 pm
/me checks URL to make sure I’m not on that LabourHame parady site
#24 by Jeff on October 13, 2011 - 2:10 pm
Don’t you see? We are parodying the parodies. Edgy stuff this, very brave blogging.
#25 by James on October 13, 2011 - 3:53 pm
It did remind me of their Kenny Macaskill “interview”.
#26 by DougtheDug on October 13, 2011 - 2:26 pm
The world is such a black and white place to SNP folk. Independence solves all problems, the union causes all problems.
Duncan, I don’t actually recall hearing that statement from any SNP politician or to be honest from any other member of the SNP. The Union is a problem for Scotland but as far as I’m aware Shangri-La doesn’t exist anywhere and certainly won’t be the new name for an independent Scotland.
I look forward to a Scottish Labour leader’s speech which rouses us to lead Scotland’s ambition, realise its potential
Maybe you can clear up a point for me Duncan. How much power will the new, “Labour Leader”, have. Will he/she have power over the Labour councillors, MP’s and MEP’s in Scotland or just the MSP’s? Will the new “Labour Leader” be above or below the position of the Shadow Scottish Secretary and her, “Team Scotland”, or will he/she be working for her? The Labour party has a history of over a hundred years in Scotland and is now the party of the British Establishment and the fanatic defender of the British State which gives the phrase, “Lead Scotland’s ambition, realise its potential”, a dark irony all of its own.
and help create a new Scots identity that isn’t based on separation, jealousy and bitterness, nor on the mis-telling of history and repetition of old wives tales
To help you out Duncan, you forgot to stick the stock phrase of, “grudge and grievance”, in there. Jealously of what? Bitterness about what? What history has been mis-told, one example will do, and what old wives tales have the SNP been spreading?
I look forward to it dismissing the SNP’s careful cloaking of fundamentalist anti-Englishness
It’s like the big book of labour catchphrases has been opened and read all at once. Give us an example of the SNP’s anti-English policies Duncan.
…our promoting the fact that being part of a global Labour movement is far better than being part of a parochial one.
That’s right, “parochial”. The SNP want to run a country which will be part of the international community and Labour in Scotland want to run a block grant funded regional parliament. Run that, “parochial”, word past me again.
What is it about Labour that makes them so desperate to believe that the SNP are a bunch of racist, anti-English, bitter, grudge holding Scots who are promising pie in the sky after independence while deceiving everyone with false history and received wisdom about Scotland?
I’d call it the Star Wars syndrome. Since everyone in Labour believes that they are the chosen Jedi Knights led by Luke Skywalker then everyone outside the party must be on the, “Dark Side”, they must be. Grow up.
#27 by Aidan on October 13, 2011 - 2:52 pm
Actually Labour in Scotland want to run a Parliament which raises a large proportion of it’s own revenue through taxation.
#28 by DougtheDug on October 13, 2011 - 2:55 pm
So why did they create the Scotland Bill which works on the principle of;
Assigned Taxes + Block Grant top up = Current Barnett Formula funding.
Which means that it doesn’t matter what the tax take in Scotland is in the future it will always be topped up to the Barnett formula level.
#29 by Aidan on October 13, 2011 - 3:02 pm
No, the Scotland Bill works on the principle of:
block grant top up = current barnett formula funding – UK Tax levels of assigned taxes.
Scotland is then free to vary the tax levels up or down and spend the revenue collected if taxes are increased or spend less if taxes are decreased.
#30 by DougtheDug on October 13, 2011 - 3:24 pm
Your formula is exactly the same as mine you’ve just rearranged the terms for some reason.
Assigned Taxes + Block Grant top up = Current Barnett Formula funding
is exactly the same in mathematical terms as:
Block Grant top up = Current Barnett Formula funding – Assigned Taxes
Scotland is then free to vary the tax levels up or down and spend the revenue collected if taxes are increased or spend less if taxes are decreased.
Which is the same power the Parliament has always had since it was created by the Scotland Act though no Scottish Executive/Government as ever used it. The only change is that the limit has gone from 3p to 10p.
That’s sum total of all the hoo-haa about new financial responsibility in the Scotland bill.
#31 by Aidan on October 13, 2011 - 3:27 pm
No, you asserted that “Which means that it doesn’t matter what the tax take in Scotland is in the future it will always be topped up to the Barnett formula level.”
That’s… uhm.. incorrect. Scotland gets a block grant and can choose to spend more or less revenue funded from taxation.
There’s also substantial borrowing powers in the Scotland Bill which you’re ignoring.
#32 by DougtheDug on October 13, 2011 - 4:12 pm
Uhm…do the maths and read the Calman Commission and the Bill.
If Scotland keeps the taxation rates the same as the rest of the UK then it will always end up with the Barnett Formula funding level whether or not the tax base and subsequent tax take goes up or down in Scotland.
If it wishes to raise or lower the tax compared to the rest of the UK then it will get more funds to spend if it raises the tax or it will get it’s top up block grant cut to ensure the Government loses no money if it cuts the tax. In effect the tax cut is paid for out of the block grant. Just as the current power is set out in the 1998 Scotland Act.
There are currently borrowing powers in the current Scotland Act to take into account the need to cover revenue spending. The capital borrowing powers in the new Bill are very much at the whim of the Treasury.
#33 by Aidan on October 13, 2011 - 4:23 pm
you definitely get a prize for the oddest interpretation of the Scotland Bill so far.
#34 by DougtheDug on October 13, 2011 - 5:57 pm
Ahh, Aidain I see where you’ve gone wrong and perhaps I should have been more specific and added a rider to the formula:
Assigned Taxes + Block Grant top up = Current Barnett Formula funding
Where the Scottish Tax rates are the same as the UK tax rates.
To go back to your original point, Labour in Scotland want to run a Parliament which raises a large proportion of it’s own revenue through taxation., we need to do a comparison.
Scotland Act 1998
Block Grant = Barnett Formula Funding level.
(When there are no tax variations in Scotland)
Scotland Bill 2011
Assigned Taxes + Top up block grant = Barnett Formula Funding level.
(When there are no tax variations in Scotland)
Scotland Act 1998
Additional Income tax in Scotland goes to Scottish Government
Scotland Bill 2011
Additional Income tax in Scotland goes to Scottish Government
Scotland Act 1998
Income tax cut in Scotland gets taken out of the Block grant
Scotland Bill 2011
Income tax cut in Scotland gets taken out of the top up Block grant
So now you can see that the funding in the Scotland Bill 2011 is exactly the same as the Scotland Act 1998 apart from the the 3p limit going to 10p and that given the chance to do something with Scotland’s revenue generation via taxation the Labour party did nothing to change the way Scotland is funded. Labour want a block grant funded parliament and though the funding method, the left hand side of the equation, has got more complicated and bureaucratic the right hand side is exactly the same.
#35 by Don McC on October 13, 2011 - 7:57 pm
That’s what I don’t get about the bill, Doug. Just what incentive will the Scottish government have to increase the economy?
Do nothing, let jobs go down the tube – Lower tax take to the treasury, bigger block grant top up for Scotland.
Work wonders, magic jobs out of thin-air, achieve full employment – massive increase in tax take to the treasury, massive cut in block grant top up for Scotland.
How is that giving responsibility to the Scottish government for raising revenue? It’s not even as if we can say the SG will have any control of the parts of HMRC doing the income tax work for Scotland.
#36 by DougtheDug on October 13, 2011 - 9:39 pm
Don, you’ve got it in one. The Scotland Bill changes nothing in how much economic control Holyrood has over its income. I’ve posted above about how there is no difference in funding when you compare the Scotland Act 1998 and the Scotland Bill 2011 except that now we’ll get charged by HMRC for processing part of our block grant before we get it.
It doesn’t matter how much of the current block grant is diverted by the Scotland Bill 2011 through HMRC before it gets to the Scottish Government the end amount is the same (minus HMRC charges) and is unchanged from the current block grant as long as the tax rates remain the same across the UK.
That’s what a lot of people out there fail to understand or are so wrapped up in the empty rhetoric of how Scotland is going to control all these taxes they refuse to understand.
The revenue side of the Scotland Bill could have been bypassed altogether by changing section 73 of the Scotland Act 1998 to a 10p limit across all tax bands. Section 73 currently defines the 3p limit and that it applies only to the basic rate.
#37 by Random Lurking Scotsman on October 13, 2011 - 4:42 pm
The problem Labour has at the moment is it doesn’t know what the hell it wants to be or what it wants for Scotland. It started its last campaign with the line “Now the Tories are back” which showed just how out of touch with Scotland it had become. The Tories are not back in the sense they were “here” last time, and will never be. They’re even considering winding themselves up in order to try and get out of the pit they’d dug themselves into.
Their response to the prospect of independence has been muddled and unclear, as bad as the SNP at its worst when pressed on the specifics of certain facets of independence (the fact that its response on certain issues is muddy and vague hasn’t escaped the attention of many) and I can’t think of a particular message that actually appeals to me coming from Labour.
A Labour party that pressed for full fiscal autonomy for Scotland within a federal UK? That would be interesting to many Scots, and might give it grounds for revival. I consider independence an increasingly attractive option for the idea that we can build a Scotland that is social democratic, more equal, and that lives up to the values of Scottish society.
I also see, however, that “England” is actually a left-wing North married to a center (and in some cases far)-right South East, and that to paint it all as “Tory country” is unfair. We do have countless cultural and social links with England, and I find slurs on the Scotsman pages against “the English” grating because I don’t view everything in the Union as bad. I don’t think many of those who voted SNP this May do either.
If Labour turned around and said it would press for an arrangement where Scotland takes care of its own finances and maintains an elected voice at Westminster to allow us to co-operate with the rest of the UK on issues that concern us all, I think it would find that it would receive a sympathetic hearing from many.
Right now, however, all I hear is that it wants a few more powers to be devolved, and allow the Tories to continue running things such as Employment and Support Allowance in a way which punishes the vulnerable and is most definitely against the values of the people of Scotland. That is not what I and many others want, and if the SNP offers us a better vision we will continue to lend it our votes.
#38 by Doug Daniel on October 14, 2011 - 2:18 am
Aidan, I think you need to start realising that you don’t speak for the rest of Labour in Scotland. Their MPs and MSPs do not (largely) share your view. You might be able to mention one or two (I think Eric Joyce is the one you usually mention), but none of those at the head of the party have displayed any kind of appetite for giving Scotland significant tax varying powers.
#39 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 4:09 pm
No. Eric Joyce is on the full-fiscal-autonomy wing, as are others. But even Tom Harris is in favour of the Scotland Bill which has significant tax powers (usual disclaimer about being able to vary the rates individually here).
#40 by Doug Daniel on October 14, 2011 - 6:48 pm
There is a BIG difference between being in favour of the Scotland Bill (which many independent experts/commentators agree will, at best, do nothing for Scotland and, at worst, be damaging to it) and being in favour of continuing to devolve powers to Holyrood.
Please provide evidence that any of the three Leader of Labour in Scotland candidates – or anyone else at the top of the party (i.e. shadow ministers in Westminster or Holyrood) – believe in giving Scotland SUBSTANTIAL economic levers to raise and spend our own budget. And by evidence, I mean statements of which powers they want devolved and when they would devolve them – not wishy-washy comments.
I don’t think you can, because I don’t think anyone at the top of Labour actually DOES want that. But I’d be happy to be proven wrong, especially if that person is in a position to change the mindset of Labour in Scotland.
#41 by Doug Daniel on October 16, 2011 - 4:32 pm
Hmmm, no response…
#42 by Aidan on October 16, 2011 - 6:55 pm
Sorry, thought the argument Indy and I were having about the tax powers in the Scotland Bill covered this. That and the bit about arbitary litmus tests above.
#43 by Doug Daniel on October 16, 2011 - 7:38 pm
Well no, because the point I’m making is that despite your regular protestations that Labour in Scotland aren’t just dyed-in-the-wool unionists and that there is an appetite (somewhere) in the party for ever more powers in Scotland, there is little actual evidence to back that up. You’ve mentioned Eric Joyce before, and indeed, he said on The Politics Show today that Labour should be pressing for Devo Max; but on the same programme, Margaret Curran dodged the question. Eric Joyce is a backbencher in Holyrood, whereas Curran is now shadow Scottish secretary. Which one is more likely to be closer to official Labour party line? I just don’t see any proof that Labour is willing to go further than the current Scotland Bill, and if Tom Harris is Labour’s idea of a radical thinker, then they’re in trouble.
Interesting also that Ian Davidson has announced he will stand for deputy leader. If he were to win, I would eat my hat if he started campaigning for Holyrood to have even more powers.
#44 by Aidan on October 17, 2011 - 12:53 am
Well, little actual evidence apart from delivering the Scottish Parliament and then giving it more powers through the Scotland Bill.
I mean, compared to the SNPs record of letting Holyroods powers lapse that’s… wait… no…
#45 by Doug Daniel on October 17, 2011 - 3:14 am
No Aidan, setting up the Scottish Parliament was proof that Labour in 1997 wanted to set up a Scottish Parliament for various reasons (one being to “kill nationalism stone dead”). It’s not proof that Labour in 2011 want to change Holyrood’s powers to make it raise a large proportion of its own revenue through taxation. My question was on current affairs, not history.
So your evidence is the Scotland Bill. I won’t go into why I think that’s rubbish evidence as it’ll only give you another chance to obfuscate things, suffice to say that if that’s all the evidence you have that anyone at the top of Labour in Scotland currently has an appetite for making us more responsible for our finances, then that pretty much answers my question.
Oh, and the only parties who can legitimately criticise the SNP over the SVR debacle are the Tories and Greens. Since the electorate then went on to give the SNP a majority victory a few months later, I think it’s safe to say that particular argument is of no relevance. Nice try, though.
#46 by Steve on October 13, 2011 - 2:46 pm
Pete’s post puts me off the SNP. Duncan’s reply puts me off Labour more.
#47 by Steve on October 13, 2011 - 4:33 pm
Aidan, DougtheDug is spot on as far as I can see. What’s he got wrong?
If we put the tax up we get more, if we cut the tax we get less.
If rates are kept the same we continue to get a share of funding as per Barnett.
#48 by Aidan on October 13, 2011 - 4:37 pm
He’s arguing that regardless of what holyrood does with tax it always ends up with the same amount of money at the end of the day “Which means that it doesn’t matter what the tax take in Scotland is in the future it will always be topped up to the Barnett formula level.â€
#49 by Steve on October 13, 2011 - 4:43 pm
No he isn’t, he’s saying that in the event that Scotland maintained the current tax levels (ie didn’t raise or lower the rates) then if (either as a result of Scotttish Government action or otherwise) the tax base were to change, for example if more people got jobs, or if the people in work already all got massive pay increases, then this wouldn’t affect the overall funding Scotland received, as the new tax base would be calculated and the block grant would be adjusted accordingly.
This contrasts with the UK Government, where even if they leave the actual tax rates alone, if they take action to grow the economy and create jobs, they get additional revenue as a consequernce of more income tax being paid.
#50 by Aidan on October 13, 2011 - 4:59 pm
That’s certainly not what came across.
There probably is an issue if cutting taxes were to raise the relative tax take, but that’s a highly theoretical circumstance.
#51 by Steve on October 13, 2011 - 5:11 pm
I’m not talking about adjusting the income tax rate at all. Let’s be 100% clear about that.
Even when the rate is constant, income tax receipts go up and down as a result of people earning more/less.
So read the next bit below assuming that rates in Scotland are kept the same as they are now.
If the economy grows in Scotland for some reason and people end up paying more income tax as a result, then under the Scotland Bill that will have no effect on the spending levels available to Scotland. The UK govenrment will get the extra money.
Conversely of course Scotland is protected if its economy shrinks or grows less fast that rUK. In that case the Block Grant will increase to make up the shortfall.
But either way the normal benefits and risks associated with having control of income tax simply aren’t being devolved to Scotland under the Scotland Bill (if your formula above is correct).
#52 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 4:08 pm
Your assumption is that income tax has a major effect on work incentives – if you cut taxes people will work harder, and if you raise them they will work less.
That’s true if you’re talking about very high tax rates, but even considering the massive change in rates from 1978 to 2008 the elasticity is still only 0.9 http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/Saez%20et%20al(2010).pdf when we went from 83% to 40%. The evidence from the from the 50p rate (eg. http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2011/04/the-impact-of-the-50p-income-tax-rate/) is that we’re currently dealing with an elasticity of 1.
The only real effect of raising or lowering taxes in the Scoltand Bill will be to increase the or decrease the revenue available to the Scottish parliament.
As designed.
#53 by Indy on October 13, 2011 - 4:38 pm
I think on the issue of the tax raising powers in Calman there is a good article by Jim & Margaret Cuthbert in issue 63 of the Scottish Left Review, it can be googled. Would be interesting to hear Aidan’s response.
#54 by Aidan on October 13, 2011 - 4:56 pm
They’re laffer curve headbangers who think the point of the tax powers is to let Scotland undercut the rest of the UK.
#55 by Tormod on October 13, 2011 - 4:59 pm
Really I read them as wanting Scotland to have economic powers to expand the economy. To create a stronger economy and have a higher quality of life.
#56 by Aidan on October 13, 2011 - 5:03 pm
Please elaborate on “economic powers to expand the economy” must have missed them amongst the “ZOMG LOWER TAXES!!!1”
#57 by Tormod on October 13, 2011 - 5:16 pm
Interesting response Aidan, basic question how can we create a stronger economy in Scotland?
Option 1 Labour: Assign a fixed propotion of income tax along with a block grant.
From this option what leavers can be used to expand the economy?
If there was an increase in tax, how much of the increase would a Scottish parliament get in return?
Option 2 SNP: Full Fiscal powers to make a wide range of policy policies on both economic and welfare policy.
If this option increased economic performance would the Scots parliament get a greater tax % than option 1?
The choice as ever is yours?
#58 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 12:58 pm
Education, infrastructure (and I don’t mean roads or airports), support for start ups and SMEs, improved industrial and academic collaboration..
Saying we must lower corporation tax in order to compete shows a remarkably blinkered line of thinking.
#59 by Tormod on October 14, 2011 - 1:47 pm
So how do invest in infrastructure and education? If the money from Westminster is cut no matter our economic performance?
How do we support SME’s? Oh and the point with FFA is that you can change a variety of taxes for example Employer NIC not just CT.
My politics about business tax is through being in Business and running one, and experiencing how a small business can grow.
I am not blinkered by anything, I use my experience as my guide. What about you?
#60 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 2:31 pm
Like Indy you’re trying to have it both ways – you want to cut taxes and increase spending. That’s not a policy, that’s magic.
(I’m basing my politics on my experience in various businesses and also basic logic)
#61 by Bobby Fabulous on October 14, 2011 - 2:59 pm
“Like Indy you’re trying to have it both ways – you want to cut taxes and increase spending. That’s not a policy, that’s magic.”
It’s not, though. From MY field of expertise I could list you a hundred examples where radically cutting the cost of something led to a HUGE increase in both total revenue and profit. You can call people “headbangers” all you like, but the Laffer curve and similar principles are perfectly legitimate theories, and often backed up by reality.
http://wosblog.podgamer.com/2010/08/28/to-proponents-of-premium-prices/
(Obviously selling a good and levying a tax aren’t precisely analogous, but it’s a useful illustration all the same.)
#62 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 3:51 pm
Argument from authority is dull. Let’s look at the evidence regarding tax elasticity in the UK, which will tell us where on the laffer curve we sit. This has been quite extensively studied, eg in http://www.economics.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/wpapers-07/985.pdf
turns out the elasticity is 1 and we sit in the left hand part of the laffer curve.
#63 by Tormod on October 13, 2011 - 5:19 pm
Also on the lower business taxes.
You then will support an increase on 10% on all business and personal tax?
What would happen right know to SME’s in Scotland if we did that?
Will they employ more folk?
Exapnd their business?
So go have the courage of your logic support an immediate raise in taxation as a method to increase economic performance.
#64 by Indy on October 13, 2011 - 5:23 pm
That is your response? You don’t address the actual issues they have raised just write them off as nutters?
What about other commentators? Take this from Gerry Hassan:
“The problems are numerous. While reducing the Scottish Block Grant, it still defines Scotland’s spending via London and retains the indefensible Barnett formula. 65% of Scottish devolved spending will still come from the Block Grant; the Barnett consequentials will still determine much of the wider debate. Scottish spending will rise and fall relative to London decisions on tax, and the last thirty years have seen a massive move away from income tax as a means of taxing and raising monies – shown by the fact it was a 33% basic rate in 1979 and is now 20%.
Income tax is a diminishing part of government revenues, a process which long predates New Labour’s ‘taxation by stealth’, and according to BBC ‘Newsnight Scotland’ HMRC estimates for 2010-11 income tax will raise £150b out of £548b: the rest being made up of £99b National Insurance, £46b excise duties, £43b corporation tax, £81b VAT, £25b business rates, £25b council tax, £79b others; income tax making up 29% of the tax take (2).
British politics clearly haven’t finished their Dutch auction cutting the standard rate of income tax, and shifting the burden to so-called indirect taxes such as VAT – leaving the Scottish Government exposed. There is the issue of the lesser proportion of Scottish tax which will be taken from top rate tax payers, and the fiscal drag as more and more taxpayers at a UK level are slowly brought into the top rate; the tax powers are thus both regressive and deflationary.”
In what way is he wrong?
#65 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 12:55 pm
You’re trying to have it both ways – Scotland needs independence so it can cut taxes so we can compete, and Scotland needs independence so we can raise taxes and have more public spending.
#66 by Indy on October 14, 2011 - 2:55 pm
?
Do you want to answer the question. Gerry Hassan there – not an SNP person – is saying the tax measures that came from Calman are both regressive and deflationary.
If he is wrong, why is he wrong?
#67 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 5:33 pm
He’s arguing that balancing tax away from income tax is regressive. He’s correct, but that’s nothing to do with independence.
#68 by Doug Daniel on October 14, 2011 - 6:42 pm
So does that mean you agree with his analysis that the Scotland Bill will be harmful for Scotland? Because you seem to be generally in favour of the bill.
#69 by Indy on October 14, 2011 - 11:51 pm
Eh? Of course it has to do with independence. With independence all powers over all taxes would be transferred. The alternative is an arrangement which it is argued is inherently regressive and deflationary – and therefore by definition incapable of transforming the economy or even adding to economic growth.
Since you are the one that is defending the Scotland Bill proposals why don’t you actually do that? All you have done thus far is avoid the issues that have been raised.
#70 by Aidan on October 15, 2011 - 7:47 pm
But Gerry isn’t arguing that the Scotland Bill is inherently regressive, he’s arguing it’s contingently regressive. There’s no evidence that an independent Scotland would rebalance taxation. It might, it might not. Certainly the SNP are in favour of increasing the regressiveness of the tax system by massively cutting corporation tax.
Further, the powers in the Scotland Bill can be both progressive and regressive depending on if you use them to increase or decrease the level of taxation.
If I was going to criticise the tax powers in the Scotland Bill, and I do, firstly it’s on the basis that the rates have to be varied together. The mechanism as a whole is reasonably well designed given the empirical evidence about elasticities etc.
Similarly, the Cuthberts main thesis as set out in their evidence to the Scotland Bill committee is that the income tax powers are too effective at raising revenue, they assume that Westminster will set the optimal rate of taxation and that the Scottish Government will not want to lower the tax rate to improve competitiveness. They then assume that the Laffer curve is uniformly downward sloping across the whole of the range and argue from there. Neither premise is remotely credible.
#71 by Random Lurking Scotsman on October 13, 2011 - 7:10 pm
As for undercutting the rest of the UK: although we’re in the UK, the different regions compete. London and South East England win by a considerable margin, sucking jobs and money towards them via the fact that the odds are stacked in their favour in terms of taxation, in terms of labour supply and skills, and in population.
If Scotland undercuts it, and more companies set up shop here as a result, that’s a good thing. More jobs, more money, less poverty, and a better way of life than what we currently have. The Scottish Government should have all the levers necessary to bring that about, and it’s right to press for more powers than what Westminster is willing to give currently.
#72 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 12:56 pm
There are better ways to “improve competitiveness” than reducing taxes and cutting government spending.
#73 by Angus McLellan on October 14, 2011 - 8:02 pm
But which of those are realistically open to a government which cannot fund capital expenditures through long-term debt? And of these, how many will produce results in less than a generation or so?
#74 by Aidan on October 15, 2011 - 4:51 pm
Well, firstly the borrowing powers within the Scotland Bill will allow the scottish government to borrow for cap ex.
Secondly most of those – education, business support are really revenue measures not capital measures.
#75 by Tormod on October 13, 2011 - 4:51 pm
On the Scotland Bill and the tax changes contained therein, I shouldn’t be surprised that some folk are blind to problems of what is being planned to be implemented.
So Labour believe in a wee bit of responsibility for the parliament but not FULL FISCAL responsibility as this is what exactly?
The basic logic without any politics is flawed.
Doug the Dug spot on with your comment at 22 about the constant parroting of lazy catchphrases etc.
#76 by Random Lurking Scotsman on October 13, 2011 - 7:04 pm
I think after all the waffle, the minimum that Scots will now settle for is full fiscal autonomy within the UK. I can’t see a persuasive argument for “let’s have a bit of fiscal responsibility, but let Westminster still control the purse strings overall”.
Full fiscal autonomy as a minimum makes sense: it satisfies the need for most of us to do what we want rather than what Westminster deems “appropriate” (only for SE England), and it won’t leave us “outside of the UK” for those attached to the Union.
I’m increasingly, however, starting to see why the die-hard Unionist side are possibly the best campaigners for independence. Every time I see someone defend sitting down and waiting for Westminster to dole out some cash I think “independence would be better”. It dies off after a while as I do have some concerns that the SNP hasn’t answered yet, but yet I can’t help but think that the side that desperately wants to remain within the Union should perhaps play down some of their current arguments, as they have the effect of making the opposite (i.e. independence) sound much more attractive.
#77 by Observer on October 13, 2011 - 7:49 pm
The Scotland Bill is a Trojan Horse, the Conservative-led government would not be proposing it if they thought that it really gave the Scottish government the chance to put their preferred policies in place, as that would demonstrate to the rest of the UK that there* is* another way.
That ain’t gonna happen on the Tories watch.
I think Pete is being a bit smug here. He doesn’t acknowledge that many on the left of the spectrum have a genuine opposition to nationalism as a philosophy. That is rarely acknowledged by any SNP supporter that I encounter. What I would say to anyone who rejects nationalism as a concept is look at independence/devo max pragmatically – what can we do to stop the Tories, not just here, but in England? I believe a left of centre government in Scotland demonstrating that we don’t need Tory policies or nastiness would be a pretty good contribution.
#78 by dubbieside on October 13, 2011 - 10:35 pm
Observer
The Scotland Bill was a “straight jacket” designed to stifle the Scottish economy. Once it was voted through by the unionist parties London masters it was then supposed to be forced through Holyrood by the combined might of the unionist coalition.
The fig leaf was to enable the tame Scottish media to proclaim what a wonderful deal our tame unionists had brought to Scotland.
We now know there was no financial reason for changing the 3p tax variation to 10p, apart from the fact that it would look good in a headline. We now know that the SOS for Scotland does not know what impact these changes would have on Scotlands finances.
May changed the game forever.
#79 by Bobby Fabulous on October 13, 2011 - 11:25 pm
“He doesn’t acknowledge that many on the left of the spectrum have a genuine opposition to nationalism as a philosophy. That is rarely acknowledged by any SNP supporter that I encounter.”
Oh, it’s certainly true. But the problem with it is that we can’t afford the luxury of dogmatism. We either reject nationalism and stick with the UK – which means sticking with regular Conservative governments wreaking vicious havoc on the poor – or we embrace it, whether willingly or reluctantly, as a means to an end. There is no third way. Either we control the purse strings or the Tories at Westminster do.
The reason Labour are failing is that the people want someone practical, not dogmatic. We’ve seen Labour’s attempts to fight the Tories both before devolution (the Feeble Fifty) and after devolution (New Labour, aka Tory Lite), and they were useless. The likes of Aidan – whose sincerity I don’t doubt – talk a good fight, but unfortunately the leadership of modern Labour are not singing from his hymn sheet, and the people have judged them by their actions in power, not by their fine words. What they saw from 1997 to 2010 was a rise in inequality, warmongering, attacks on the disadvantaged, sycophancy towards the rich and the destruction of civil liberties and freedoms.
Labour can turn and twist and wriggle and squirm all they want, but the reality always comes down to the same thing – vote Labour and you’re voting for the Union, which means regular Tory governments. Vote SNP, vote for independence and Scotland can be free from Tories forever (or at least, for the imaginable future). The Scottish people hate the Tories. Increasingly, the choice is becoming a no-brainer. Left-wing views *predicated on Unionism* are a luxury we can’t afford.
#80 by Indy on October 14, 2011 - 10:15 am
And then there is the idiocy of people in Labour who say they can’t support nationalism but turn a blind eye to the monstrous phallic symbols of nationalism that are nuclear weapons, turn a blind eye to rendition flights, Guantanamo Bay etc, go along with the forcible invasion and occupation of other countries and the stripping of their assets and indeed go even further and proclaim how wonderful all these things are because they give us real influence in the world and a seat on the Security Council.
Us narrow-minded nationalists just don’t get that – we are so blinkered and parochial and racist we somehow can’t square the circle of talking about internationalism and solidarity while doing the opposite. Silly us, eh?
#81 by Bobby Fabulous on October 14, 2011 - 12:18 pm
“And then there is the idiocy of people in Labour who say they can’t support nationalism but turn a blind eye to the monstrous phallic symbols of nationalism that are nuclear weapons, turn a blind eye to rendition flights, Guantanamo Bay etc, go along with the forcible invasion and occupation of other countries and the stripping of their assets and indeed go even further and proclaim how wonderful all these things are because they give us real influence in the world and a seat on the Security Council.”
Mm. We’re constantly told to be proud that Britain “punches above its weight”. If that’s not nationalism, I clearly need a new dictionary.
#82 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 12:54 pm
You’re conflating nationalism with patriotism.
#83 by Bobby Fabulous on October 14, 2011 - 12:58 pm
Then please do enlighten us with the difference, in the specific context of the SNP’s *civic* nationalism.
#84 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 1:02 pm
Nationalism’s an analytical framework that emphasises the primacy of the nation.
Patriotism is having pride in your country and it’s achievements.
I am a patriot, but I’m not a nationalist.
#85 by Bobby Fabulous on October 14, 2011 - 1:13 pm
“Nationalism’s an analytical framework that emphasises the primacy of the nation.”
Sorry, my bad: please do enlighten us with the difference, in the specific context of the SNP’s civic nationalism, *in English*.
#86 by Indy on October 14, 2011 - 3:06 pm
“Nationalism’s an analytical framework that emphasises the primacy of the nation.”
You mean it is an analytical framework which is based on reality?
Because the nation state is the basic unit around which the whole world is organised.
The world is therefore a nationalist construct and it is somewhat perverse to argue against that, surely?
After all Scotland has two basic choices – to remain part of the UK or to become a nation state in its own right. There is no third way because the rest of the world does not deal in anything else.
#87 by DougtheDug on October 14, 2011 - 3:11 pm
I am a patriot, but I’m not a nationalist.
So if your country is Scotland why does being proud of Scotland and its achievements make you fight to keep it part of Britain and invisible to most of the rest of the world and conversely if your country is Britain why is so important to you to hang onto Scotland in exactly the same way as those who espouse British nationalism?
#88 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 3:54 pm
Firstly, Scotland isn’t invisible to the rest of the world. We’ve had a major impact on it.
Secondly, I think Scotland gains from being in the UK.
#89 by DougtheDug on October 14, 2011 - 4:07 pm
So what is your country Adrian? What country has your patriotism?
#90 by Bobby Fabulous on October 14, 2011 - 4:31 pm
“Secondly, I think Scotland gains from being in the UK.”
Ooh, is this a teaser for the fabled, mythical “positive case for the Union”? Come on, Aidan, if anyone can actually nail down what it is for us, it’s going to be you. Have a go. It’d be genuinely disappointing if you were just the 543rd Labour activist to talk about “the positive case for the Union” without actually making it.
#91 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 5:36 pm
Doug, I’m Scottish and British and I don’t perceive either identity as being in conflict.
Bobby, I’ve set out a positive case for the union a billion times here before.
#92 by Bobby Fabulous on October 14, 2011 - 5:46 pm
“Bobby, I’ve set out a positive case for the union a billion times here before.”
Then surely you can recap it briefly for those of us who somehow managed to miss it? Because usually when Labourites try to express it it’s vague, meaningless cobblers about being “stronger together” or bailing out the banks, which is of course the polar opposite of positive.
But if you don’t even know what country you belong to, I guess we shouldn’t hold our breath for a sensible answer on this either.
I was born in Scotland, which is on the island of Great Britain, which is part of the state of the United Kingdom, which is in the continent of Europe. I am therefore Scottish, British, European and a whole bunch of other things. Only one of them is my *country*, though.
#93 by DougtheDug on October 14, 2011 - 5:48 pm
But you defined yourself as a patriot Aidan. You’ve got to have a country to be patriotic about. Which one is it?
#94 by Aidan on October 15, 2011 - 5:03 pm
I’m proud of both Britain and Scotland and I identify with both. I don’t have to choose because you tell me too, it’s not within your power to deny me part of my identity.
#95 by Doug Daniel on October 14, 2011 - 4:28 pm
Oh look, it’s Jim Murphy.
#96 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 6:12 pm
Doug, why do I have to pick one? Why can’t I be both patriotically Scottish and patriotically British?
#97 by DougtheDug on October 14, 2011 - 6:27 pm
The fact that you can’t or won’t answer the question says to me that you throw the terms nationalist and patriot about without having thought about how they apply to you or what they mean to others.
Patriot: “One who loves and loyally or zealously supports one’s own country”
Have the courage of your convictions Adain, what’s your country?
#98 by Bobby Fabulous on October 14, 2011 - 6:43 pm
Because that’s the definition of patriotism. If you can find me a definition of it anywhere on the internet where it says “… pride [or whatever] in one’s countries” plural, you win. (I spent 10 minutes trying without success.) But to anyone even remotely sane, the word “patriotic” refers to a person’s attitude towards a *single* country.
As I say, I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge that I’m British as well as Scottish, and a citizen of the United Kingdom. But only one of them is my country.
#99 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 6:47 pm
Firstly, my name is *Aidan*, not “Adrian” or “Adain” or whatever misspelling you choose to use this time – you do it constantly.
Secondly, it’s not an either-or question. To take another example, I was born and brought up in Edinburgh but have lived in Glasgow since I was 17. I’m proud of both cities.
#100 by Bobby Fabulous on October 14, 2011 - 6:51 pm
“Secondly, it’s not an either-or question.”
Unfortunately it is, unless you’re going to start rewriting the entire English language.
I’m mystified as to why you’re so reluctant to identify your nation. There’s nothing to be ashamed of in feeling predominantly British if that’s what you feel. But being so evasive about it just makes you look shifty and embarrassed.
This referendum is all about deciding what you think your country is. Luckily you’ve got a while to make up your mind.
#101 by DougtheDug on October 14, 2011 - 7:03 pm
Sorry about that Aidan, I didn’t know I was doing it. My touch-typing isn’t the best.
Then again, though I can’t name you correctly I can name my country.
#102 by Random Lurking Scotsman on October 15, 2011 - 12:04 am
“Britain” is increasingly just becoming a concept like “Scandinavia”. Am I British? Is Alex Salmond British? In the sense that we come from the British Isles, that we share a common language and popular culture with the rest of the British Isles, yes. However, the buck stops there. Politically, we do not share the same values, at least not the same values as the UK government.
The UK government is not social democratic by any stretch of the imagination, and believes in an atomised individualist approach to the world. It doesn’t believe in the idea that people should look after one another, and it believes in grabbing as much as you can for yourself without thinking of your fellow man.
It believes dogmatically in free market economics, cutting spending and introducing private capital into the system even when it would harm the interest of the most vulnerable and continuing even when faced with evidence that it’s not going to work. It also slags off the Scots and caricatures us as scroungers while staking a claim on our resources. I can’t see a reason why we should tolerate it having control over our fiscal policy, and thus full fiscal autonomy should be the least we consider.
Labour at the moment appear to be arguing that we continue to hug Westminster close and tell us that if we cut loose the Westminster treasury and stop letting it tell us what to do, then we can expect Old Testament style misfortune to come upon us. I don’t buy that, and I don’t think many Scots do either. Poltically, we aren’t that much alike. Scotland mostly votes in center-left parties. South-east England demands that its center-left parties act like center-right ones in order to be let into 10 Downing Street.
As I think over the issue more, I look over at Ireland and see that being independent from Britain doesn’t mean that you don’t share culture with it. Every time I visit it, most of it looks and sounds familiar, and then I realize that although there are political differences, culturally it’s very much the same. We like some of the same things, but disagree on others.
So, after independence or full fiscal autonomy, I’ll still be British culturally. But politically, I will be Scottish which is completely different to politics in the rest of the UK. The Scottish political identity is egalitarian, social democratic, and collectivist, the English political identity is more rigidly class-based, neo-liberal and highly individualist. In that sense, we are very different.
Being independent, merely fiscally or with a fully fledged state, will not divorce us from the past and will not close us off from the rest of the UK. It will, however, offer us a better future than having so many vital services still run by a government at odds with Scotland’s political culture.
#103 by Indy on October 14, 2011 - 2:59 pm
Another answer that doesn’t make a lot of sense.
I am not a patriot – indeed I am one of those who believes that patriotism is very much the last refuge of the scoundrel. And if patriotism is to be put forward as a excuse for the matters referred to above that just strengthens my case.
I am a nationalist only because the nation I live in is not a nation-state. As soon as it becomes one I will stop being a nationalist because there won’t be any need to be one any more.
#104 by Bobby Fabulous on October 14, 2011 - 4:39 pm
Mm. I don’t consider myself a patriot either – I don’t think Scotland is inherently BETTER than any other country (except perhaps in our reluctance to vote for Tories), which to me is the definition of patriotism. I just don’t see why Scotland shouldn’t be *equal* to other countries and run its own affairs, as is the norm all over the planet.
Should Holland be run by Germany just because it’s smaller and shares a border and (a broad Western European) culture? It sounds ridiculous when you come it at from the other side, doesn’t it?
#105 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 6:14 pm
You’re mistaking having pride in your country for a sense of superiority over other nations.
Scotland’s great, I feel part of it and so I bask in it’s reflected glory.
France is great, but I don’t feel part of it so I don’t feel a great stirring of the heart when the Marseilles starts up.
#106 by Doug Daniel on October 14, 2011 - 6:38 pm
So what’s great about Britain, then?
#107 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 6:48 pm
For a start it’s called “Great Britain” and the ASA would be down on us like a ton of bricks if it wasn’t, so it must be true.
#108 by Doug Daniel on October 14, 2011 - 7:05 pm
Nicely dodged. No one will have noticed you didn’t (couldn’t?) answer the question properly.
#109 by Bobby Fabulous on October 14, 2011 - 7:13 pm
Aidan’s painted himself into a very tight corner with this “patriot” thing, that’s for sure. But heavens, how can anyone’s heart NOT stir when they hear La Marseillaise? I’m about as French as George W Bush, but even I can’t help a little tingle. Now THAT’S an anthem.
#110 by Indy on October 15, 2011 - 12:06 am
That’s interesting because to me patriotiism does suggest a sense of superiority over other nations and that is why I despise it.
To take one of the oft-quoted advantages of being part of the UK – the international influence, the advantages of being part of a big country with a seat on the Security Council etc. That is all based on believing that Britain is better than other countries and ought to be in a position of superiority.
That is why, for example, “we” (i.e. Britain) can have nuclear weapons but “they” can’t. “We” can be trusted with them you see – whereas “they” can’t. “We” are better than “them” .
That’s why the lectures we are regularly treated to about how nationalism is such a bad thing are so utterly astounding. I don’t think people ever even consider it actually, such is the extent to which they take Britain’s superiority over other nations for granted.
#111 by Doug Daniel on October 14, 2011 - 4:33 pm
In what way is Indy conflating nationalism with patriotism? Are you suggesting that support of nuclear weapons, invasion of other countries and the facilitation of human rights abuses – all in the name of trying to be one of the big boys on the Security Council – are the actions of someone who is proud of their country? Are you saying these things are achievements to be proud of?
#112 by Observer on October 13, 2011 - 7:54 pm
Incidentally if Scotland was independent or had FFA I would be on the same side as Aidan on the Corporation Tax issue. But let’s get the power to decide these issues for ourselves outwith the straitjacket of devolution or the proposed Scotland bill.
#113 by An Duine Gruamach on October 13, 2011 - 9:13 pm
And if we *did* control over corporation tax, I’d like to think we could vary it around the country. I don’t think that having the same rate for Edinburgh and Garrabost is that much better as having the same rate for London and Garrabost.
#114 by FormerChampagneSocialist on October 13, 2011 - 11:38 pm
Everyone knows that the Scotland Bill is a Treasury ruse to cut the block grant….don’t they? It’s support in Scotland is presumably limited to idiots and saboteurs.
Confused by the SNP anti-Englishness claim. As an SNP member, I must have failed to notice my wife’s Englishness when I married her!
#115 by Dr William Reynolds on October 14, 2011 - 8:44 am
Pete Wishart makes some cogent points but he could have said much more.For example,that independence would allow a Scottish government to spend all of the nations income on the peoples priorities.Just as important,it would aloww Scotland to join the rest of the world.Recently,I noticed in a Bangladesh newspaper that the Palestinians were applying for full membership of the UN.I wishe them every luck,and hope that Scotland can also take part.It is this international dimension of independence that is often overlooked.
Is independence a panacea for all ills,as someone on this site implied? Of course not but it is a natural state of being for most people in this world,Sadly,I think that we are unlikely to hear even Pete Wisharts limited analysis of the political debate,from the next labour leader in Scotland.Sad really.
#116 by Anonymous on October 14, 2011 - 9:00 am
The original article is an embarrassment and the subsequent “debate” illustrates well the dictum that we get the politicians we deserve.
Can’t we leave tabloid newspapers to provide front-line politicians with space to fill up with crude point-scoring and bad jokes? BN usually does well in allowing new-ish people to write from an interesting and independent (with a small i ) perspective on politics. Just my opinion, but that’s normally much more interesting than the guff above.
#117 by scottish_skier on October 14, 2011 - 12:27 pm
I find it strange that Labour continue to claim to be a left of centre social democratic party when their policies place them quite far to the centre-right and quite strongly authoritarian.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
In contrast, the SNP are clearly the only party which is moderate on both economic and social scales. Some claim the SNP are trying to be everything to everyone and that this is a bad thing. Of course we all know that such a thing is impossible, but trying to balance as well as possible the aspirations of all members of society should in fact be the exact goal of a government. A government should not tell us what we should want, but rather ask us and try to impliment that as fairly as possible. Governments should be driven by the ideology of a people, not of party members. It seems the SNP know this quite well – hence their continued success.
I gave up hope on Labour when they started marching to the right. 6k or 9k for fees? Maybe I’ll start a new party asking only 5.99k instead.
As for people calling me xenophobic/racist for wishing a party I support to collect and spend my taxes….. That is why I will never vote Labour again. Tony got my vote once and that was it.
#118 by JRTomlin on October 14, 2011 - 4:27 pm
“There are better ways to “improve competitiveness†than reducing taxes and cutting government spending.”
But you said that it was wrong for Scotland to have control of the corporate taxes because they shouldn’t compete with the rest of the UK. And if cutting corporate taxes isn’t a good way to compete, why do so many businesses go to countries with lower corporate taxes? A specious argument.
#119 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 5:37 pm
I’m saying nobody benefits from a race to the bottom on corporation tax (why does it always come back to this?) and it would be better for all concerned if all EU members agreed to set corporation tax in a limited range.
#120 by Doug Daniel on October 14, 2011 - 6:37 pm
“I’m saying nobody benefits from a race to the bottom on corporation tax (why does it always come back to this?)”
Because you keep saying it? I’ve not seen anyone else go on about Scotland lowering corporation tax resulting in a “race to the bottom”.
Incidentally, why do you think EU members should set a uniform rate of corporation tax? Do you think this should be the case for other tax rates too, or just this one? Why are you so determined that smaller states should be deprived of this flexibility, leaving companies with little reason to choose smaller countries over large ones?
#121 by Aidan on October 14, 2011 - 6:40 pm
I meant why does bolstering Scottish business come back to corporation tax? It’s already at a very low rate, do people seriously think that what’s holding the Scottish economy back is the government taking 25% of their profits?
#122 by Doug Daniel on October 14, 2011 - 7:04 pm
Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. However, what incentive is there currently for a company to base itself in Scotland rather than the South East of England?
#123 by Aidan on October 15, 2011 - 6:21 pm
Quality of life, well educated work force, lower land costs, better public transport…
#124 by Doug Daniel on October 16, 2011 - 2:33 am
I said “currently” – you’re not seriously trying to claim anywhere in Scotland has public transport that comes even close to rivalling that of London’s, surely?
#125 by Aidan on October 16, 2011 - 10:59 am
Londons public transport is a nightmare compared to Glasgow or Edinburgh! Ours is faster, cheaper and less over crowded.
Your argument boils down to “Scotland is shit, we need to bribe people and abse ourselves so businesses come here”. Stay positive!
#126 by Doug Daniel on October 16, 2011 - 2:46 pm
Aye, it’s less over-crowded because it’s so shit that people don’t want to use it. I would hazard a guess that the percentage of people using their cars in Glasgow city centre is far higher than in London.
Anyway, nice try, but other than slagging off our public transport, I’ve not said anything negative about Scotland, and I’m certainly not calling us shit – I’m just saying SE England has an unfair, inbuilt advantage and Scotland needs to be able to level the playing field a bit. There are clearly reasons why businesses gravitate towards SE England, and I’m not sure any of the ones you mention cover them. The number of emails I get about jobs down there suggest companies couldn’t give a toss where their educated workforce come from, they’d rather suck the talent towards them. Public transport? Companies couldn’t care less how employees get to work, as long as they get there. Quality of life is a factor for people, not businesses, and it’s a bit of a woolly argument anyway. Lower land costs? That’s more like it. But if that is currently true, then clearly it’s not enough of a pull.
#127 by Aidan on October 17, 2011 - 12:56 am
So you’re not saying anything negative about Scotland except that our public transport is shit and there’s no incentive for companies to invest here instead of the South East?
#128 by Doug Daniel on October 17, 2011 - 2:51 am
You’re just putting words in my mouth now. You don’t have to think one place is shit to think another place has an unfair advantage. All I’m saying is that having the ability to lower corporation tax (if that’s what happened) would be a handy tool for Scotland to entice businesses that would otherwise gravitate towards SE England. You seem to think it’s a ridiculous idea that having a uniform corporation tax rate across the UK should lead companies to tend towards basing themselves near the UK capital and financial centre, so I asked you what you thought were the current incentives for companies to come up to Scotland instead. I’m not convinced by your answer (although fair play for making an effort).
That’s quite different from saying “Scotland is shit.”
#129 by JRTomlin on October 14, 2011 - 4:35 pm
“Actually Labour in Scotland want to run a Parliament which raises a large proportion of it’s own revenue through taxation.”
If you made that “a tiny portion of it’s [sic] own revenue”, you’d be right. Crown Estate? No control. APD? No control. Corporate Tax? No control. VAT? No control. Income Tax tax variance? Nothing more than a laughable fiddling except for having to PAY for something that will be of no benefit.
If that were actually what Labour wanted, it would be a good argument, but their actions in supporting this farce of a bill shows that it’s not.
#130 by Observer on October 14, 2011 - 7:33 pm
”And then there is the idiocy of people in Labour who say they can’t support nationalism but turn a blind eye to the monstrous phallic symbols of nationalism that are nuclear weapons, turn a blind eye to rendition flights, Guantanamo Bay etc, go along with the forcible invasion and occupation of other countries and the stripping of their assets and indeed go even further and proclaim how wonderful all these things are because they give us real influence in the world and a seat on the Security Council.
Us narrow-minded nationalists just don’t get that – we are so blinkered and parochial and racist we somehow can’t square the circle of talking about internationalism and solidarity while doing the opposite. Silly us, eh?”
The SNP do not have ownership of these issues.
It is the rather smug assumption that they do which sometimes annoys people.
#131 by Observer on October 14, 2011 - 7:46 pm
”Oh, it’s certainly true. But the problem with it is that we can’t afford the luxury of dogmatism. We either reject nationalism and stick with the UK – which means sticking with regular Conservative governments wreaking vicious havoc on the poor – or we embrace it, whether willingly or reluctantly, as a means to an end. There is no third way. Either we control the purse strings or the Tories at Westminster do.”
I agree, & I think I have given a good argument back to people who say that working class people have got more in common with each other than the division that exists over what wee bit of the ground you live in, that electing a centre left government in Scotland would benefit everyone who holds leftish beliefs, wherever in the British Isles they live.
#132 by Observer on October 14, 2011 - 7:51 pm
”Nationalism’s an analytical framework that emphasises the primacy of the nation.
Patriotism is having pride in your country and it’s achievements.
I am a patriot, but I’m not a nationalist.”
I am neither a patriot or a nationalist. I am only interested in making the society I live in better. Politics is a wholly pragmatic issue for me. I will vote for whatever party & system builds a fairer & more successful society. On that basis I see no other option on the table other than the SNP.
#133 by tormod on October 14, 2011 - 9:21 pm
Interesting responses Adrian you narrative and logic seem to believe that business taxation has no effect on business growth.
That being the case a wee simple test. You would support a rise in business taxation as you think this would grow business and the Scottish economy yes?
The only folk who use the term race to the bottom currently support a conservative government in London setting taxation for Scotland rather than the Scots parliament.
So again you support the notion that Scots have to be protected from control of taxation as this is a “risk”, but a wee bit of taxation is alright thought.
As I said interesting.
#134 by Aidan on October 15, 2011 - 6:23 pm
Depends on what those taxes were used for. If you raised the rates and used the money to increase the investment allowances then I’m pretty sure it would grow business and the economy.
#135 by Angus McLellan on October 15, 2011 - 8:21 pm
You need only look at what your friends asked for – and propose to deliver – in terms of devolved Income Tax to be reasonably sure that the idea of capital and investment allowances being devolved is little short of fantasy. It would be limited control over headline rates or nothing, with nothing being altogether more likely.
#136 by Aidan on October 17, 2011 - 12:55 am
Look, if tormod is allowed to make hypothetical policy levers for their conundrum surely I am as well?
#137 by Observer on October 15, 2011 - 7:36 pm
The problem with the economy at the moment is lack of demand from consumers. Lowering Corporation Tax would do nothing to address that, it would only mean less revenue for the government, not a very good idea when there is a recession. The SNP policies on Corporation Tax & indeed Local Income Tax hail from before 2008, they need to update their thinking. If the Scottish government introduced a lower rate of Corporation Tax then the Tories would see that as a green light to do the same. Lowering Corporation Tax is a Tory Reaganomic policy. It wouldn’t work, & it makes no sense for a government who have positioned themselves on the socially democratic centre left.
#138 by Indy on October 16, 2011 - 8:15 am
That is not what he is saying at all. Let’s try again. This is the problem that has been identified and which you are not discussing. I would suggest that perhaps this issue deserves a post of its own
“Calman’s tax powers would have damaging consequences. If the Scottish Government reduced income tax to stimulate the economy its own finances would suffer while the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer’s revenues would benefit. If the Scottish Government raised the rate of income tax to increase its revenues this would deflate the Scottish economy and reduce revenues going to the UK Government.
The proposals suffer from what economists call ‘fiscal drag’, in which generally an increasing proportion of tax is taken from higher rate taxpayers, while Calman’s proposals take a higher proportion from basic rate taxpayers. As more people are pushed into higher rate tax bands as governments do not increase thresholds in real terms, Scottish finances would be squeezed and become more regressive. The standard, intermediate and higher basic rates of tax from which the Scots could vary, would remain with Westminster, as would tax bands.
#139 by Aidan on October 16, 2011 - 12:12 pm
I’m not sure it’s me who’s “dodging the question” given that you’re now quoting something on a different aspect entirely – the tax bands.
This is arguing that the number of people paying higher rates of tax is increasing. Which is true. But this isn’t a bad thing in itself and certainly isn’t regressive.
In what way would more people being in higher tax bands reduce the revenue coming to the Scottish government?
#140 by John B Dick on October 17, 2011 - 12:14 am
I’m under the impression the SNP is subtly shifting the focus to Mike Russell’s ‘new union’ idea (which was dropped back in 2006) as a back up.
That said the general SNP strategy of kicking the referendum down the road is misguided (although no real problem by me) as it relies on assumptions (like the 50-60% chance of a tory gvt in 2015) and also issues like the trams and the council tax freeze could ruin their ‘appearance’ of competence if bungled.
Salmond is a zealot for not setting up a constitutional convention on this.