The longer this referendum goes on, the clearer it becomes that both sides have limited internal common ground. I don’t hold with the SNP attack on Labour’s position – the argument that they’re obviously Tories in disguise because they’re campaigning together on this issue. Were the SSP basically just Tories because they campaigned against the Edinburgh congestion charge with them? No, just misguided.
As discussed before, if both sides are internally indistinguishable, it would also make me essentially Jim McColl, because he’s in favour of independence too. And I could hardly respect him less. In evidence to a Holyrood committee, he said Scotland should cut corporation tax to Irish levels, an approach that suits rich men like him and which plays beggar-your-neighbour with other European countries’ tax bases.
He’s also personally based in Monaco and in the same meeting admitted not paying full UK income tax. His startling reasoning there was as follows: “if you look at the wealth created here by me and my team, it puts into insignificance anything that I might pay if I was a full-time resident here“. Of course, the actual wealth is created by his workforce, not him, and they presumably do pay their full UK taxes. The logic is stark: the richer you are and the bigger the business you own the less important it is for you to pay taxes. Taxes are for the little people.
It’s all quite petty too. My guess is that he’d still be pretty rich if he paid his full taxes here, which should be the minimum requirement before pontificating about Scotland’s future.
His contribution today is consistent with his extraordinarily unpleasant vision for Scotland (if you look beyond the empty guff about compassion and renewables). Independence would, he says, be a “management buyout”. Don’t be led astray: this is not a metaphor, it’s literally what he wants. The thing about a management buyout is you’re left with the same people in charge, but they’re personally doing much better because less of the revenue gets passed elsewhere. Jim McColl and those like him are already the “management”, they are already Scotland’s establishment, and he wants a Scotland where that doesn’t change. In fact, he wants a Scotland even more closely recast in line with his kind of selfish tax-dodging capitalism.
The historic left opposition to independence, which was dominant until the formation of the SSP and its precursors, ran roughly like this. The purpose of independence and nationalism is to divide the working class and to let local capitalist elites carve out more for themselves without interference from the imperial centre. You don’t have to be a Trotskyist to see that’s precisely what Jim McColl wants to see from independence.
Fortunately, though, if we win it won’t just be up to him to shape Scotland, especially if the current SNP leadership don’t get to run that post-independence administration. It’ll be up to the people of Scotland to decide whether they want a Scotland where business pays its fair share, or whether they think Jim’s spot on and the Tories ought to have bent over even further towards the interests of business. Jim McColl may be working for a management buyout, but there’ll be plenty more of us pushing in the other direction, towards a more co-operative Scotland.
#1 by Peter A Bell on February 3, 2013 - 3:31 pm
Why should Jim McColl not have his own reasons for favouring independence? Every independence supporter will have their own reasons. Or more precisely, they will have a number of reasons, only some of which they will hold in common with others and some which will be rejected by by people nonetheless equally committed to restoring Scotland’s constitutional status.
Even where reasons are shared, they are likely to be ranked differently. People will put a different emphasis on things depending on their world view.
The idea that there can be some check-list of reasons for wanting independence that defines a “proper” nationalist is rather ominous and distasteful.
It is unlikely that I would find myself wholly in agreement with Jim McColl’s vision for Scotland. Although I would not so reflexively dismiss all that he has to say. The knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion of lowering corporation tax, for example, is ill-considered and fails to take account of the fact that corporation tax is but one fiscal lever among many. I’m pretty sure Jim McColl does not base his investment decisions solely on the prevailing tax regime. If he, and those like him, are taking account of corporation within a wider context, so should we.
What I will not do is deny Jim McColl’s right to have a vision. Or his entitlement to input that vision as part of the process of developing ideas for our nation’s future. Being rich and, in his own terms at least, successful does not invalidate the man’s views, or his right to express them.
Neither does his choice of residence or the amount of tax he pays disqualify him. If we are to exclude from the debate all who now live furth of Scotland, regardless of all other considerations, then we will surely lose a great many valuable pro-independence voices.
And we go down a dangerous path if we hold that a person’s entitlement to participate in the democratic process is linked to the proportion of their wealth contributed to the British exchequer.
#2 by James on February 3, 2013 - 7:30 pm
Peter, not the proportion of their wealth at all. I want the poorest to have to put as little as possible in. But Jim McColl and others like him are insulting the public with this kind of behaviour, and I don’t think he’s a valuable pro-independence voice. He’s an odious voice I have to try and tune out so I keep remembering why I want independence, but this crap today simply couldn’t be tuned out any longer.
#3 by Indy on February 4, 2013 - 9:10 am
I think that is a slightly daft point with respect. Of course there are differences between people who support Yes just as there are differences between people who support No.
Does it not occur to you that perfectly respectable decent people on the No side have to tune out some pretty far right voices who are strongly attached to the UK and its flag?And that’s just the Tories!
Yes/No are both pretty broad camps. Could never have been any other way.
#4 by Martin B on February 3, 2013 - 7:55 pm
Regardless of whether we would lose more voices who agree with us, I think the independence debate (or at least: the principle of whether we should be independent, rather than the implications thereof) should be absolutely confined to those who live in Scotland, and for the same reasons as restricting the referendum franchise: if you don’t live here, it’s not your business. If you don’t want to live here, it’s not important enough to you. If you care that much, live here.
#5 by Craig Gallagher on February 4, 2013 - 2:37 pm
Sorry, this is desperately simplistic. I can appreciate why you might hold that position regarding tax exiles, who have the means to live in Scotland but choose not to for accounting reasons, but there are plenty of (predominantly young) Scots who have moved abroad to find work in the last two to three years as the recession bites, myself included.
None of us is any less passionate about Scotland, whether we are Yes or No. But we are already denied a vote, something I think is right (seeing as we’re not paying taxes) but that doesn’t mean we get to be denied a voice. It says United Kingdom on my passport. For tax and immigration purposes, I’m a UK national living in the United States. If I want to change that to a Scottish national, surely I get some kind of input into that process?
Living in Scotland isn’t about “caring” or otherwise, just as living abroad doesn’t mean you dismiss everything that is going on at home. If anything, the opposite is true. I’ve never been more engaged with Scotland’s future than I have been since I left in 2011.
#6 by James on February 4, 2013 - 2:40 pm
It’s all right Craig, I can distinguish between needing to find work elsewhere and salting your money away offshore!
#7 by Craig Gallagher on February 4, 2013 - 2:45 pm
Thanks James!
Incidentally, that should be “but that doesn’t mean we get to be denied a VOICE” in the middle of the second paragraph above
#8 by James on February 4, 2013 - 3:01 pm
(fixed)
#9 by David Lee on February 3, 2013 - 6:31 pm
I think the main Trotskyist lesson to be learned is not to let the movement dissolve into bickering and infighting. The curse of so many socialist movements can’t be allowed to claim this one.
Let every man have their own reasons to back independence. Let’s not turn on each other and start arguing about the “right” and “wrong” reasons to campaign for a Yes vote in 2014.
#10 by Robert Blake on February 3, 2013 - 8:22 pm
This article stems from a false premise. Labour are not thought of as being Red Tories because of their standing together in the “NO” campaign.
They are thought of as the same because they share the same political ground. Labour & Tories both cast the sick as fraudsters, Labour brought in Atos, the ESA & Lord Freud.
Labour & Tories are both committed to ending universality of healthcare and benefits.
Labour & Tory are both committed to increasing private ownership of the Health Service
Labour and Tory are both committed to cutting public services
Labour and Tory are both committed to cutting conventional forces in favour of nuclear
Labour and Tory both favour PFI over public borrowing
Labour and Tories are both trying to forge links with the sectarian Orange Order as their number of activists dwindle.
That is why both are the same. I refer you to Kevin McKenna’s article of last week
#11 by James on February 3, 2013 - 8:26 pm
I agree with most of those criticisms (although I’d cut conventional forces & scrap nuclear weapons). But the article is primarily about the grim attitudes of Jim McColl, actually.
#12 by Robert Blake on February 6, 2013 - 11:53 am
Sorry, kept meaning to reply
We might have to take a look at that “cutting conventional forces” truism because the fact is there are a hell of a lot of cuts happening already.
I think Scotland needs
1) Fishery Protection Vessels and a small navy, maybe even based around a frigate and a couple of destroyer sized missile platforms
2) Interceptor and Air sea rescue focused air force
3) A small land force
We could argue for a brace or three of HK subs, but I think that’s later rather than sooner
#13 by No_Offence_Alan on February 3, 2013 - 9:02 pm
Surely the point is that independence means Scotland can set its own level of corporation tax. Some will want that level to be higher than present, some lower. And then, if the level is set at the wrong figure, it can later be changed without reference to London.
#14 by James on February 3, 2013 - 9:04 pm
Absolutely, yes. And we can pass tax laws that prevent folk hiding offshore, too.
#15 by Peter A Bell on February 3, 2013 - 9:38 pm
The important thing to remember about corporation tax is that it is only one of many levers of fiscal policy available to an independent government, and only one of many factors that potential investors will take into account when making investment decisions. The focus on corporation tax over-simplifies the issue and serves as a diversion in much the same way as does the focus on income tax.
When the Scottish Government talks of the need for control of corporation tax this should not be taken absolutely literally. References to corporation tax in this context should be seen as being metonymic in nature, where the one term stands for the whole system. A kind of shorthand, if you will.
There is no doubt that there may be circumstances in which a relatively low rate of corporation tax can be a valid and effective policy when looked at in conjunction with other factors. For example, where the national transport and health-care infrastructure is poor low tax may be used to counter these disadvantages as firms assess investment potential.
Conversely, companies may well consider higher rates of corporation tax a price worth paying for the advantages of a healthy, well-educated pool of labour.
Seen in isolation, the relative rate of corporation tax has no normative value. Considered on its own it cannot be definitively said to be either good or bad. It’s all about getting the balance right. You can’t do that unless you have control. And only a YES vote will secure that control. Any help towards that end has to be welcomed, no matter whence it comes.
#16 by Commenter on February 4, 2013 - 10:13 am
The fact that it’s not just left-wing-of-old-Labour (with a coat of Dulux Forest Green) folk that are pro-independence gives me hope that if we do somehow manage to get a Yes result in 2014, the result wont be a huge economic disaster.
#17 by Craig Gallagher on February 4, 2013 - 2:44 pm
James, there are fifteen Scottish Conservative MSPs in the Scottish Parliament, suggesting that some people in this country have a genuine interest in corporation tax being lowered. I’m not saying I agree with them, just that they’re entitled to hold that position, and campaign for it vigorously as well. You are entitled to disavow campaigning alongside them for your own reasons, but you ought to consider that such an attitude would be tragically short-sighted.
I do think your broader point about the homogeneity of Yes/No is right though. I think encouraging people to see us as a broad church rather than the single issue vehicle (Scotland’s parliament makes all the decisions for Scotland) that we are is a worthwhile endeavour. With that in mind, again, you should consider whether excluding people like Jim McColl altogether is feasible or desirable.