open Democracy News Analysis - Scotland - Comments

Mike Small on "Calman report calls for 'Scottish income tax'"

Mike Small — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:07:51 +0100

"How about introducing accountability for spending decisions relating to England only in the Westminster parliament by excluding Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish MPs from taking part in them?"

What like the 'javelin' train that we contribute to but that stops at Birmingham?

Calman is a Unionist stooge not a Scottish sap. Stop branding people acording to nationality. The 'asymmetry' he's referring to is for your ears only, not the 40% in Argyll who voted elsewhere last week.

I am not defending devolution nor disputing the problems with the current settlement.

Where's the sop? Who's the drain?

You can look at costs in multiple ways. I'd start by taking out Iraq and Trident which the Scottish people dont want. For more on Calman Freakonomics go here: http://bellacaledonia.wordpress.com/

britologywatch on "Calman report calls for 'Scottish income tax'"

britologywatch — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:45:15 +0100

Mike,

Well, I think it depends on the level of tax revenues from North Sea Oil and how you apportion them (maybe 2002 was a particularly good year), and on overall taxation by nation. I've come across plenty of analyses that say the opposite: that England both contributes more in tax per capita (which makes sense, given that average incomes are higher) and receives significantly less per-capita public expenditure. That last bit is an undisputed fact, and it's generally thought not to be a fair reflection of social need given the existence of significant pockets of social deprivation across England.

Mike Small on "Calman report calls for 'Scottish income tax'"

Mike Small — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:25:05 +0100

Britology three facts.

1. The SNP already excludes itself from English matters. However the arithmetic of Westminster means Scottish and Welsh MPs makes there voting or not voting irrelevant in practical terms.

2. Scotland has 8.6% of the UK population yet
raises 10.41% of all UK tax revenues. (Source Treasury Red Book 2002)

3. The Barnett Formula is little more than a device which gives
Scotland some of its own pocket money out of Scotlands pay packet which
is taken by England. In 2002, Scotland contributed £42.7Billions to the
UK Exchequer and received £18.1 Billions doled back in return via
Barnet. It would be a better idea to keep the £42.7 billion as an independent country.

alex_buchan on "Calman report calls for 'Scottish income tax'"

alex_buchan — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:29:18 +0100

The political problem for the unionist parties is that implementing these recommendations cannot but help increase support for the SNP. The Scottish electorate are well aware that the only reason the Calman Commission is proposing new powers and the only reason that Whitehall Departments are ready to cede further powers is because there is a threat to the union posed by the election of an SNP government. The unionist parties seem to hope that in having to raise taxes the SNP’s will eventually fall out of favour, but the clear message they are giving is that any political progress in Scotland depends on the existence of a SNP Goverment.

britologywatch on "Calman report calls for 'Scottish income tax'"

britologywatch — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:58:25 +0100

How about introducing accountability for spending decisions relating to England only in the Westminster parliament by excluding Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish MPs from taking part in them? Oops, can't do that because of the Barnett consequentials, which for the moment remain in place. And even without those, they'd find some excuse of an argument based on 'preserving the Union'. A Union - "Union", mind you, not "devolution settlement" - that Calman itself calls asymmetric; an asymmetry it says we should take pride in and which works. If only for Scotland (if that).

blobbyg on "British Scots debate how to kill English nationalism"

blobbyg — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:17:33 +0100

the scots dont get it really. i am english but i prefer to be refered to as british. all these political quarrels and history between scotland and england suddenly seem to make the scots think that england are treating scotland unfairly- i have to disagree. dispite the history it is now the central government in westminster who give scotland millions of pounds a year for them to spend in whatever way they want- on their own the scottish government could not do half the things they do at the moment. scottish devolution has pleased many of the scots but i would love one day to see the english, welsh, scottish and northern irish to start afresh and treat each other as citizens of the same country- which is something that each person, no matter which 'state' they are from, to be proud of.

truthteller on "SNP seeks budget deal"

truthteller — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:58:56 +0000

Scotland could give the Greens 33 million with one day of Scottish Oil & Gas Revenue - If Scotland did not let this vast revenue go to London !

In the 1970's
Scottish North Sea Oil
saved the Union + 60 million Brits
from Bankruptcy.

In 2010 say YES
and save Scotland + 5 million Scots
from the Credit Crunch Recession
with a £45 billion budget opposed to £33 billion pound
budget

Imagine Scotland keeping all of its oil revenue, opposed to none of the
£22,831 a Minute North Sea Oil makes.

with £32 Million Oil Money a Day Scotland could afford to;

Re build 2 High Schools a Day
Build 256 Two Bedroom Homes a Day
Erect 16 Green Wind Turbines a Day

Give all Scottish Resident's each £2300 a
year in additional services, investments, loans and DEVELOPMENT GRANTS for Scotland's Future Prosperity.

BEFORE YOU VOTE READ THE SECRET MCCRONE SCOTTISH ECONOMY REPORT

http://www.oilofscotland.org

IF YOU USUALLY VOTE for the Scottish Labour Party YOU STILL CAN IN AN INDEPENDENT "OIL RICH" SCOTLAND

Dougthedug on "Scottish budget voted down"

Dougthedug — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:25:40 +0000

Mike:

I think the Green's may not get all they want out of this budget. They were promised £22 Million with the concession of funding from other sources to take it up to £33 Million for their insulation schemes but that was because they were the king-makers at the time. The SNP do not want to alienate them but I suspect if Lib-Dem support is forthcoming then the extra concession may be withdrawn with the simple message that the SNP will play ball with the Greens but the Greens also have to play ball with the SNP.

Labour and the Lib-Dems are both led by the clueless. When Alex Salmond made the perfectly reasonable point that a Government which can't get its budget through should resign they both looked into the electoral abyss and the abyss stared straight back into them. Only the SNP and strangely enough the Tories don't fear a contest in Scotland. The Lib-Dems immediate offer to forget the holy-grail of a 2p tax cut under the threat of an early election really shows how little they understood what the consequences of a no vote could be.

I suspect that both the Labour party and the Lib-Dems assumed that the Budget would go through on the strength of the Green Vote and that they could play silly buggers and vote no with impunity.

In the end it was Patrick Harvie who played silly buggers and if the Lib-Dems come in to support the SNP budget he could get left out in the cold.

Labour may be playing a wrecking game in the hope that they can get Iain Gray into the FM's post without an election if Alex Salmond resigns but I think that any hopes of that faded with Annabel Goldie's assault on Iain Gray at FMQ following the budget. Of course it may come down to the fact that the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament has very little talent to play with and voted no without any forward thinking or Plan B whatsoever.

Since the whole Lib-Dem strategy of demanding a 2p tax cut as a prerequisite for a deal in order to stop any chance of negotiations with the SNP was driven by Tavish Scott I suspect either that he's looked at the polls and gulped or more likely that some of the high-ups in the Lib-Dems both in Scotland and in the rest of Britain have looked at the Lib-Dems standing in the polls and urged him to change his stance or continue the discussions with a piece of 2" by 4".

The Labour party and the Lib-Dems come out of the affair looking like political amateurs which is probably a fair reflection of their abilities.

Mike Small on "Scottish budget voted down"

Mike Small — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:52:28 +0000

The budget will be revised and passed. It will be a victory for the Greens and have a good effect on SNP poltical culture. The reason? There are two: 1) Patrick Harvies proposals make good sense for the economy, for those facing fuel poverty and for climate change. 2) Labour and the Liberals know if they force an election their vote will collapse further.

If Harvies plans are not accepted though it will make the Scotish Green Party have to have a very long hard look at its internal workings. The stakes for at least two parties are very high and tey can only save themselves by working together. Its a classic prisoners dilemma.

Nick Lyon on "Scottish budget voted down"

Nick Lyon — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:18:22 +0000

"Independent MSP Margo MacDonald also voted against the budget."

No she voted for the governments budget. The SNP plus the Tories only equals 63 votes - she makes it 64 as one Tory member is the Presiding officer bringing their total of MSPS down to 16.

Dougthedug on "SNP seeks budget deal"

Dougthedug — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:08:55 +0000

I watched Newsnight (Scotland) on the Wednesday the 7th which was about the Scottish budget and during the program it came out in that program that the Labour Party has presented no costed proposals for budget changes.

Since the Scottish budget is derived from a fixed block grant then any proposal by a party for an increase in funding somewhere has to be matched by a proposed cut somewhere else to ensure the budget is balanced.

If you read the Labour site you link to there is a lot of hot air but no mention of costed proposals to amend the budget.

The story going the rounds in Scotland is that after Labour came out of Government in the Scottish Parliament the loss of Civil Service support hit them hard as they had been so used to being the party in power that they relied heavily on the Civil Service to do a lot of their donkey work and simply didn't have the capabilities to do things on their own.

Posturing and demanding vague uncosted "changes" is not the way to change a budget. If the Labour Party present no costed changes to amend the budget it is the mark of a party which simply can't hack it in the real world.

Toque on "Another Calman meeting cancelled"

Toque — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:37:38 +0000

My paternal grandmother, Lily, was a Stuart, and (apparently) a decendant of Lord Roxburgh (see Darien and Act of Union - he was a supporter). Although her surname was Young, her middle name was Stuart (a strange name for a girl) because the family were proud of their Scottish roots.

She was born in Berwick upon Tweed and always considered herself English. Her cousins, born in Kelso (where my great-grandfather was a blacksmith) were Scottish - and I've been in touch with one recently who is researching the family tree. I still have relatives in Berwick and surrounds, all of whom, despite some Scottish ancestry, consider themselves English. Funnily enough the Kelso lot, despite having some English ancestry, consider themselves Scottish.

I wonder whether any of the Berwick Youngs, separated from the Kelso Youngs by the English-Scottish border, ever went riding the bounds.

Dark Lochnagar on "Another Calman meeting cancelled"

Dark Lochnagar — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:08:42 +0000

Berwick is fully in England although a significant percentage of the population would rather be in Scotland.

Hendre on "Calman, shared social citizenship, and the defence of the union"

Hendre — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:21:59 +0000

In terms of shared social citizenship and devolution I think we all know one of the main sources of tension to date – policies with easily calculable financial benefits.

The Welsh Assembly Government has decided to bring all hospital cleaning in-house except where long-term commercial contracts need to be fulfilled. This has barely been reported upon outside Wales but when the Assembly Government extended the principle to hospital car parking this was immediately picked up by the London media and added to the CEP list of ‘discriminatory’ policies – people could calculate in pounds and pence what this divergent policy meant to them.

One of the earliest and most popular Assembly policies was the all-Wales bus pass entitling free travel throughout Wales for pensioners. I can recall a spokesman for the Department of Transport pronouncing rather sniffily in the Western Mail that the Welsh policy was ‘unsustainable’ but, lo and behold, a similar all-England bus pass has now been introduced. This policy didn’t become headline news probably because most councils in England had some sort of concessionary scheme in place and therefore the financial benefit was less obvious.

The Welsh decision to abolish SATS would have been noted in education circles in England but it took a god-almighty mess with the marking for there to be a greater public appreciation that only English school children were still sitting these exams.

The bans on hunting and smoking in Scotland were viewed with interest on the whole in England but the policy on student grants and fees with anger.

And what of free prescription charges? The Assembly Government has pointed out quite rightly that the list of exemptions hadn’t been reviewed in years and anomalies had arisen. The Assembly could have tinkered at the edges but decided on a bold policy of abolition. It has justified this by noting that Wales has higher levels of chronic sickness coupled with a low wage economy – removing the burden of prescription fees could help the chronic sick back into work. However most Welsh commentators would agree that the Assembly – or rather Welsh Labour – was having a bit of an ‘eye-catching initiative’ moment.

One question that needs to be explored is even if more equitable – in English eyes – funding arrangements were found would policies with calculable financial benefits still impinge on a shared social citizenship?

In Brian Taylor’s comments I think I detect a certain concern that the pendulum may swing too much against all forms of divergence – after all what is the point of devolution if we can’t do some things differently.

alex_buchan on "Calman, shared social citizenship, and the defence of the union"

alex_buchan — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:23:02 +0000

£500, 000 may seem a lot if Calman is merely stating the obvious, perhaps not so, as far as Brown is concerned, if Calman is laying down the intellectual basis for an about turn and a partial return to the old unionist verities.

But democratic collectivism as an ideology does not have the allegiance of Scots in the way it used to and might just stick in their throats. They've got used to the democratic republican spirit unleashed by the constitutional convention.

We shall have to wait and see what the repercussions are if Westminster tries to reverse devolution as Anthony suggest on the back of Calman. No doubt they will try to muddy the water with some ineffectual powers going the other way.