Hamish MacDonell: Was there a darker reason for Lib Dems' U-turn on tax?

Published on Wednesday 4 February 2009 21:02

THE Liberal Democrats have suffered general derision over their decision to ditch their policy of cutting income tax by 2p in the pound, then falling over themselves to do a deal with the SNP.

So why did they do it? Why did Tavish Scott, the Lib Dem leader, move so quickly to ditch a policy he had stood by so defiantly?

The first point that emerged from the Lib Dem group yesterday was that this was Mr Scott's decision. He really did lead from the front on this one. Mr Scott decided, as soon as the Budget fell last week, that the Lib Dems could get themselves back in the game and get something out of it, and he persuaded his parliamentary group to back him.

"Tavish got a fairly easy ride on this," said one Lib Dem MSP. "He explained the situation and, after discussion, he was given the backing to do it."

Having decided to renegotiate with the SNP, there was then the difficult question of what the Lib Dems would ask for. Other parties demanded specific budgetary proposals, but the Lib Dems did not. Instead, they asked for the First Minister's submission to the Calman Commission, a financial services task force for jobs and a new approach to spending decisions in the future, involving all the parties.

A Lib Dem source said this was deliberate, because the party had just come from a position of demanding massive public-sector cuts to pay for an income tax cut.

"We couldn't go from public-sector cuts to demanding that public money be spent on specific projects; we would have been crucified," said the source.

The Lib Dems got their deal, the SNP got the votes it needed to get the Budget through, and that was that. Or was it? There were suggestions last night that this might be the start of a "Lib Dem-SNP love-in", and that the Liberals might be prepared to help the Scottish Government more in the future, on local income tax and possibly on other matters.

This would help the Lib Dems ease themselves out of Labour's shadow and give the SNP an alternative to relying on the Greens to get legislation through. Was this the underlying reason behind Mr Scott's opportunism?