Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 22nd November 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Clegg clears way for Liberal Democrats to do deal with SNP on local income tax



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 05 September 2008
By HAMISH MACDONELL
NICK Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, yesterday gave his blessing to a deal with the SNP that could mean local income tax being introduced in Scotland.
He said he wanted the party north of the Border to come to an agreement with the Scottish Government because he hoped a local income tax would be introduced and the council tax abolished.

Alex Salmond, the First Minister, announced earlier this
week that he was going to push ahead with plans to introduce a local income tax, set centrally at 3p in the pound, and a bill would be published in the next parliamentary session.

The Liberal Democrats also want a local income tax, but they want it to be levied by individual councils, not set by the Scottish Government.

Neither side has yet agreed to compromise on this central issue, but Mr Clegg gave a clear hint that he believed the SNP might drop its insistence on a nationally set rate.

Mr Clegg said the Nationalists' "formal" policy, set by the party at previous conferences, was for local discretion and he said he hoped they would move back to that.

He said: "Where, of course, we presently differ from the SNP is that, while the SNP's formal policy is still that it should be a genuine local tax, namely one that can be varied by communities locally, their present proposal is, of course, much more rigid than that – it is actually a set rate.

"That is precisely the issue on which we want to persuade the SNP to go back to their better instincts, so that we are once again in line with each other."

Labour suggested yesterday that a "backroom deal" was in the offing. Cathy Jamieson, Scottish Labour's acting leader, challenged Nicola Sturgeon, standing in for Mr Salmond at First Minister's Questions, to give an "absolute guarantee" that Scotland would not have 32 different tax rates – one for each council.

Ms Sturgeon did not give a direct answer but later said: "The SNP looks forward to having very constructive discussions with our friends in the Liberal Democrats under the new broom of Tavish Scott."



The full article contains 369 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

karinxxx,

05/09/2008 00:07:10
its good that clegg is "allowing" the scottish lib dems to do a deal on local income tax but at the same time it just goes to show that all the political parties except the SNP take their orders from westminster.
2

Trams, prams, jams & bams,

05/09/2008 00:14:39
What? Is the Piano Bar closed already?

3

Alan Reid,

Aberdeen 05/09/2008 00:21:33
#1, Spot on.
4

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 05/09/2008 00:34:41
I thought the Lib Dems were a devolved party with the Scottish Lib Dems able to make their own decisions? Apparently not so. Still, it's all looking more likely that LIT will (despite the Scotsman's campaign against it) become a reality. If Jack McConnell goes and the SNP win his seat we'll have a three seat majority over Labour (48 to 45) plus the Lib Dems 16 and Margo McDonald (who looks like she'll support LIT if the SNP change tack, which they may have to do in negotiations with the Lib Dems). If the Greens, Tories and Labour vote together it'll be 65 - 64. Jack had better not go to Malawi. As for the £400m, I see Henry McLeish was in favour of it coming to Scotland on Politics Now, and Cathy Jamieson has said if she wins the leadership contest she'll speak to Gordon Brown to demand it comes to Scotland. Of course, the chances are that by the time LIT has gone through the parliament Labour won't be in power.
5

Joseph Gibson,

Ayrshire 05/09/2008 00:59:33

Why do I find it very, very hard to believe... I don't know. But I just don't think we'll get rid of Council Tax, and especially if millions of idoits vite conservative next year.
6

somerferg,

perth 05/09/2008 01:26:20

#4 - thought I had already seen the most stupid comment today but thank you for reminding me that there are even bigger numpties out there i.e. YOU.
7

FedUpTaxPayer,

Edinburgh 05/09/2008 07:17:13
A bit of sanity in the LIT debate. I just don't see what's 'local' about the current SNP LIT plans. If councils cannot vary the tax, by raising or lowering LIT (or council tax or any other tax that they may have) then they lose part of the ability to differ from each other.

Like the SNP want for the whole of government, the ability to control both how much is taken and tax and also how much is spent, surely it must be the same for local councils. If they cannot control how much they get, only what it is spent on, they have lost some accountability.
8

Boy Wonder,

05/09/2008 07:32:32
Can't Cleggie order his troops home ... to London?? Libdumbs have almost wrecked Edinburgh as it is!
9

james 1st,

hamilton nz 05/09/2008 07:33:09
i support the snp and independence but i dont like this local income tax idea.
in nz property owners pay rates based mainly on their land values and that is a better system, though i dont like paying rates but the money has to come from somewhere
10

james 1st,

hamilton nz 05/09/2008 07:34:50
will comapnies pay the 3p or not? if so this is just another tax burden to hurt the scottish ceconomy and make it uncompetitive
11

KennethM,

Stockholm 05/09/2008 07:47:00
What on earth is the big deal about having 32 different rates of local taxation?

In Sweden, there are 290 communes, each with their own local tax rate, and no employers I am aware of are screaming about the difficulties of collecting tax from their employees.

The rates of local tax are all fairly close to each other, so the vast majority of people don't make decisions to move somewhere else simply because of the local tax rate, and, if you do happen to be the type of person who moves around a lot, that doesn't complicate things either, as your liability is determined once per tax year on a fixed date.

With modern technology, how hard can it be? I mean, really!
12

Richardinho,

05/09/2008 08:02:10
I suspect the reason the SNP wants the tax to be set nationally is because otherwise you'd get some councils (probably numpty labour) setting a higher rate and then blaming it on the SNP.
I think the rate should be set locally, but I think that councils will then have to take responsibility for the rate they set it at.
13

MacGillicuddy,

05/09/2008 08:27:49
Hold on a moment!
We are constantly being told that the Fibdums in Scotland are completely independent of the Fibdums in London. That being so WHY is Clegg giving his permission for the Scottish Fibdums to do a deal with the SNP?
14

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 05/09/2008 08:34:16
The only tax power available to the Scottish Government is a 3p variation in Income Tax. Unfortunately the Scottish Government has to spend a great deal of time and effort trying to do the best for Scotland within the shackles of the Scotland Act.
15

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/09/2008 08:47:49
#16 The SNP claim that their LIT plans have nothing to do with the income tax varying powers of the SP. And indeed, their plans call for a 3% increase on both the basic and higher rates of income tax, while the Scotland Act allows the SP only to vary the basic rate.

So I'm afraid your logic is flawed.

As for the SNP planning "a local income tax, set centrally", surely even a diehard Nat can see that that is a contradiction in terms. The SNP plan a national tax and the complete removal of fiscal responsibility from local authorities. Let's at least be honest about this.
16

The Tin Man,

05/09/2008 09:09:21
In order for a LIT to the voted in, the government have are force to implement the 'Local' bit...

Why are the SNP such central-government control-freaks? They even put Labour in Wesminster to shame.
17

The Tin Man,

05/09/2008 09:11:55
#18 sm753

I am sure you know that the party-political robots that frequent comments sections quote what suites their adgenda, and keep quiet about all else.

Hopefully, they are not like that in real life.
18

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 05/09/2008 09:12:43
#1+5- the Liberal Democrats have a federal structure so that means we have the devolved authority in Scotland, Wales as well as in England to take decisions without necessary "approval" from on high as you would crudely put it. All Nick Clegg is reflecting is his shared belief in that devolution of LIT down to LOCAL level.

It does seem we are really the only party that properly understands what devolution is SUPPOSED to be all about, and that includes the SNP in my estimation. We understand what federalism is about and we understand what we mean when we use the term Home Rule. This is not, never has been and probably never will mean seperation of Scotland from the rest of the UK. In a federal Britain our identity as an ancient nation would be fostered and thrive as would that of Wales, England and indeed N.Ireland. I realise many of the correspondents to this column continue to find it hard to get their head round this whole concept, but thats the job of the likes of Tavish Scott as well as Nick Clegg to hopefully get you to eventually see the light at the end of this rather blinkered tunnel you find yourselves in.
19

Linda,

Edinburgh 05/09/2008 09:13:35
The proposed tax is local on basis that UK set tax is national. It is sensible for uniform rate to be introduced initially then after a few years allow local councils the right to vary it as this would make them act responsibly as they would have to justify any increase from 3p .

Customs and Revenue have the mechanics in place and a duty to collect 3p in £ under Scotland Act.

It is hypocritical for NUS to complain about LIT. Any student unfortunate to pay any tax at all will be hurt 3 and half time more by Gordon Brown's decision to double to 10p tax band to 20p. The NUS is silent on that.

Unions should start looking after their lower paid workers and support LIT rather than bankrolling the Labour Party.
20

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 05/09/2008 09:22:23
Who is this Mr. Nick Clegg?
21

MacGillicuddy,

05/09/2008 09:26:47
#21
And the band played "Believe it if you like!! LOL
22

The Tin Man,

05/09/2008 09:30:38
#22 Linda

...Wait until the NUS start on about the government considering students to be unfit to buy alchol from a shop.
23

BIG EYE,

Paisley 05/09/2008 09:36:48
Wow, this SNP government is something is it not?

Only yesterday I was reading screeds about how it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the SNP to get this passed and the very next morning it is beginning to look sorted!

Now that's what I call government!
24

The Tin Man,

05/09/2008 09:49:57
#26 Big Eye

It is not really news - this has been going on for ages. The LibDems want a local income tax, and the government want a central-government income tax, but the bill will not get through without the LibDems support.

Whether or not the government are willing to make the tax local boils down to whether or not the government really wants to introduce a LIT.
25

GM,

05/09/2008 10:30:56
@27

My understanding is that centrally set at 3% is simply to make the administrative task of bringing in the tax a little easier at the outset.

I understand the SNP *have always* made it clear that over time, the ability to control the level of the tax locally would be provided.

I s'pose we will have to wait and see the detail when published.



I agree with #26 though...
The Scotsman devoted pages and pages to hpw this tax would *never* be implemented and the very next day we have this piece of news!?

Bewildering stuff even by The Scotsmand comic book reporting standards.
26

Joe,

Lanark Road. 05/09/2008 10:32:18
Lib Dems Local income tax paid by the poorest of taxpayers..hardly the Robin Hood scenario set by the SNP is it? I doubt this unholy alliance will last much longer than the next Holyrood elections.
27

GM,

05/09/2008 10:32:53
@18

because the SNP long term plan is for the tax to be set locally...
28

Jock Politicaljunkie,

Glasgow 05/09/2008 10:34:24


A good move towards pragmatic compromise by the Libdems seeking to forward one of their manifesto promises that is all but identical to that of the SNP Government. The Tories are presently comfortably ahead of the Libdems in all the polls in Scotland. I think this is down the THEIR more pragmatic and (slightly) less confrontational aproach to the SNP Government.

When we get down to basics on LIT, both sides seem to have settled on a 3% figure so where is the problem on who sets it? It already has been set.

This is a window of oportuity that will allow two parties to honour a manifesto pledge and make our Tax System a lot fairer. It will also allow the Libdems some time in the political limelight. Something they have stuggled to get since last May due to the sniping nature of Nicol Stephen's leadership and this has allowed the Tories to move ahead of them.


29

GM,

05/09/2008 10:35:15
@17

I think your own post is flawed - it is my understanding that the tax will eventually be set locally. We will see when the details are published.

(BTW, I'm not having a dig... I vote SNP but am not particularly enamoured with this move away from a property based tax)
30

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 05/09/2008 10:43:28
#21, Liberal for Life,

I'm pleased to see you still think your party a federalist party, despite the fact that it is impossible for the Lib Dems to deliver a federal alternative to devolve power throughout Britain without first winning power at Westminster, which seems hardly likely. No doubt this is why Tavish Scott has swithered and dithered over whether or not there should be a multi-option referendum; asking the Scots if they support federalism is pointless if the English don't ask themselves that question first. Your policy of federalism - if it is a policy (we have precious little meat on the bones) - is undeliverable; in effect, you are asking Scots to wait until English voters realize your pipe dreams. I hardly think that's a credible alternative. As for being the only party who understand what devolution is about, I find that hard to believe. The Lib Dems shared power with a Labour administration who rarely challenged Westminster policy initiatives and the Lib Dems seem to have done little to influence their partners. Now we have the sight of leadership hopefuls for Labour falling over themselves to be as Old Labour as possible, when the facts give the lie to such posturing. Last night on Newsnight we had Andy Kerr claim that the SNP are 'right-wing' - so the party who have brought in policies most Scots would have liked to have seen from previous administrations are portrayed as further to the right than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown? No doubt these are the coat tails your party wish to hang onto.
31

Doh,

05/09/2008 10:46:06

I just really hope LIT replaces the Council Tax.

It is a much fairer tax reform than say abolishing the 10p band for the poorest paid.

I hope Margo can also be convinced to support LIT rather - she did for all the years she was in the SNP.

32

The Tin Man,

05/09/2008 11:00:33
#28 GM

"I understand the SNP *have always* made it clear that over time, the ability to control the level of the tax locally would be provided."

I am sorry, but you are mistaken. By 'local' they mean country-wide, not per local authority.
33

Jock Politicaljunkie,

Glasgow 05/09/2008 11:06:27


Welcome aboard Doh. You'll see that we Gnats are an inclusive sort who will welcome all into the fold.

Whether that is issue by issue or complete conversion!
Heck, you'll be voting for Independence next. Mark my words.


34

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/09/2008 11:08:17
#32 Such "intentions" are worthless if what they actually propose is a national tax.

#22 "Customs and Revenue have the mechanics in place and a duty to collect 3p in £ under Scotland Act."

As I have said many times before, the Scotland Act only allows the SP to vary the BASIC rate of tax. The LIT proposal is to vary both the basic and the higher rate.

You cannot have your cake and eat it. Either this is a use of the 3% tax varying powers, in which case it is a centralisation of local authority funding and control combined with a massive cut in spending; or this is outwith the 3% income tax limit, in which case it is a centralisation of local authority funding and control combined with a slightly smaller cut in spending.
35

Farky,

05/09/2008 11:10:29
Katty Jamieson claims "backroom deals" are were in the offing... between the SNP and Lib Dems. Really? The Labour Party would never do such a thing of course. They are so squeaky clean after all :o)

36

Miss H,

05/09/2008 11:42:54
13 The big deal about having 32 different rates of taxation is mainly an administrative one.

The Scottish Government controls local taxation but not income tax which is controlled by Westminster.

Therefore in order to collect an income tax Westminster has to agree to it. Asking them to agree to a way of collecting up to 32 different variable tax rates from people living in Scotland, according to which local authority area they lived in would just be silly. The chances of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs agreeing to do this are zilch.

So initually it will be set at a flat rate. Depending on what happens after that - whether Scotland becomes independent, has fiscal autonomy or whatever position is arrived at, councils could be given the powers to vary the tax.
37

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/09/2008 12:04:38
#39 Watch where you're waving that hand, you could hit someone.

So the SNP tactic is twofold: propose a tax which is outwith the competence of the SP and blame Westminster when it fails; and don't propose a local tax, blaming the idea that Westminster wouldn't allow it.

Why not do what every previous Executive has done, and legislate within the law?
38

Ronaldo Stuffed Everyone,

05/09/2008 12:14:26
Salmond is a complete disaster as a nationalist. Populist he may be, but he has not done one single thing to improve Scotland . He has done more to ruin the countryside than any single adminstration before him, he has failed to invest in youth, failed to make Scotland competitive, failed to improve the A9, allowed rural schools to close and is using taxtion in the same mean minded way the labour party did.
39

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/09/2008 12:27:40
#42 I always find it fascinating when Cyber Nats constantly criticise the Scotsman for inaccuracies in reporting anything the SNP does, but when they make a statement about another party, the headlines are taken as gospel.

Could it be that the Scotsman indulges in the same exaggerations when discussing all parties? Could it be that Nick Clegg simply said he wanted the Scottish Lib Dems to come to an agreement, not that he gave them permission to?
40

KennethM,

Stockholm 05/09/2008 12:52:19
#39 - If IT system changes are going to have to be made *anyway* to support the collection of a Scottish local income tax, then how much more difficult can it be to have different rates of tax for different groups of Scottish postcodes? This type of scaremongering is one of the most ridiculous 'arguments' currently doing the rounds against LIT.

There are many aspects of UK tax law that are more complex and time-consuming to understand and apply than a different rate of income tax depending on address. That is basically just an IT problem, which will take a little bit of one-off investment granted, but is hardly the end of the world.

#40 - The Scotland Act 1998 gives Holyrood power over local taxation, but then doesn't give Holyrood the powers that are realistically required to accompany that main power, for example, the power to direct HMRC, the power to use social security benefits related to local taxation in whichever way Holyrood chooses, etc.

Regardless of your view on the specific scheme being proposed by the SNP, you surely at least acknowledge that the Scotland Act does give the Scottish Parliament power to implement a different local taxation system to that which prevails south of the border.

There is not much point in having this power if all it means in practice is that Scotland can have whatever local tax system it likes as long as it's the same as the one in England, so then I don't think it is too outrageous for the current Scottish Government to ask Westminster politely for help in implementing its preferred scheme, regardless of what the law (in the form of the Scotland Act) requires Westminster to do.

If Westminster chooses to be un-cooperative, then that is its choice and the voters will perhaps make a judgement on that at some point in the future. However, in life, you sometimes need to have a backbone and stand up for what you believe in, regardless of whether this results in the creation of a few enemies along the way.

I think
41

KennethM,

Stockholm 05/09/2008 12:52:39
I think the opinion poll evidence shows that most Scottish people like the way in which the SNP Government stands up for Scotland, and it is just a shame that the English people don't have similar representatives to stand up for them against the quasi-dictatorial forces of the UK establishment.
42

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/09/2008 13:20:10
#44 Your argument is very peculiar. Local taxation in the UK has been raised, collected and spent locally since the Poor Laws of the 15th century. The basis of charges - land, property, windows, valuations, head counts - has changed over that time, but the notion that local taxation is raised, collected and spent locally has been unchanged for 500 years.

It is an entirely reasonable basis for the Scotland Act to enshrine this 5-century-old principle in law and assure that taxes will continue to be raised, collected and spent locally.

The SNP wants to abolish local taxation, not change its basis. Under the LIT proposals there will be no local tax raising, no local tax collection, and no local tax spending.

This, of course, is entirely within their rights. But they cannot decide to plug that taxation gap with wholesale changes to the national tax system and then moan that they should be allowed to. The fiscal powers of the Scottish Parliament were widely debated and vote on specifically in the devolution referendum. It can amend the basic rate of income tax by 3 per cent, full stop.

The idea that this carefully constructed fight-picking from the SNP is to be described as "Westminster choosing to be uncooperative" is a dreadful piece of Nationalist spin.
43

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

05/09/2008 13:20:51
The negotiate part is simple - try making the bloody tax local.
44

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

05/09/2008 13:22:56
Vote no a central government tax.
45

The Tin Man,

05/09/2008 14:02:44
#47 Fedralist

I think it boils down to whether the government think they will do better out of introducing a temporary tax-cut around the next election, in which case, they agree to make a LIT local.

Or whether the government think they will look better by not agreeing to make it local, then not getting the legislation voted-in, and then blaming everyone else.
46

Embra Don,

05/09/2008 14:17:36
#21 Liberal for life

I used to be a Liberal and still believe there is some intellectual credibility in federalism.

Unfortunately the other 90 odd percent of the UK are not in the least bit interested and we can hardly impose it on them. A federal solution is as likely to happen as fusion becoming a viable source of energy. i.e. it is at least 40 years away and always will be.
47

Miss H,

05/09/2008 14:29:57
40 They are legislating within the law. But the law is not everything. You have to make a political judgement about how much you can push. The SNP has made the judgement that council tax is not defendable and they can push the argument on CTB with some degree of success - Scottish Labour are no longer defending council tax and have shifted their position on CTB. But to push the argument on a locally variable tax would be a mistake because that is a harder argument to win than CTB because the counter argument can validly be put that it will add to the expense and complexity of introducing the tax in the first place. So you take it one step at a time.

You of course are viewing this through the prism of believing that the SNP don't want to bring in LIT and the only purpose is to pick a fight with Westminster. I don't see it that way. I think the Lib Dems will be brought on board in some way and Labour will oppose but then abstain and it will happen.
48

Embra Don,

05/09/2008 14:30:17
The fundamental dilemma for Labour and its supporters is that LIT is a fairer system and, instinctively and morally, they probably agree with it - but it would not go down well at all among the self interested Mail reading swing voters of "middle England" that they need to retain power. They can't use it there and they can't be seen to support something different here.
49

Miss H,

05/09/2008 14:34:06
44 That may all be true but it doesn't matter. It's not within the Scottish Parliament's power.
50

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/09/2008 14:39:45
#51 Miss H, they have brought forward a proposal to increase the higher rate of income tax by 3%. The SP is not competent to do this - this is outwith the law. No matter how you look at it, that is a bald fact.

You can try to excuse it by calling it a local tax - but it isn't a local tax, it's set nationally, collected nationally and distributed nationally.

For you to come back at #53 and say that something can't be done because "It's not within the Scottish Parliament's power" is utterly hypocritical.
51

The Master,

05/09/2008 14:52:50
#39 Miss H: but how can councils eventually be given powers to vary the tax if HMRC don't agree to implement this through the PAYE system? Everyone knows that they're not going to agree to collect separate rates of tax from 32 different local authority areas.
52

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/09/2008 14:56:41
#55 My mistake.

Local taxation in the nations which are currently constituents of the UK has been raised, collected and spent locally since the Poor Laws of the 15th century.
53

Miss H,

05/09/2008 14:58:35
54 Not so. These are political not legal matters we are discussing.

The Scotland Act does not contain any limitation on the use of provisions to alter the boundaries of devolution. Any reserved matters could be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, using the mechanisms already in the Act. No further primary legislation would be required at Westminster or Holyrood.

The decision whether to cooperate is a political decision for UK ministers to take. They don't even need to go to the House of Commons. Otherwise Labour and the Lib Dems and the Tories would also be advocating breaking the law because they also wish to push the boundaries of the Scotland Act a lot further.

What I said to 53 is that no matter how sensible his points are the SNP Govt could not do it as it is not within the powers of the SP. What I had said previously - and what I said to you - was that it is a political judgement call what boundaries you push.

I am sure you are capable of understanding that so stop pretending you don't.
54

Miss H,

05/09/2008 14:59:13
56 No they wouldn't just now. But things can change.
55

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/09/2008 15:06:40
#58 Pure sophistry.

Please define the difference between "pushing the boundaries" and "attempting to do something outwith the powers of the SP".

Your argument is laughable. The decision whether to "cooperate"? You mean the decision whether to change the law.
56

Miss H,

05/09/2008 15:29:59
61 No Duncan. You don't need to change the law. Read what I said again.
57

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/09/2008 15:38:42
#59 What are you on about? Council Tax is set by local councils. It hasn't "increased under Labour", it has increased under every shade of political leadership in power across the country. At different rates, because it is controlled by the local democratic process.

I am attacking this specific proposal from the SNP because I consider it deeply flawed and dangerous. That is mainly because it is unworkable, anti-democratic and illegal, and will result in centralising of power and massive cuts in public services.

The argument against LIT in general is more finely balanced. In its favour, it is a progressive tax. However, we already have a preponderance of income-based taxation, and it is important to have a wide tax basis otherwise revenues become more volatile and avoidance becomes more prevalent. An element of property or land tax is very helpful for the tax base.

On balance, I would prefer a land tax.

But I stress again, my main argument against this proposal isn't that it is a form of LIT - it is that it is a massive spending cut and an abolition of local taxation in favour of national.
58

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/09/2008 15:40:03
#62 Just because parliament doesn't have to vote doesn't mean ministers aren't changing the law! I do understand the difference between primary and secondary legislation. Do you? It's all the law, whether parliament votes on it or not.
59

Doh,

05/09/2008 15:42:15
#36

Grasshopper - the longest journey starts with the smallest step. I hope one day we can all live together
under one big federal tent.
60

Miss H,

05/09/2008 15:48:29
64 Alright you don't need to change the Scotland Act if you prefer. You said that the Scottish Parliament does not have the competence to do it, it is outwith the law full stop. You did not say it is outwith the law as it currently stands which can of course be altered at the stroke of a ministerial pen. Your argument in fact is that the SNP Govt should be like their predecessors and be bound completely and utterly by the current powers of the Parly - having somehow failed to notice that no party is now satisfied with the current powers of the parly and even G Brown has shifted position on increasing the powers. Sorry should I say breaking the law?
61

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/09/2008 15:59:25
#66 Good grief. Well done on accepting that, even though you are still stamping your foot indignantly as if you were somehow in the right.

And don't put words into my mouth. I never for a moment claimed that the law couldn't be changed, I simply stated, over and over until you finally understood, that the law would HAVE to be changed if the SNP's proposals were to be workable.

And EVERY Scottish Exec is bound completely and utterly by the current powers of the Parliament. No harm in arguing that these powers should be changed, but simply no sense in bringing forward legislation for which the parliament is incompetent.

Now, please define the difference between "pushing the boundaries" and "attempting to do something outwith the powers of the SP", or can we now properly agree that they are one and the same thing, and that your argument to differentiate them has been false?
62

Publius,

Londoner 05/09/2008 16:14:52
Interviewer to David Cameron: "Do you know any political jokes?"
Cameron: "Yes. Nick Clegg."
63

The Tin Man,

05/09/2008 16:18:04
#63 Hawkeye

The LIT proposal, as it stands, bears almost no resembalance whatsoever to the Swiss system. The LIT as it stands, is the abandonment of local taxation, and a corresponding increase in income tax. What is the similarity?

But mind you, as you are saying that the government might propose just about any system, and we are all yet to find out what they are proposing, then it could resemble any tax system.
64

Miss H,

05/09/2008 16:21:19
I can only repeat Duncan that these are political not legal matters we are discussing. If you want to make a political argument against LIT then go ahead, there are plenty of them. The Scotsman supplied 25 yesterday.

But you saying it is illegal is not actually an argument and will not stop it happening if the SP votes for it.

Sometimes I can hardly believe how rigid people like you are in your thinking.

If the LIT bill goes thru with Lib Dem support, labour abstain, COSLA agree, COSLA and Scottish govt go to Westminster and make their case - do you think they are going to say no to the SG and every local authority? And if your big gripe is the SG setting the rate - nothing to stop LAs agreeing to set a common rate on terms negotiated by COSLA as with concordat and council tax freeze.

It is all about cooperation and negotiation which you clearly don't like but that is how things work with minority govt in pr system.
65

The Tin Man,

05/09/2008 16:34:31
#71 Miss H

"if your big gripe is the SG setting the rate - nothing to stop LAs agreeing to set a common rate on terms negotiated by COSLA as with concordat and council tax freeze."

That is a no-brainer, not an answer to the 'gripe'.
66

Publius,

London 05/09/2008 16:42:06
#59 Hawkeye the Noo

You write "That tax [LIT] is a scourge and a digrace. How much has it increased under Labour. 60% or something. Yeuch"

Income tax for the average tax payer has increased by 80 per cent under Labour - and now the SNP wants to add a bit more to income tax!
67

Publius,

London 05/09/2008 16:54:40
Several posts assert that income tax is fairer than LIT. This is arguable. The main beneficiaries will be pensioners who live in large houses and their offspring who will inherit property without paying capital gains tax.

Consider the following:
(1) Many pensioners bought their houses on mortgages with tax relief on interest payments. No tax relief for today's workers with mortgages.
(2)Many pensioners have pensions derived from final salary schemes financed through tax reliefs for life assurance companies and similar. No final pension schemes for future pensioners. They have disappeared, and there is no longer tax relief on tax reliefs on pension/life assurance shcemes. (5 billion a year goes to the exchequer since Brown changed the rules).

This change may seem fair to pensioners but it is not fair to the working pouplation who do not get the tax reliefs that pensioners did when they were working.
68

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/09/2008 20:04:07
#71 Miss H I have and will continue to make a political argument against the SNP's LIT proposal, thank you very much.

But it was you who suggested that there was this fundamental difference between "pushing the boundaries" - your view of the proposal to act outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament to increase the higher rate of income tax - and "attempting to do something outwith the powers of the SP" - which was how you described the idea of allowing local authorities to set their own rates and asking HMRC to implement such a scheme.

It is quite clear that they are not different at all. In fact it strikes me that if you are going to push for one you might as well push for the other.

I'm willing to suspend disbelief for a moment and accept that the SNP is serious about implementing LIT, rather than using it as a cynical lever towards independence. The problem is that promising to introduce this form of LIT is akin to promising, for example, to award all ferry routes to a subsidised CalMac. In other words, potentially popular, but legally impossible - EU rules forbid it.

Like all other political parties, the SNP has a responsibility not to make promises it cannot deliver, nor to misrepresent why it cannot do so. Would the SNP promise to effectively nationalise CalMac, and then complain that the EU was being uncooperative by not changing free trade rules?

I think the SNP is indulging in playground politics here, as has been their wont since last May. It's a truly terrible way to run the country, and I can only hope that they grow out of it soon.

The SNP's LIT proposals are not only unworkable, they are undemocratic and damaging to services.
69

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/09/2008 20:47:58
#67 You didn't quite understand the post to which you were replying. In it I said I favoured a land tax, not the Council Tax. I am not arguing in favour of the CT, but rather against the ridiculous, unworkable, undemocratic and frankly unbelievable LIT proposals from the SNP.

If you are suggesting that we should all welcome anything that isn't the CT simply because it isn't the CT then you are dangerously wrong, and I suspect you are forgetting that there are far worse possibilities. Remember the poll tax?
70

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 05/09/2008 23:20:37
This report is indeed bad news for certain Scotsman political reporters, en no, Hamish? Like them on double incomes who have been cheapskating at the expense of others all them years.
71

Brian Hill,

06/09/2008 00:40:41
Another one for Alex and the team. Keep it up.
72

KennethM,

Stockholm 06/09/2008 08:33:32
#46 - Did you not read what I said? Did you assume I was just arguing in support of exactly the same scheme as the SNP Government are proposing without bothering to read the details?

I absolutely think each local authority should have the power to set its own rate. In time, I would even go further and move to a Nordic system where local authorities raise the vast majority of the tax they spend, not just a small fraction of it.

However, in the meantime, my argument was that people who suggest that it would be too complex to implement 32 different rates of local taxation across Scotland are talking complete drivel. This is an extremely trivial IT problem to solve and would be much less complex than many other aspects of UK tax law.
73

Duncan in Edinburgh,

06/09/2008 12:13:45
#79 I was responding to the second part of #44, which was addressed to me. I understood perfectly, and agree with, the first point that setting local rates would not be complex. Your second point argued that the parliament is constrained when amending local taxation. This is not true. It is constrained when trying to abolish local taxation and introduce new national taxation. Quite right too.
74

tearortwo,

burton on trent 06/09/2008 21:03:58
More or less everyone recognises that council tax in its current form is unfair particularly to those, predominently elderly, people with a substantial property but little income. A local income tax on all income whether earned or from investment would be most equitable especially if basic allowances were to be raised to a more sensible amount....say £12000 in current terms. The cost of collection would be more than offset by the number of people taken out of the income tax system. Those on low incomes would, of course, continue to pay VAT on practically everything else in life as we all do but without the need for so many handouts to bolster their incomes.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Scottish National Party

More Scottish National Party >>

More Liberal Democrats

More Liberal Democrats >>

Today's Vote

Has the SNP's case for independence been damaged by the financial crisis?
Yes
No

Web Links: