Letter: Supermarket tax could create more jobs

John Swinney can actually square the circle, and satisfy all sides on his proposal to include an additional "supermarket" tax in this year's budget - if he really wants to.

The large retailers have indicated that imposition of the new tax would put the creation of 8,000 new jobs at risk.

That Bill Jamieson (Perspective, 13 January) correctly points out that this particular wolf is cried every time the government lands the big retailers with anything that impacts on their bottom line does not necessarily invalidate the argument.

I would rather see the creation of 8,000 sustainable new manufacturing jobs - but retail jobs are better than no jobs at all.

If Mr Swinney wrote exemptions into the regulation of his new tax, for companies which demonstrated that they had created their proportionate share of the 8,000 new jobs they are claiming, surely all sides of the political and business argument could be satisfied.

The businesses would see their success, and investment in the community, rewarded by (effectively) a lower tax regime (although Adam Smith may have had something to say about that), and the Liberal and Labour opposition parties in parliament (who oppose it anyway) and the SNP left-wing, have no choice but to co-operate with the governing party in order to support the creation of so many jobs.

David Fiddimore

Calton Road

Edinburgh

The old tale of new supermarkets creating hundreds of new jobs (your report, 13 January) is once more being rolled out in order to counter the idea of the new retail tax John Swinney has suggested. Where do they get their figures from?

Whenever an area is favoured for the creation of a new supermarket, the first thing that happens after the grand opening is the closure of many small retail outlets in the immediate neighbourhood.

Also, many of the jobs are part-time and low-paid, so the end result can, in fact, be detrimental to the well-being of the area.

Many retailers also quote the number of jobs involved in construction but these are temporary to the area concerned. Shoppers may save money but many lose more than money.

We need to stop the decline of our city and town centres unless we wish to go the way of our neighbours over the pond, where shops, as we know them, hardly exist now and a car is a necessary tool to access any retail outlets at all.

At the same time the last thing we need is a tax that penalises shops for being in town centres.

Let's get the figures and the possible tax right before too much damage is done.

Ian Ross

Eden Lane

Edinburgh

The Scottish Retail Consortium's response to the supermarket levy was only too predictable, but I can't believe it actually thinks that even one proposed new supermarket development anywhere in Scotland will be cancelled as a result.

The sums are too small compared with their profits and the competition in their business too fierce.

I was, however, surprised by the response in your pages because in Edinburgh we know the value of the smaller businesses, which provide jobs as well as character to high streets.

The independent shops throughout Stockbridge, Newington and Bruntsfield are thriving testimony to that.

I had thought local politicians recognised this too, especially with the way they were all over the Keep Stockbridge Local campaign last year. In their eyes defending small business must come behind attacking the SNP.

When funding for vital services are tight and options for raising extra money are limited, the SNP's modest levy on big retail businesses - which have been announcing record takings over Christmas even with the recession and can easily absorb the cost - is the right idea.

It is far better than hiking the council tax, as some seem to prefer.

Marco Biagi

Elgin Terrace

Edinburgh

Your editorial criticising the Scottish Government's proposed retail levy is uncharacteristically one-sided for my favourite newspaper.

Why did you not go further in criticising the small business bonus scheme as it is also a levy on all businesses and taxpayers who don't qualify for it?

The reason is that, as you never tire of telling us, small businesses are the backbone of our economy and our future depends on encouraging enterprise and the risk takers within our population.

Acting as the bugle boy for large retail outfits sits rather uneasily with your previous comments.

Your suggestion that, for the sake of an extra 1,000 a day, giants such as Ikea will think twice about expanding in Scotland - when its tills take 1,000 in seconds - beggars belief, and as for higher prices from the supermarkets, what has happened to your faith in competition?

Graeme McCormick

Arden

by Loch Lomond