Unionists
swallow the bait
Tuesday saw the unveiling of the
Constitutional Commission. This is seen by
Holyrood’s three London-based Opposition
parties as a splendid wheeze for countering
the SNP Government’s “National
Conversation”.
In actuality it fits rather neatly into the
National Conversation, which has always been
an inclusive exercise. Naturally the SNP
favours outright independence – it would
have to dissolve itself if it ever abandoned
this key goal – but has shown itself willing
not only to examine other options but also
to include them in a multi-option
referendum. A key difficulty in presenting
any third option (in addition to
“independence” and “the status quo”) is that
“increased powers” is essentially
meaningless in the absence of a specific and
coherent project. In essence the alleged
enthusiasts for “increased powers, but short
of independence” have volunteered to produce
such a project.
We wish them well. At a minimum it should be
an educative experience for all those
involved. Who knows? Some may even come to
concede that there is no solid ground
between independence and return to direct
rule from London. The difficulties of
keeping the disparate unionist factions on
message have already manifested themselves
in the struggle over the official name, with
Gordon Brown finally conceding the title
“Commission” (through clenched teeth) rather
than “working party” or “review”, which he
tried to impose up to the very last minute.
The choice of Chairman is also interesting.
Professor Sir Kenneth Calman KCB is a
respected medical scientist in addition to
being Chancellor of Glasgow University and
President of the Boys’ Brigade. Although he
is a fairly anglicized Scot – he curiously
says “I see myself as part of the United
Kingdom” – he has shown some initial signs
of being reluctant to take instructions from
G.Brown. With his reputation to protect (and
providing he can put up with the likes of
Broon, Cairns and the Alexander siblings) he
may well prove capable of preventing the
whole exercise degenerating into an anti-SNP
stunt. We shall see.
Plus ça
change
The strain of being Labour’s leader in
Holyrood is obviously bearing down on Wendy
Alexander. In advance of Labour’s Aviemore
conference this weekend she has published a
tract entitled “Change is what we do” which
will confirm the views of increasing numbers
of her colleagues that she is simply not up
to the job.
The opening words betray a mindset which is
disturbing in anyone aspiring to a
leadership role in Scottish politics: “We in
the Labour Party have been fortunate to live
in a time when politics in the
English-speaking world have been dominated
by three of the most gifted politicians of
the centre-left – Bill Clinton, Tony Blair,
and Gordon Brown.”
And it gets worse. There is not space here
for a detailed critique but I can recommend
Calum Cashley’s typically scintillating
demolition job at
http://calumcashley.blogspot.com/ or,
even more interestingly, Labour supporter
John Connell’s brutally honest assessment in
Wendy and the Peter Pan-jandrums of
Scottish Labour. (Thank God for the
occasional intelligent unionist!)
What is ultimately so depressing about Wendy’s tract is that it is
such a badly-written rehash of all the myths
and scare stories that Labour, new and old,
has been recycling for 50 years. Plus ça
change.
Local Income Tax: disentangling myth and
fact
The press onslaught aimed at rubbishing SNP plans to replace
Council Tax (CT) with a local income tax
(LIT) has been ferocious and unrelenting. It
has also demonstrated the extent to which
the Scottish press is dominated by shoddy
and slipshod journalism.
Any change in tax systems produces winners and losers. The
attractions of LIT are that the winners
include the tens of thousands of people
reduced to near-penury by CT while the
losers are people who are in a position to
pay more.
Much of the indignation in the press has been concentrated on what
we may call “fringe hypotheticals”. For
example the basic fairness of the new system
is challenged by the possibility that some
tycoon with £1million per year in interest
and dividends pays nothing while currently
he may be forced to pay up to £3000 per year
in CT.
This overlooks the fact that the said tycoon will find most of his
unearned income subject to general income
tax at 40%. Since some four-fifths of local
government revenue comes from central
taxation we can safely assume that the
mythical tycoon’s contribution is many times
greater than that of the average LIT payer.
The flip side of the stereotypical tax avoider scenario is the case
of the poor overburdened captains of
industry. One newspaper printed estimates of
the considerable sums some of Scotland’s
richest men would have to pay in LIT and
postulated that many might be tempted to
emigrate. The extent to which this is valid
is surely dwarfed by the thirteen-fold
greater burden imposed by Westminster.
Also, it would seem that the newspaper in question did not actually
have any evidence that any of the “rich
list” mentioned had any intention of fleeing
the country in the event of a shift from CT
to LIT. On the contrary Brian Souter, one
of those identified as a potential tax
refugee, this week advocated a rise in the
top rate of income tax.
The fundamental dishonesty underlying the press attacks on LIT is
that the arguments against are all arguments
against any type of income tax. While it is
perfectly possible to make an argument for
the complete abolition of income tax it is
necessary to identify an alternative source
of revenue. If this were to involve a
ten-fold increase in CT the results for many
homeowners would be apocalyptic.
One criticism that can be conceded is that a uniform national rate
of LIT takes away the power of local
councils to vary the rate of tax charged.
Even here, however, this is not the full
story since councils will have a strong
incentive to increase revenues by increasing
the local tax base.
The current Council Tax has created great hardship for vulnerable
people, especially pensioners. Although
there are credits available take-up rates
are very poor (around 50% for pensioner
households) and many more people on low
incomes are not eligible because they have
modest savings.
LIT is very much fairer and its introduction will mark an important
advance in tackling poverty in Scotland.
Hopefully the SNP will not be diverted from
this socially just reform by the antics of a
handful of self-interested journalists.
"The review started by excluding the option of Independence,
and is continuing by excluding the people of Scotland.The first four months
of this review have been marked by political wrangling amongst the
opposition parties and within the Labour Party - not the constructive
discussion that Scotland’s future needs. 
“After the last scare story from Europe I and my colleagues secured an
exemption for small butchers but this ban still affects meat wholesalers. I
will be taking the case to Brussels to argue for Scottish mince to be left
alone.
"This latest poll evidence is fantastic news - showing a doubling of SNP
support, and coming on top of the evidence of real votes in council
by-elections, and last weekend's sensational Holyrood poll.
“The decision by the National Union of Teachers
in England to ban recruitment in schools follows a similar motion by the
Educational Institute of Scotland last year. 
“The solution does not lie in targeting
schoolchildren and encouraging them to become mere cannon fodder for those
Labour and Tory politicians who voted to invade Iraq in the first place. The
solution lies in a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq and a significant
scaling down of operations in Afghanistan, which far from destroying the
Taliban has simply emboldened them and perversely increased the recruitment
levels of extremist Islamists worldwide.