Out of the loop - into the noose
Out of the loop. Thus John Robertson MP describing his Holyrood Labour comrade Tom McCabe on Good Morning Scotland.
It is, I suppose, the quintessential political put-down. By definition, political aspirants customarily want to be inside the tent, avoiding the mud with the rather distinctive aroma on the outside.
Snag is that, on this occasion, Tom McCabe suspects that the loop in question is actually a noose.
Mr McCabe, formerly a Scottish cabinet minister, wants much greater autonomy for the Labour Party in Scotland.
In particular, Mr McCabe wants the new leader to be truly the boss of Labour across Scotland, not just at Holyrood.
That, he believes, would allow that new Labour leader to fight on a more equitable basis with Alex Salmond who, self-evidently, doesn't have to look over his shoulder towards London before taking decisions.
Tom McCabe has form on this issue. When he ran Wendy Alexander's leadership campaign, he was pressing very hard internally for exactly these changes.
Loop externalist
For example, he wanted little short of a revolution in party organisation, bringing the Glasgow HQ directly under the Scottish leader.
Since those days - and his admission that Team Alexander broke the law over campaign donations - he has indeed somewhat excised himself from the loop.
He has yet to endorse a candidate to replace Ms Alexander. He has, mostly, worked away quietly at Holyrood and in his constituency.
His views, however, deserve consideration. It is not good enough to depict him as a loop externalist. There remains, as I have pointed out endlessly, a fundamental contradiction at the core of this current leadership contest.
To reprise, it is is. Strictly, the post is "leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament". That formula is designed to appease MPs who have resented Holyrood's place in the political sunlight.
However, if that truly is the job, then what role do the MPs have in electing such an individual? Surely, that is simply a job for the Holyrood group - to elect their group leader?
If the franchise is wider - as it is - then the job must be wider.
Westminster discontent
To Plan McCabe, then. While applauding him loudly for raising the issue, I have a few problems with his analysis, as it stands.
Firstly, the examples he cites. He mentions Westminster disquiet over the smoking ban. But that got through. It was enacted. Westminster discontent was completely and utterly ignored.
Further, he says the Scottish party must be free to determine policy. That is, indeed, a quintessential of political devolution - and Labour remains perhaps the least devolved of any of the parties.
But the example he uses is the council tax. He says Scottish Labour must be able to set a timetable for its abolition, to match the SNP offer. Yet he is unable to come up with an alternative - and dislikes the SNP plan of a nationally-set local income tax.
It does not strike me as particularly wise politics, whether at Holyrood or Westminster, to condemn an existing system to extinction without having an alternative in place: especially in the field of taxation.
Secondly, that notion of matching Alex Salmond in Scottishness. As successive Labour leaders have found, that is a chimera.
Again, by definition, an SNP leader can always trump a Labour leader on Scottish patriotism. That is because an SNP leader stands ineluctably for Scotland alone - while a Labour leader, supporting the Union, must consider the UK dimension.
I suspect, however, that Tom McCabe is instead talking about extending the writ and remit of the Scottish post in order to match more closely the Scottish dimension.
Beyond wit
I suspect he has pitched for the maximum, expecting a compromise.
Thirdly, party organisation. Labour MPs will not readily surrender control of the party machine in Scotland - and for a good reason. It gets them elected - or not, as in the recent example.
Resources are finite. MPs will not easily trust a system where the direction of those resources - which seats to target, for example - are under the control of a leader from a different parliament whose job is not directly dependent on the decisions taken with regard to Westminster.
Of course, the current set-up is imbalanced too. Labour has only limited internal devolution - and MPs won't even trust Holyrood to take overall charge of its own public elections.
Perhaps it isn't beyond the wit of man or woman to devise a scheme where power is devolved and shared. The Liberal Democrats, for example, have an MSP as leader and an MP as deputy.
But then such compromise will be hard to achieve in an atmosphere of mutual misunderstanding and suspicion: an atmosphere that has persisted within Labour since the very advent of devolution.
Outside the loop, indeed.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~26~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Another good reason for independence then!
Complain about this comment
Brian
Read your piece in the Sunday Herald, where you said you actually read (or more probably skim) our meandering contributions. You're a brave (or foolish) man!
A thoughtful piece today (which means you will be simultaneously accused of being a Nat and a Unionist).
"mutual misunderstanding and suspicion" says it all.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
So Tom McCabe has finally recognised the need to abolish Council tax - you say he does not favour the SNP proposals for a local income tax, but it is the very fairness of these proposals that make them a fantastic vote winner - Mr McCabe's reluctance to support these proposals is understandable - he personally will pay more, while pensioners and other low or medium paid workers, not in receipt of any tax credits, will pay considerably less - as Mr McCabe is like most other MSP's, his reluctance to pay his fair share is understandable but, until Mr McCabe and Labour recognise that fair taxation is essential and a vote winner, they will never win back the votes of people like myself, who regard them as no better than the Conservatives.
However, at least Mr McCabe recognises the current system is unfair and has to be abolished and that is a major step in the right direction.
Council tax is wrong on three counts - it taxes people on the value of their homes on an annual basis but doesn't tax people on the value of all their wealth on an annual basis - why is their home singled out ?- it does not tax many other people who can afford to pay, for Council services that we all us in common. It has a threshold on house value which means the better off are protected whilst the poorer pay far more in real terms than the better off.
It says a lot for the SNP MSPs that they are prepared to vote for something that will mean they will pay more than they do at present - a move away from the 'gravy train'
Complain about this comment
"by definition, an SNP leader can always trump a Labour leader on Scottish patriotism. That is because an SNP leader stands ineluctably for Scotland alone - while a Labour leader, supporting the Union, must consider the UK dimension."
Oh no no no. They wont like that one little bit.
Complain about this comment
"his admission that Team Alexander broke the law over campaign donations"
I'd still still like to know why, since there was this public admission that the law was broken, no one has been investigated or charged by the police?
Complain about this comment
Brian -
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when Labour were in power in Scotland we were treated to daily coverage about Labour and the media treated the SNP opposition almost with contempt.
Now, with the SNP in power, we are treated to daily news coverage about Labour in opposition and the media treat the SNP government almost with contempt.
It reminds me of that guy at the party who said: "Well enough about me, what do you think of my new suit?"
Complain about this comment
Seems to me that Mr Robertson is a little out of the loop himself,Brian,considering his group's limited numbers(soon to be even less)and their limited influence(ditto,thanks to Mr Cameron).Even at a constituency level there is very little reported about their work in Scotland so what are they there for and why?,except to make up the numbers of Labour's majority.Rapidly becoming as invisible as those MEP's in Europe,although at least they have transnational influence.
Seniority within Labour should always start with those who have access to power and use it constructively for the good of the people.And the people would see the power and influence that affects their daily life coming more and more from Holyrood not Westminster.
Sorry,chaps,but that's life!That's progress!!
Complain about this comment
An interesting article in the [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]- looks like a nice clean, rancour-free leadership battle already! Reminds me of university days and the old adage that academic politics is as bitter as it is because so little is at stake. You would think that self-preservation would kick in at some point and they'd realise that airing the dirty linen in public is not the way forward for Labour in Scotland. A real nest of myopic, masochistic vipers.
Re #2: Brian, if you are indeed reading our posts how about pitching in with the odd reply now and then? Nobody expects you to reply to every post, or indeed to become embroiled in prolonged debate (especially with the more, erm, excitable element!), but it might make the blog a little less "Blether at Brian" and a little more "Blether with Brian". It might even serve to keep things on topic. Just a thought.
PS Thanks to Ed Iglehart for his tips on how to add links, formatting, etc. That's assuming they worked... ;o)
Complain about this comment
#6 bighullabaloo
But the difference is that now it's that morbid fascination with death, that slows traffic on the motorway, as people rubberneck at a head-on collision.
In this case between two badly driven trucks, who both thought that they owned the same piece of road.
Other Unionist parties seem to be able to deal with 2 Parliaments, but Labour's core belief that power should be centralised, makes a compromise between the 2 factions impossible.
Complain about this comment
The answer to Bighullabaloo's point about continuing coverage of Labour #6 is straightforward.
The SNP is currently running a smooth ship, things are generally going well and therefore the business of government isn't particularly newsworthy.
The back-stabbing shambles that is the Labour party lurching from one crisis to another both north and south of the border is on the other hand very newsworthy.
BTW I note today that after deriding Wee Eck's peripatetic cabinet meetings as party PR at public expence, our Labour friends down south are proposing to hold one of their own "somewhere" in the West Midlands
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Nice blog! I cannot help but think Tom McCabe needs a little more indepth thinking. To have a Scottish dimention to the Labour party is a reasonable aspiration, however the UK party structure needs reform for this to come about. It is a bit like the chicken and egg syndrome, for Westminister would need to be restructured and brought into the 21st century as well, which one gets done first?
I am a supporter of the SNP and have no fear of Independence, however I suspect that many supporters of Independence would like to salvage something from the Union if at all possible. The current crop of Unionists will I fear enable the Independence of my country. By sticking with a 300 year old union as if it was given by God himself makes it inevitable. Could we, the Scottish people, review the Union? Enact changes to it? After all it has only taken ten years for Labour to initiate a review the devolution settlement, but they have never thought it prudent to put the spotlight on the Union, Why?
Let me hazard a guess, Socialism in all its forms has a core element of dictatorship.
Labour are therefore happy with the present setup as it enables a political dictatorship of the smaller "partner" in the Union. Nothing more, nothing less. Any challenge to the status quo is therefor an anathma and the person promulgating such a course of action is fair game. Tom, you had better watch for that political noose, your so called friends do not have the courage to move forward and allow the Scottish people a say on the Unions future. But they will make you a side show!
Complain about this comment
Oldnat (#9) - that's fine, except for the fact that some of us don't share the "morbid fascination with death".
Caledonian 54 (#10) - Labour's political suicide is only more "newsworthy" if you regard the fates of politicians as being more important than the concerns of the people they are supposed to be serving.
I think matterss that directly affect the public should get top priority, not this obsession with who will be the next Scottish captain of Labour's already half-sunk ship.
Complain about this comment
#8 Whoops, being too clever by half I tried to post a link to the Sunday Herald - clearly my html skills need some help from Ed Iglehart. In case the pearls of wisdom in #8 are lost forever I'll briefly cast them before you all again :8)
The link (http://tinyurl.com/6heo7m) is to a story on the Labour leadership contest. Looks like a rancour-free campaign will not be forthcoming. Reminds me of university days and the old adage that academic politics is as bitter as it is because so little is at stake. You would have thought that self-preservation would kick in and Labour would realise that airing their dirty linen in public is not the way forward. A nest of myopic, masochistic vipers...
Re #2: Brian, if you do indeed read our posts how about pitching in now and then with the odd reply? Nobody is expecting you to reply to every post, or to become embroiled in prolonged debate (especially with the, erm, more excitable element!), but it might serve to make the blog a little less Blether at Brian, and a little more Blether with Brian. A timely intervention now and again might also help keep the discussion on topic. Just a thought.
Complain about this comment
"Again, by definition, an SNP leader can always trump a Labour leader on Scottish patriotism. That is because an SNP leader stands ineluctably for Scotland alone - while a Labour leader, supporting the Union, must consider the UK dimension."
This is true. If Scotland becomes to head towards a different direction from the rest of the United Kingdom, then why continue with a Union, in which you share different views/opinions of the way forward?
Complain about this comment
Turning the argument round a bit; if Labour MSP aren't trusted to elect their own leader by themselves then presumably its perfectly possible that they will find themselves saddled with a "leader" duly elected by the MPs and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all - who they themselves might have decisively rejected.
As for Tom McCabe being "out of the loop" that isn't necessarily a bad thing. after all a loop by definition is something that goes round in circles without getting anywhere.
Complain about this comment
No 11 makes several salient points but one missing,in my opinion,is the malign influence of the electoral first past the post system which contributes to the type of "dictatorship" you allude to.Exchanging one Labour elective dictatorship for a Conservative one every one,two or three elections may be seen to be democratic but merely institutionalises bad practice following bad practice.Which neither party in government(or out)will want to change as they wait in turn for their ride on the merry go round(or should that be gravy train!).
At least Holyrood,and the other devolved administrations,has PR to moderate such excesses by hopefully removing such permanent majorities(in common with many other European democracies).
Complain about this comment
Is the problem not, for the Labour Party, that any strengthening of power of the Scottish Labour Party will enable them to be more 'independent' from the UK Labour Party, with the mere thought of any further powers to Scotland sending Labour HQ into a bit of a swirl? Mr McCabe seems to see the political reality, but I suspect his 'comrades' think that they will essentially turn the Scottish Labour party into a stand alone organisation, and they may lose control over their northern regions. We have already seen Wendy Alexander, Brown's 'younger sister he never had', tangle with the PM over the call for a referendum. I can't imagine they would want that again, with a more powerful FM.
Can I also say how surprised I was to hear a Labour Party member use the word 'comrade'? Surely an ironic twist there?
And #13 - how do you know he does not do so already?
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Thirdly, party organisation. Labour MPs will not readily surrender control of the party machine in Scotland - and for a good reason. It gets them elected - or not, as in the recent example.
Resources are finite. MPs will not easily trust a system where the direction of those resources - which seats to target, for example - are under the control of a leader from a different parliament whose job is not directly dependent on the decisions taken with regard to Westminster.
Why doesn't Labour just own it and understand without Scotland they will probably never be in Government in Westminster again. They will never support the Scottish element of Labour going it alone or with any form of power. As was stated over the weekend many in Labour do not want to see what they perceive as "SNP2"
Complain about this comment
Surely, the question of the role of the (non) Labour leader in Scotland is academic.
As I understand it, any change to the constitution of the Labour Party needs to be approved by Conference (that's the real conference, held in English seaside resort, not the pretendy wee thing that sometimes held up here).
Anybody see the English MP's from the North of England wanting to bolster the position of a Scot?
It would seem the only way for McCabe to get what he wants is for the party in Scotland to declare it's Independence from the UK!
What a cleft stick the poor souls are in.
Complain about this comment
#17: "And #13 - how do you know he does not do so already?"
Heh, heh, good point Eoin_og! But which of the regulars or not-so-regulars has the smack of braces about them? (Cue lots of posts proclaiming: "I'm Brian!", "No, I'm Brian!"...)
Back on topic, I think 17-19 sum things up very well. Furthermore, given Labour UK's financial woes perhaps UDI by McCabe and pals would not be so crazy?
Complain about this comment
Brian, an excellent and well-measured blether. May I second the Loon's suggestion that you dip your toes in the froth occasionally.
Agreed, and it also taxes "improved" value, which has been achieved through the expenditure of already-taxed money. As you note, it also ignores the rest of one's wealth, including Scotland's disproportionately owned LAND!Sheneval (3),
A far better method of raising revenue to fund local government, and one used in many democracies is Land Value Taxation.
Learnfromthepast, Well said!
Loon, Just keep trying - it's like a bicycle.
Slainte!
ed
Complain about this comment
I just logged onto the Labour Party website to check the constitution - saw the tag for "Glasgow East" and clicked it. The result
"Domain name not recognised".
Complain about this comment
Loon,
True independence can never be granted, for that depends upon the grantor. It must, of necessity be unilaterally declared.Time to read (or re-read) Common Sense
Namaste ()
ed
Complain about this comment
Labour's McCabe and Lib Dem's Rumbles seem to be two guys who are ahead of the game in Scotland's opposition camps.
McCabe is luckier because he is articulating the views of some big hitters, McCleish, McConnell and Alexander who are all on the same page to one degree or another.
Isn't it time they came out with sufficient backing for McCabe as to produce an unstoppable movement which the new leader would have to embrace and which UK Labour would have to accept?
The candidate closer to these views surprisingly beeing Andy Kerr.
Complain about this comment
All this concern for the future shape and direction of the Labour party would be touching if it was motivated by a desire for an efficient and organised opposition at Holyrood. I could forgive the structural shambles if they had two or three individuals capable of articulating a single workable policy.
In fact, if there were a dozen good people at Holyrood, capable of inspiring trust and showing leadership vision, I'd settle for them in office now, regardless of present party loyalties.
I share Ed Iglehart's desire for a coalition without big power groups. But I don't see it anytime soon.
So, will Labour self-destruct? Will a big Holyrood majority produce factional tensions within the SNP? Can the Tories be a moderating influence? Could the Lib-Dems... No, let's leave that one!
Anyone who's certain of any outcomes here is either brave or foolish.
Just a thought. Would Brian consider the possibility of an occasional "guest columnist?" For starters, I'd love to hear Annabel's take on how it might all pan out. I suspect, however, she'd sooner keep her
hands clean.
Complain about this comment
Re my #19
Clause 10 of the Labour Party Constitutional Rules -
"5 For the avoidance of any doubt, any dispute as to the meaning, interpretation or general application of the constitution, standing orders and rules of the party or any unit of the party [including the scottish executive]shall be referred to the NEC for determination, and the decision of the NEC thereupon shall be final and conclusive for all purposes. The decision of the NEC subject to any modification by party conference as to the meaning and effect of any rule or any part of this constitution and rules shall be final."
Complain about this comment
Interesting to note that Labour have allowed the contest to go ahead. Both the last leader of Labour of MSPs in Holyrood, Red Wendy(or whatever you want to call it) and the current Prime Minister Glorious Gordon walked into their jobs unopposed. Perhaps the same outcome will befall the PM as poor Wendy.
Complain about this comment
Mr McCabe is to be commended for his candour, belated though it is, but it is to be doubted whether the acknowledgment of fault by one or two dissidents in the Labour Party in Scotland can do it much if any good at this late stage even if they were to prove capable of converting that party to their view. Scottish Labour has had its chance. When the brothers and sisters thought they could not lose their core support, they did not trouble to reform themselves. That is when reform might have been sincere and therefore arguably worthy of respect. Now it would be merely an act of desperation.
Mr McCabe and any others who may now be adopting a critical approach to the constitution and practices of the Labour Party in Scotland can choose to leave the sinking ship or to go down with it and with all the other so-called comrades who are already beginning to denounce them rather than take their counsels to heart, for Scottish Labour's make-faults appear determined not to allow its new find-faults to become mend-faults.
"One Mend-fault is worth two Findfaults, but one Findfault is better than two Makefaults." (Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1735)
Complain about this comment
#25 Brigadier
"if there were a dozen good people at Holyrood"
You're thinking too narrowly. Can you name a dozen good people at Westminster?
Other than that I broadly agree with a lot of what you say.
Complain about this comment
Brigadier,
You mistake me. I prefer a minority government to any cobbled-together (and thus bound) coalition.Issue-by-issue, and as little legislation as possible - thus is good government managed. And, by my preferences, As local as possible.
It's not that new an idea
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Oldnat,
Surely only an oversight not to have capitalised that!;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
#6 bighullabaloo
If you've looked at the photos Jake posted of Wendy and Gordy, then it looks like the Beeb may be giving Labour the coverage, but is extracting the urine at the same time!
Complain about this comment
threnodio posted this on Nick Robinson's site.
Where Salmond leads ......
Complain about this comment
I hope that I'm reading Oldnat (#26) wrongly, although I suspect that quote from the Labour Constitution could be read either way !
Were they honestly so arrogant that they believed that the Scottish Executive (as was then, now the Scottish Government) was directly answerable to their NEC ?
And even if it was the other interpretation, did anybody actually notice at the time?
Strange how the NuLab voices for "political" UDI from London have been so quiet for so long if this has been such a rancorous issue. Did Tom McCabe really say "Comrades" with a straight face ?
RE #25, yup, how about an occasional guest blogger. As a reformed ex-Tory now carrying the Tartan Banner High after ten years missionary work amongst the heathen, I'm a big fan of Auntie Annabel and wish that she'd just see some sense and come round to accepting representing a large and important constituency in an Independent Scotland
Complain about this comment
Robertson is also clearly an idiot. In his desparation to diss McCabe, he is disloyal to his leader, Quoted in the Herald today -
"We've got a leader, it's Gordon Brown and UNTIL SUCH TIME AS HE IS REMOVED he will remain the leader."
Complain about this comment
#29 oldnat: I was trying to be optimistic. That's what misled you!
#30 Ed: I misrepresented you through my own linguistic inadequacy. I do support the position as you state it. Sorry for my error. Not so much a coalition as the agreement of good people in action. Do you know any?
Complain about this comment
#134 Chiefy1724
The Labour Party allow their local bit up here to call itself the "Scottish Executive", and the same in Wales. As far as I can make out they have the same powers as the regional structures in England.
For the avoidance of doubt I inserted the words within square brackets (from the same clause), just to clarify what they were referring to.
Complain about this comment
Labour squabbles about who's actually in charge of them. There is no doubt, and never has been, they would sell Scotland to the chinese if London told them to. Gordon Brown controls Scottish Labour and probably has to, for I fear that the Labour party in Scotland has " Leaders " of such a low calibre that they cannot be trusted to think for themselves. Nothing in the Labour party has changed since the Attlee government surrendered the country to anyone who asked. For the last sixty years it has been a constant cycle of Labour putting the country in hock and the Tories having to dig it out.
Complain about this comment
Re Council tax
The idea that council tax is essentialy unfair, that replacing it with a local income tax is somehow a garunteed universal sucess story is over simplification of the problem.
Where council tax as present has unfairness built in to it, there is some vague linkage between the amount of council services enjoyed by the household and wht they pay. Rural Scotland tends to have lower value property, therefore paying lower council tax. Rural Scotland also use less council services, streetlighting, parks and gardens etc.
Under a local Income tax everyone pays acording to their income irrespective of what services they use. So while this may be popular in some areas it will not be popular in Rural areas where people will be asked to pay increased bills for services they do not and cannot use.
The SNP website trumpets a savings calulator that doesn't work, I suspect that the 1 out of ten who will be worse off will mainly be in rural Scotland, as usual.
Also I doubt how popular this will be when debate starts in earnest. As I understand it this will be set at 3p in the pound for all of Scotland. Not really a local tax unless each local authority can vary the tax. I wonder why this is not a part of the proposal? Perhaps even independance has its limits? Surely this could not be an attempt at central control over Local Authorities by wee eck?
Complain about this comment
Re #25 and 34: I think the last thing we need is propaganda from "Auntie Annabel" or suchlike. Perhaps some of the great and the good with a less political axe to grind would be more interesting. Figures from business, the arts, academia, or even sport (maybe Brian could persuade wee Jim McLean to share some forthright views?!).
Re #23: "True independence can never be granted, for that depends upon the grantor. It must, of necessity be unilaterally declared."
Point taken Ed, though not sure I agree entirely. Something being granted independence is not independent at that moment. But thereafter it does become truly independent, at least if the granting was done sincerely and no subsequent "gratitude" is expected. So, "UDI": pleonasm or emphasis? You decide, but the world would be a duller place without tuna fish, the Mississippi river and Torpenhow Hill.
Complain about this comment
Northhighlander,
They could hardly be more centrally controlled than at present. My Convener told me that fully 87% of his funding was from Central Government sources, and, of course the rest was raised by methods strictly laid down and limited by Central Government.Not to mention, yet again, the madly non-local nature of Scottish "local" government!
Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
#39
I dislike your thought that Rural Scotland will be forced to be more under Local Income Tax then Council Tax.
Local Income Tax is based on the ability to pay, the poor pay less and the rich pay more. Unless the public in these Rural Communities happen to be hidden millionaires they deffinetly will not pay more.
Local Income Tax will be based on what you earn afterall. You will also notice that those who work in the Cities tend to earn more on average then those in the Rural parts of Scotland.
"As I understand it this will be set at 3p in the pound for all of Scotland. Not really a local tax unless each local authority can vary the tax."
The Scottish National Party would prefer that the tax rate is set at 3p per pound but the Liberal Democrats insist that they would enjoy the Local Councils the ability to raise their own tax rates. No one knows yet what will happen.
"I wonder why this is not a part of the proposal?"
Should be quite simple. The SNP method is more equal and fair then the Lib Dems because the Lib Dems idea to have varying Tax Rates depending on the part of the country you stay in is almost discriminative.
Complain about this comment
Re Minority Government
I agree with Ed, Minority Government is always preferable to coalition, where deals are done in seceret with little democratic input.
If the current Government achieves little else it should be the death of coalition. also the end of lib dems getting policy implemented that few have voted for.
Complain about this comment
Re 41
Surely all local income tax is doing is replacing the other 13%!
This is an exercise that will bring councils 100% under the control of holyrood. I don't see why councils aren't allowed to vary the rate locally, if we are to achieve true "local Government"
There are huge differences across Scotland in the level of services provided by Councils, yet under this proposal everyone pays the same irrespective of what services are delivered in your area. this would be the end of the linkage between council funding and the local electorate.
But again it helps to appease the central belt urban areas where the votes are. hardly new Governnment for all of Scotland.
Complain about this comment
#44
"I don't see why councils aren't allowed to vary the rate locally."
Again, this should be simple to see for yourself.
If we begin to have different rates of tax for different areas we are creating gaps within society. Communitues and businesses less then a mile apart would be paying different tax rates but then again the individuals would be using facilities in the area but not contributing to the full amount of LIT then their counter parts.
Complain about this comment
#39 Northhighlander, you are so wrong about the council tax having elements of fairness.
For one, why should A single guy like me pay 75% of the ammount a household family of 4 would pay? I don't use schools, I have not use the health service for a long while, I use less water, throw out less rubbish, I don't claim child support... etc.
In fact, I sometimes wonder what I actually do get for my money.
Ps. even under the SNP's income tax plan, I would pay slightly more. But at least I would be sound in the knowledge that a couple with kids earning 60,000 Pounds PA would be paying their fair share so that others who cannot afford it pay less.
... It is about time more wealth was re-distributed to those less fortunate.
I have heard the SNP be desctribed as predominantly a right-of-centre party and seen them described as more left than Labour. To be honest, I don't see them as left or right, I just think they are the ones promoting common sence policy.
Complain about this comment
Northhighlander,
indeed.They already are, and that was/is my main point!I would go so far as to allow various units of local government (much smaller than at present) to determine not only the rate, but the type and mechanism of raising their revenue.
But then I grew up in the USA, where one pays city/town and county taxes (usually based upon property value LVT
), and state taxes usually either sales tax (VAT) and/or income tax. The point being that the method and amount of taxation is decided at a local level by folk whose election and re-election is dependent upon local perception of their management.
I must note that I usually find it extremely unattractive when someone compares where they have settled un-favourably with wherever they came from. All such comparisons are odious, but in this case I make an exception. It must also be obvious that having remained here for almost four decades, I obviously prefer it overall!
Slainte!
ed
Complain about this comment
Bongo,
Left/right thinking is one-dimensional, and only suited to those who find a flat Earth too complex to comprehend.;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Even Disney and Steven Spielberg think we should get independence for Scotland !!!! But not Wales lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC1qkLn6IRI
Complain about this comment
#45 Thomas
There is no problem with different rates of tax in different authorities - it's common place in the USA, for example. All you need are balancing mechanisms to ensure that there is equity in spend for those places with a low tax base (whatever tax it is), but high need.
The SNP 3p nationally collected tax is clearly a "quick fix" solution. It requires no legislation since a variation of 3p in income tax is allowed by the Scotland Act.
In any case, the question is academic outwith a fiscally autonomous Scotland. As with free personal care, if we children don't spend it as Daddy wants, then our pocket money will be cut.
Complain about this comment
Bongo:
I agree with your point, i don't argue the council tax system is without fault. However to rush into replacing it with the current proposal is not progress
what is on offer would mean that areas with less local government services will subsidise those with more services, as the slice of income taken is not altered to take account of lacal differences. That to answer Thomas will create inequality and gaps across Scotland. Again not progress.
We need to address local government funding in a much wider sense. What is ofered is a headline grabbing scheme i feel will unravel as it is not thought out properly.
Also if 9 out of 10 people are better or no worse off then either the 1 out of ten are going to take a hell of a spanking or the savings are miniscule or there is great big hole in the calculations
I fear the latter, so where will the money come from? less nurses, policement or social workers? Cuts in local government services?
I agree with Ed. Local government should be free to raise the revenue they require in the way that suits their area best. that would be a good exercise in decentralisation, wht is proposed is another government centralisation scheme.
Different rhetoric from the SNP, but the same actions as with all politicans, don't trust local people to deiver the services they want in the way that suits them best.
Complain about this comment
#50
I do not feel that using the USA as an example is not terribly useful for us to do. The USA and Britain operate very differently. Then you have to take into account the size of the USA and her States, compared to Scotland. How often does one American use the facilities in other States?Scotland is smaller and the odds for the public on using facilities from different councils are higher.
I for one live in one council area but spend my time in the City which is ran by a different council.
Should I pay different rates despite spending most my time in the City?
Complain about this comment
Re 50 OLDNAT
"As with free personal care, if we children don't spend it as Daddy wants, then our pocket money will be cut."
Surely the same thing will happen with a LIT, if coucils don't implement holyrood priorities then the money will be cut.
Ah, the more we change the more we stay the same
Complain about this comment
Thomas,
Have a look:(from the formerly cited link
(scroll down)
Slainte
ed
P.S. The NuLab/Lib Executive ignored the recommendation of the McIntosh Commission (which it commissioned) that Local Government finance should be thoroughly examined...MUCH further thought Vhere
Complain about this comment
#51
"I fear the latter, so where will the money come from? less nurses, policement or social workers? Cuts in local government services?"
Alex Salmond has already stated during an interview (I think) that LIT is based on the ability to pay that will result in a tax cut.
However, during economic uncertainty, where the public are being hit from rising cost of living, this is a great way for helping the public. We should be focused on survival rather then ensuring that services are maintained at whatever cost.
Complain about this comment
#52 Thomas
Ed will be able to deal with this matter than me. However, my son lives in the USA so I have some insights. He lives 100 yards outside Asheville City limits, but uses the city's facilities. He pays a property tax in Buncombe County, where his house is. He pays a sales tax to the city in the shops in Asheville. He pays income tax to North Carolina and the Federal Government.
The size of the country is rather irrelevant. just look at a map and see the number of connurbations that straddle state, much less county, boundaries.
It's no big deal.
Complain about this comment
#53 northhighlander
That was my point.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Congratulations on an excellent and measured article. Same to the contributors - the standard is very high indeed this evening. Well done the moderator in keeping this blog site free of the gutter-level posts that go so far in lowering the tone of the Herald and Scotsman comment sites.
As to the matter in hand I rather think that by now the Labour party in Scotland is beyond saving without such a degree of radical surgery that I frankly think is beyond their abilities. Organisationally they are but a shell of the party of former times and with such low a level of grass roots support that the leaders among them might find it difficult to find enough members to even want to be bothered to engage in any reinvention process. Meantime the process of devolution will grow and will likely eventually result in the logical climax state of full independence and as that process continues so the Westminster dimension will become less and less relevant. A separate Scottish Labour party will doubtless emerge somewhere along the way but whether it can ever again be what it was or whether it will wither to something about the size of the SSP will depend on the outcome of the current argument.
Complain about this comment
Ignoring the paradox that a tax that is set centrally, collected centrally and distributed centrally, is being called "Local", I actually think that the proposals for Local Income Tax are not very fair at all.
As a starting point for my points, I am assuming that the council tax budgets will NOT go down under the new system, so that the LIT (plus whatever else) must raise the same amount of money as the current system.
So, looking at my own situation, I live in a reasonably large house (Aberdeenshire) and together with my wife we have a reasonably large income. I calculate that even at 3% of our GROSS income, we are going to be better off under LIT. People around me that earn more than me tend to live in larger houses so I would expect them to pay less as well. People who earn much more that me would already be employing accountants to reduce their exposure to income tax (and if not would probably do so) and people who earn much, much more that me will have already minimised their taxable income by offshoring, share ownership etc. For those wealthy people in the South, they could even move to England! because wealth actually means "mobility".
So as I see it, most of the weathly people will already be in a position to avoid a lot of LIT. Let's not forget that LIT doesn't tax land, doesn't tax income from shares, doesn't tax second homes, etc. In general it doesn't tax ASSETS at all.
So, who's likely to be worse off? Here's a couple I can think of right off the top of my head...
1) Working couples who deliberatly (and prudently) bought a small house to minimise their mortgage and debts
2) Poorer working families who may have 3 or even 4 wage earners under 1 roof.
That hardly seems "fair" to me.
Secondly, the scheme assumes that the current council tax benefit will be used to prop up the system. Assuming that is true (and it is by no means certain), then the CTB will effectivly be subsidising the LIT. So, in other words, a benefit intended for the poorest in society will be subsidising MY LIT.
That hardly seems "fair" to me.
Thirdly, some of the accounts I've read say that LIT AND the Council Tax benefit still won't cover the council budgets. So the system will have to be subsidised from general taxation - again benefiting me.
That hardly seems "fair" to me.
Finally, if the LIT doesn't work out properly then councils will end up cutting budgets, reducing services for the most needy - again in order to subsidise MY LIT.
That hardly seems "fair" to me.
So, in general, it strikes me that although the headline is "tax cuts" the ones who are actually going to benefit overall are, in most likelyhood, the wealthy, because the system will end up subsidising them.
I agree with earlier posters, that LIT should be locally set to address local needs. That means the council will be directly accountable. Under the proposed system, the councils will just pass the buck to Holyrood. It should also be based to some extent on ASSETS because, if you want to get the wealthy to pay more, that's where the wealthy have their money.
Complain about this comment
Now that Gordon Brown is taking his cabinet out of Downing Street, couldn't that be construed as a back-slapping ego trip?
Complain about this comment
#60 EwanfromDumfries
I read your first line and was suddenly hopeful!
#59 Bangingonabout
I wouldn't disagree with your analysis. Indeed that's one of the problems with blogging here! Many of us have very similar views (even though we vote differently. Yet political discussions are largely focused on issues that have been developed within political parties who won't give an inch to each other.
I would hazard a guess that most who blog here would agree that
We all need to pay tax to pay for services.
The rich should pay most, while the poor should pay least. This should apply both at an individual, and a local authority level.
Taxes should be levied on a range of sources including income, property, profit, and purchases.
The cost of collection should not be disproportionately high compared with the income.
Administrations who spend the money, should set the taxes, and be accountable to the electorate for the level of tax and the efficiency of service provision.
The State should set minimum levels of provision that all local authorities must deliver.
Complain about this comment
You know, watching the Labour Party in Scotland slowly coming to the right conclusion is a bit like teaching a backwards toddler arithmetic. You want to say to them, yes 1+1=2, now try subtraction. Eventually, after a number of years they might master long division. That's fine for a child, but for a political party, they will pass their exam long after there is no use for them.
McCabe, in or out of the loop, is right. Doesn't really matter though as most in his party do not want to hear. Labour in Westminster is looking forward to 20 months of confusion and internal strife. They do not want to be distracted by the same in Scotland. MSPs will not get a look in
Some Labour MSPs may split, but ask J Sillars and A Neil how well that worked! Some may well join the SNP. But most will toil on, round and round in ever decreasing circles till they disappear in a puff of smoke.
I won't be greetin', they have let us down far too often to get any sympathy
Complain about this comment
#60
Don't you mean a "back-stabbing ego trip"
Notice that all his senior Cabinet Ministers are "behind" him. Best position to take aim....
Complain about this comment
#62 scot2010
Actually, in one sense, I do feel sorry for a lot of Labour Party activists (as opposed to their MSPs etc). They thought that the world had certainty, that the epic struggle between Socialism and Capitalism would continue for ever, and that they were on the side of good.
It is very disconcerting, and emotionally searing, to discover that your certainties are chimeras, and that your struggle has been pointless.
I'm reminded of the scene in "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" when she discovers that her pupil's brother has gone to Spain to fight for the Republic, and not the Fascists as she had supposed.
I take no pride in that part of me which revels in their discomfort! (Get it up ye, ya ...)
Complain about this comment
Brian says:
"Secondly, that notion of matching Alex Salmond in Scottishness. As successive Labour leaders have found, that is a chimera."
The correct response would be to take the nationalists head on, and question the value of Scottishness. That's never going to happen, since they're wedded to a similar concept, Britishness.
Complain about this comment
Scot2010 - good point. I agree that Tom McCabe has been brave in putting his head abive the parapet, knowing inevitably he was going to be shot at. And you're right - nobody in Labour London HQ will pay any attention to him.
Good work, Ed Iglehart - keeping up the usual high standard of contributions!
slàinte
Complain about this comment
What kind of tax structure do you want in place oldnat,do you think we should have a varied regional tax system or are you so obtuse to the power of capitalism you think that tax is only for the poor people of society,if we are to take examples from anyone,do you believe that America is a fine example of a wholely progressive nation?.At this time you have a good leader in AS,however it's a bit of a one trick pony party,that has to answer the constitutional question and the economic's of a independent state.
Complain about this comment
Yes, Brian, do feel free to blether with us, please
Complain about this comment
#64 Oldnat
Well the world moves on. There are no absolutes. Bosses aren't, mostly, evil despots nor are workers, usually, heroes.
When they involved themselves in politics they are playing with the big boys and girls. So shouldn't be greeting when they get a kicking
I might have more sympathy for them, but I have been at the receiving end of their aggression and contempt too often to regard them as some sort of innocent, naive idealists suddenly overwhelmed by events.
One of the better alternate wordings of SNP was Somewhat Naive People. That was a long time ago, we had to grow up. We have, through hard-won experience, we now have a lean, efficient operation. Labour got fat and lazy. You cannot take your electorate for granted, they did. We won't.
Complain about this comment
Can't imagine the anti-Scotsman, the Right (-wing) Honourable Broon, will be happy in the "Labour" Party (North British outpost) gaining a wee bit more freedom while he is dribbling Scottish oil money up against a Westminster wall.
Complain about this comment
#65 Anaxim
Just checked the previous thread, and saw your answer to my question. Thanks.
That and your most recent post have given me an idea of where you are coming from.
I may not, however, have understood you fully, but you sound to me rather like the Whig historians, who saw liberal democracy as the acme of human development.
To help me understand you, can I ask
Would you have preferred it if the Scottish Parliament had not been created?
Would you have preferred it if local government had not been restructured?
Would you have preferred it if the European Union had not been created?
Do you have a preference between FPTP or PR in voting systems?
Assuming of course that any preceding or newly created administrations were run on liberal democratic lines?
Complain about this comment
#66 sacrebleu1
Thanks, but I said he was right, not brave. Being brave would've involved doing something like standing for the Holyrood leadership or deputy leadership on such a policy.
Saying that, he at least did say something about a solution to Labour's problems, something no other MSP has said publicly, prefering to brief journalists anonymously. Says more about the cowardice of those MSPs rather than McCabe's courage
Complain about this comment
#67 Derek
It usually helps to read a post fully, before replying, but we've all reacted, typed and hit the Submit button, at some time.
I'm not sure what has stirred you up so much, but it should have been obvious that I was simply using the US as an example of where differential taxation can work. If you are arguing for a universal rate on one (or more) of the commonly taxed sources of wealth, do you want this to be applied within Scotland only? within the UK only, within the EU only, over the whole planet?
Salmond is not "my leader", since I'm not tied to any one party - though I do want to get rid of the UK level of Government.
Are you one of these sad people whose loyalty is to a political party, rather than to people?
Complain about this comment
#69 scot2010
You need to learn to recognise irony!
Complain about this comment
#74 Oldnat
irony? Ah, I see, oh wise one. May I learn more from the words of wisdom dripping from your keyboard!
See, I can do sarcasm if not irony.
Anyway, it gave me an excuse to get stuck into Labour again.
Complain about this comment
#75 scot2010
"Anyway, it gave me an excuse to get stuck into Labour again. "
Always a worthwhile activity.
Also the only thing dripping from my keyboard is vodka, because I knocked the glass over!
Complain about this comment
Yes oldnat,i do believe that tax is a universal system,what type of taxation would i like to see in my country,first of all, i would like to see this nation having a sensible debate on taxation,after all it is the driving force for health,education and all things that matter to a progressive society,what form of taxation would i endores,simple,one thats fair and reflects on the individuals earnings or position and more importantly,doesn't allow the top 20% of earners to find loop whole's in the system,now, if you believe a varied tax system would produce an even balance of investment in all regions,then i say to you my friend,look deeper into the regional states of the USA,there is some very disturbing regional differentials.
Complain about this comment
#77 derek
We are in agreement for much of what you say (though you carefully fail to mention which is "my country" - I suspect the UK, but correct me if I'm wrong).
"i would like to see this nation having a sensible debate on taxation" - Exactly!
My #61 provides a starting point. I'd appreciate your views on which of my suggested principles were not acceptable to you, and which principles you would add. Presumably, you don't want Councils setting their own Council tax rates, as they did in the past. what would you replace it with?
Complain about this comment
Ed Inglehardt
Looks like Labour have been forced into looking at a real reform of local authority funding - hopefully along the lines we have talked about. Scotsman Report
Complain about this comment
Quick pro quo my friend,yes there is the need to discuss all your points on thread 61,my route is the collective responsibility of realism and the need for a progressive form of debate on taxation,the hidden agenda has been exposed?and there is a need to talk about the positive nature of taxation.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat (79),
It's only one candidate saying it and with supportive "noises off", but it's a start. This sort of talk has been about, as you can see from my earlier linked pieces, which date from the late 90s - early 80s and the McIntosh Commission, but so far it's all come to NOWT.
Hi Sacrebleu!
Slainte
ed
Whatever happens, tax raised locally should stay local and not be round-tripped through seven layers of accountants. Thee more layers the more attrition and the more excuses.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat (61),
1. yes. Definitely.2. yes, but, there are potential problems, as central powers have a record of mandating expanded services from local authorities at the same time as cutting back central funding support. There is ample "form" on this both here and in USA and probably elsewhere.
Otherwise, I think your list of consensus items is pretty good.
G'nite all
ed
Complain about this comment
Abolish the income tax...replace it with....nothing...
Give the people more money in their pockets so they they may fully enjoy the fruits of their own labour...
The people never benefit from this type of taxation,whose only purpose appears to be the payment of interest on moneys "loaned" to our Governments by the Central banking system,which is completely PRIVATE in its nature...
Let us take back our own rights as a people to print and use our own money...back it up with something of value,(eg.Scottish Oil),so that inflation doesn't erode it's value. End of story!
Complain about this comment
One reason why I imagine Labour are against the idea of complete devolution of the party, and a Scottish Labour Leader, is that you would then have the rather odd set up of all Scottish Labour MPs answering to this leader. And Scottish Labour MPs include one G. Brown. Those Labour MPs like Mr Brown who are trying hard to keep their jobs as the leaders of the whole UK probably don't want to appear as part of a Scottish group; I can't imagine that would go down well with voters in southern England. It is a problem that the Conservatives don't have, as they can have an entirely devolved Scottish Conservative Party that may (in a good year) return a couple of MPs to Westminster. It can be left to worry about Holyrood and to appear as Scottish as it wants, and doesn't really impact on the UK Conservative party as a whole; the shadow cabinet is not full of Scotsmen. As Brian says, the SNP obviously don't have the problem as they aren't trying to appeal to anyone but the Scots from the start, and they are never going to be running the whole UK. And the Lim Dems aren't close enough to power anywhere for it to be an issue ;-) But for the Labour party and the current Scottish MP filled cabinet, having a devolved Scottish Labour Party to try and win back support in Scotland could mean losing support from the far larger electorate in England.
Complain about this comment
While I take the point in #84 the central conundrum remains, as Brian has pointed out, that the leader of the MSPs in in Holyrood will be decided by a great many people who (a) have no connection with Holyrood and (b) probably regard it as an abomination that should never have been created in the first place.
Its rather akin to the foreman of a jury being elected not just by the other members of the jury, but by the judge, the police, the barristers and the court-room tea lady as well.
Complain about this comment
#76 Oldnat
Is that a case of "in vodka veritas" then?
To all on taxation:
It is encouraging to see such erudite (mainly) debate on this subject. It shows, again, how much the overthrow of the old regime last May has encouraged new ideas to be discussed properly. We now only need the powers in Holyrood to enact these ideas. Westminster just won't entertain them, so, for me, there is only one solution, get rid of them...
Complain about this comment
Re 85
Surely a large element of froth exists in this debate?
The requirement for change within the labour party and a lot of other institutions will develop as a part of the adjustment required by devolution.
Surely the debate should centre around what the new leader will do, how the labour party will present a vision of how they would like to see Scotland governed as part of the union, through the devolved parliament in Holyrood. Not a side show on internal organisation.
If they cannot articulate such a vision then we have no chance of an honest debate come any referendum for independance.
Only if we have a proper balanced debate are we likely to come up with a sustainable decision.
Complain about this comment
"Amid speculation as to which of the third-rate candidates will top the B-list to become the next group leader of the Holyrood contingent of the British Labour Party, against the backdrop of ultimately diminishing support for that party, the resulting stark exposure of deep and long-buried internal fissures, conflicts and flash-points - whilst adding further significant burden to Labour's critical struggle for self-preservation - must also serve to critically inform the public as to the true nature and worth of an organisation which has hitherto benefited from an unhealthy and overbearing domination of Scottish political and public life."
- Dubh Glas Dubh, c. 05.08.08
Complain about this comment
#86 scot2010
Nice one.
#87 northernhighlander
Although, this is a sideshow in some respects, the internal organisation of a party says a lot about its core ideology, and its ability to respond to changed circumstances.
Also Labour in Scotland had 8 years to present their "vision". I think we're all fairly clear about what that is.
Complain about this comment
Freeman,
Read some Henry GeorgeScotinChile, Well summarised. Cally54, ;-)
Dougie Dubh, I agree. Excellent!
Oldnat, Shame about the wasted vodka, but what's wrong with a wee bit of more local stuff? Mine's a Lagavulin, but most any Islay will do, or failing that, most any....
Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
Ed (90): Get a good Bruichladdich, it'll see you right; tis the only Islay malt that's not owned by one of the London companies. Don't give more money to them scoundrels!
I find myself concurring with oldnat (61)'s post; we can all (mostly) agree on those principals.
Labour's main problem here is that despite being the ones that brought devolution to Scotland, the vast majority havenae yet woken up to the facts about what Devolution means.
I suspect the late lamented Dewar had an inkling but wisely kept shtum.
Devolution was a gamble by Labour; a way of turning aside the anti-westminster voices of the 80's who could say "How is this democratic? We've got no MP's in government at all".
It was also a way of killing Scottish Nationalism dead. After all, most Scots didn't want independence, and throw the dog a bone and it'll shut up.
Sadly (for them, not us dear reader) that's not the way things have gone. Having started to see what a real government can do from Holyrood, limited in powers though it is, the People's appetites have been whetted.
More and more people are realising that far from "we cannae dae it", we CAN do it. Just there's a couple of roadblocks in the path to success.
What Labour are not getting (although some might be waking up, well after the horse has bolted) is that a lot of people are saying "Here, hang on. We voted Labour for 50 years, and we're worse off now than ever; gangs, drugs, knives etc. are at their worst in decades. Why should we vote Labour again?". They're starting to say "hmm, these SNP aren't all raving mad power-hungry nazi's, and they won't just bend over when London says "now".".
In short, it is my belief that people are now seeing Labour as one of those roadblocks. And quite a few, growing daily, are seeing Westminster as another roadblock, one that needs wound-up and removed to get this country going.
It's pretty obvious to every man and his dog Cameron is the next PM; the odds the bookie will give you don't make it worth the bet.
And this will scare the "undecideds" away from a "NO" vote in the referendum. That vote might not have happened were it not for Bendy Wendy. But thanks to her blithering incompetence a referendum WILL happen; might not happen in 2010, but if it's 2012 then fair enough, the People have waited 301 years, then can wait 2 more. But it will happen. And thanks to Labour's incompetence stretching to the Thames, the Tories will be sitting in London with one, hell maybe even two Scottish MP's. And that'll scare the bejusus out of the core-labour voters in Glasgow and elsewhere; scare what few remain into voting SNP in 2011 and voting yes in the one that counts.
For fans of Red Dwarf out there: "SMUG MODE"!
Complain about this comment
I already knew there were some really good Campbells, and I can add another to the list.
Slainte
ed
P.S. No distiller's gonnae git rich affa me, but I'll rarely say no tae a drap. ;-)
Complain about this comment
I'm not financially cute enough to offer a valid opinion on the tax system. But what's "fair" to me will depend on what's done with my taxes rather than how they are raised. At the end of the day, will the net tax "take" be enough to make Scotland a better place. And give me more of my money to spend?
Did anyone see Maria Fyfe's letter in today's Herald? Basically she accused the SNP of proffering the idea that you can run a Scandinavian-style system on Irish-style taxation.
Again, I am not competent to express an opinion, on the techbnicalities, but it seems like a claim that ought to be addressed.
Complain about this comment
To be continued.....
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
oldnat asks:
Would you have preferred it if the Scottish Parliament had not been created?
No, federalism is a perfectly legitimate form of government. It also acts as a check on the power of the executive.
Would you have preferred it if local government had not been restructured?
Yes.
Would you have preferred it if the European Union had not been created?
No. It's good at what it does. The EU has spent on Eastern Europe roughly what the US has spent on Iraq. Even though the Americans will eventually win in Iraq, the EU has got a lot more bang for its buck.
Do you have a preference between FPTP or PR in voting systems?
PR is better.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Joined this debate a bit late. However, a couple of points.
First to those who think LIT is the way to fund local expenditure. In a growing economy a fixed rate tax will provide increased revenues for councils. In a flat or recessionary economy a fixed rate tax provides flat or falling revenues guaranteeing expenditure cuts because of the impact of inflation, or recourse to raising additional revenue through other forms of taxation.
I do not agree with Scot2010 (#69) for I think the SNP are already taking the electorate for granted thanks to the dismal performance of the opposition parties. They have broken enough of their 2007 electoral promises already and have got off lightly because of the disarray within the principal party of opposition.
In addition, their plans for LIT and the Scottish Futures Trust have been shown for what they are: just about unworkable. A more effective opposition would have managed to call the current adminstration to account before now. A poor opposition is nothing to be thankful for, it simply leads to complacency within the party of power.
Best Wishes,
William1957
Complain about this comment
#96
The need for effective opposition in a strong democracy is surely beyond dispute.
However, remember that the Holyrood system - in marked contrast to that of Westminster - should and does operate on the basis of consensus and committee.
Currently the SNP, having only one more member than Labour, are hardly in a position to take Scotland's governance or the electorate for granted - in the absurd event that they should even wish to.
Labour's internal problems are entirely of their own design, and arise in no small way from their innate complacency and indeed contempt for the electorate whilst in government - which has continued to dog their performance in opposition.
If Labour have been unable to hold the government to account, though, it could hardly have been for the lack of aggression in Wendy Alexander's debating chamber performances.
And if Labour's ongoing troubles continue to undermine their role in the Scottish Parliamentary system to the extent that they are becoming ineffective, either in the debating chamber or throughout the parliamentary committees - then their outlook must be even more dismal than we've so far been led to believe!
Complain about this comment
Re 97
It is far from absurd that the SNP should take the electorate for granted. All political parties do in time. William1957 is right, the SNP have broken manifesto commitments in similar style to any other government.
The lack of a credible opposition allows wee eck to strut about unchallenged, this is not good for democracy, we need a strong opposition leader that can call the government to account.
We need balance in politics, or else we get feckless government.
Complain about this comment
#98
As acknowledged, I wholly agree with the principle of effective checks and balances and and an effectual "Opposition" as being vital to the strength of democracy.
That, systematically and numerically, is what we currently have in the Scottish Parliament - a system which is designed to demand a level of concensus in order to function - wherein the governing party currently has a single-seat advantage - and which is wholly accountable to the people of Scotland.
Hardly much scope for the First Minister to "strut about unchallenged" - unless, of course, the opposition parties, or the main one in particular, are proving wholly ineffective, which is evidently the case.
How does this bode for the challenge of Labour's new leader, whoever that may be?
The main source Labour's woes is rooted their inherent cross-factional cynicism, self-interest and failure to accept the realities of Scotland's developing political landscape.
Tom McCabe showed commendable vision in recognising these factors, and was right about many aspects of his party's endemic problems - yet the opposition to his comments was predictable, instant and reactionary.
If Labour wish to retain a shred of credibility, they need to demostrate a glint of McCabe's vision, stop looking over their shoulders to London and start to engage constructively in the positive governance of Scotland, as opposed to being the obstructive and dead weight they have been.
Complain about this comment
Re 99
I agree !
Labour will only survuve if they start to push an agenda to offer opposition to the SNP vision.
I think the election showed that the majority of the population don't want independence.
I am sure that the majority of Scots will oppose this when the matter is properly considered. What people really want is a government that gets on with running the country. I believe the SNP are making not to bad a job of it, although they have shyed away from controversial parts of their manifesto. After 15 months we might have expected a little more progress on some of the meatier bits, but Alec is obviously sitting back watching Labour flounder about from one disaster to another and enjoying the moment. Who can blame him, they are putting on quite a show!
There is much that can be done within the framework of government that devolution gives us, I would like to see a better effort from all parties towards making what we have got work.
We need a Labour leader committed to deliver this, to provide the alternative vision that will hopefully lead to a credible challenge to wee eck, and hopefully better government.
Unfortunately none of the candidates jumps out as being that person, and I pity the winner trying to move forward with the current bunch.
Complain about this comment
#100
Whilst I accept where you're coming from, I have to disagree on a couple of substantial points.
Firstly, when the SNP won last year's election, it was against a background of considerable uncertainty and misconception - much of it wilfully disseminated by the unionist parties - as to what an SNP government would mean in practice.
One of the most crucial effects of that victory has been to crush these misrepresentations and unfounded fears, and to begin to illustrate what can actually be achieved by a capable and pro-active Scottish government.
Notwithstanding the requirement for an effective and balanced Parliament, I join with those who trust and believe in the vision and commitment of the SNP administration, and wouldn't expect a credible Labour alternative anytime soon!
On independence, you rightly allude to the fact that the matter requires to be properly considered.
I fully accept that there will likely be a substantial cross-section of society as yet fundamentally undecided, even uneasy, about independence.
We should expect nothing else in circumstances where our national status has had no political voice for most of the past three centuries, and where even in modern times the establishment has deliberately marginalised any and all meaningful discussion on the subject.
What the whole of Scottish society requires is to be fully educated and informed on the true meaning, prospects and implications of independence.
As opposed to a 'quickie' referendum, held in ignorance of the real issues, all sides should have their say in a full debate.
Not least of all, the conditioning effects of 300 years of London government need to be addressed, and the myths and bogies surrounding independence properly scotched.
As the prospects of independence become better understood, and confidence grows in the 'can do' outlook of a Scottish Government that prioritises the interests of Scotland's people, support and informed enthusiasm for independence can only gather momentum.
Given the choice between playing our full, recognised and valuable part in the global community of nations, or remaining "Out of the Loop" as one of the last dependencies of London, I would be confident that most educated Scots would choose the former.
As a people, we deserve nothing less.
Complain about this comment
Brian:
It is true...
--Dennis Junior--
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS