Taxing times
This, lest it had escaped your notice, is apparently shaping up to be "the most difficult week" of John Swinney's Ministerial career. According to the Labour Party.
It should be noted that the said J. Swinney looks and sounds remarkably sanguine for someone allegedly poised for the political guillotine.
That said, the Scottish Government has appeared less than entirely comfortable in its handling of the vanishing tax power (disclosed to an astonished nation by me, among others, last Thursday.)
In summary, then. The Scottish Parliament has the power to vary the standard rate of income tax up or down by a maximum of 3p in the pound.
This is set out in the Scotland Act 1998 (Part V, if you need to find it in the copy by your bedside.)
'They say no'
This power, once so contentious that it merited a separate question in the 1997 referendum, has never been used for the good and sensible political reason that it would generate more grief than revenue.
As things stand, it does not look like being used any time soon. The governing SNP once flirted with a "penny for Scotland". Now - and for the future - they say no.
Ditto Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats who propose instead to reform the tax powers of Holyrood, as set out in the Calman Report.
Enter Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. In order to prepare for the prospect of the Tartan Tax in the first instance, they extracted £12m from the Scottish budget. (They're good at that sort of thing.)
That down payment at the onset of devolution was followed by £50k per annum up to 2007 when, according to the Scottish Government, the contract ran out.
Again according to Scottish Ministers, HMRC then indicated they planned to upgrade their IT (not, again, an unknown event at the Queen's revenue.) Scottish dosh was seemingly demanded.
It is there that interpretations differ. According to the Scottish Secretary Michael Moore, there was neglect and delay on the part of the SG. Finally, according to the SofS, the SG vetoed any payment in August this year, thus causing the tax power finally to lapse.
Mr Swinney's version, in a letter today, is that his officials were still seeking talks and clarification in August 2010. As I disclosed last week, the bill presented by HMRC at that point was £7m.
Real questions
Enter Labour. Why, they ask, did John Swinney not disclose details of the emerging problem? Did he mislead Parliament when he told MSPs in his Budget statement that he had ruled out resorting to the Tartan Tax - when he knew at the time that the tax was in limbo?
Intriguing questions. Enter Team Swinney in response. See the letter, they say. We were still seeking clarification from HMRC.
It has always been the case that it would take an extended period to put the Tartan Tax into action.
Further, from Team Swinney.
Now that Michael Moore has put the issue on the table, perhaps he might care to explain who would pay for implementation costs of the Calman Tax?
Would it be the Scottish Government, as with the Tartan Tax. Or would we follow the precept that he who orders a functional change, bears the cost? (Think tunes and pipers.)
To conclude. Mr Swinney has questions to answer. Real questions as well as partisan questions. (The two are seldom the same.)
He may face some of those from the Finance Committee tomorrow - although it is thought more likely that the substantive exchange will occur when the Minister makes a statement to the full Parliament.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~55~RS~)
I'm 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Judging by recent blogs Brian, substantive seems to be one of your favourite words; ironic considering the lack of substance of the constant posturing of the opposition parties that seems to make up the frothy fare of Scottish political discourse.
E.g. manufactured outrage over a tax varying power that none of the major parties has used or ever will use, that will be superceded by the undemocratic imposition of the Calman proposals, and that would have cost as much to set up as it would have raised at its maximum 3% level in the first year.
Just how many angels can occupy the head of a pin?
Complain about this comment
It does not look like he has serious answers to provide at all.
Scotland has lost nothing, and saved some £7m which would have been
spent on a system no one wants to use, no one claims they want to use,
and the current Westminster and Unionist mob plan to replace before
it could be used.
Do the Unionists smell a procedural issue to attack on ?, because
there is nothing substantive here.
Complain about this comment
""the most difficult week" of John Swinney's Ministerial career." According to the bbc who don't represent us and basically work against Scotland relentlessly spreading propaganda for London which we have to pay for! Also you are still avoiding releasing the details in the letter from Alex Salmond which answers all the questions and clearly lays the blame in London. By which you are not telling the news but a one sided piece in support of you London masters. People should be aware and search out the news sites for Scotland which will tell you the whole picture not the carefully selected bbc version.
Complain about this comment
So HMRC decide to upgrade their computer system and upgraded to a system unable to fulfill the taskings of the previous system and are blaming this on the SNP? Also the Lib Dems and Labour rather than standing up for this slight against Scotland are supporting London against Scotland.
Complain about this comment
afternoon, as noted by Ambi above this has nothing to do with the tax varying powers that will never be used. this is about setting a president for later in the year when the con dems hit us with there version of "calman" whether we like it or not. If the Scottish government had paid the £7 million demanded not only would we be paying the tax man twice for the privelage of paying our taxes, but westminster would then charge us for every single change that THEY propose
using the £7 million as the excuse.
another point of course is the HMRC will not be in a position to implement any changes until 2013 at the earliest.
we also have the problem that it took HMRC over 2 years to reply to letters sent by the Scottish government.
we also have questions regarding the Scottish Secretary and his use of the information available and how he decided to ignore the pieces of information that did not suit his political needs.
just when you thought the last Labour Scottish secretary could not be beaten the con dems send us Mr Moore
Sid
Complain about this comment
Seems like a bit of a storm in a tea cup to me. A spot of opportunistic politicking anyone?
This is a nothing story, another labour smoke without fire exercise.
I'm not entirely sold on the SNP (although for me its a yes for independance,) but over the past few days they've seemed to be more professional, more constrained and more pragmatic. The other parties have offered nothing approaching being worthy or constructive in reply.
If all they can do is nit pick at points of process and procedure with this and the one year budget, its not exactly blowing anyones political skirts up.
I was just thinking, although I don't always see it myself, if BwB is supposed to be so biased toward the unionist agenda; its not doing much of a job of it. Where are the Labour/LD/Tory buzzwords and policies?
Oh hold on...
;-)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I merely wish to echo the sentiments expressed in previous contributions and to ask if there is news of the Loch Lomond branch of Al Quaeda?
Seems to have gone exceptionally quiet on the scaremongering front, both from STV , who announced that the boys in blue were keeping schtum but their sources were willing to confirm terrorist activity - unnamed sources , and dear Sallys wide eyed report on RS geared to alarm old ladies.
So any real news then???
Complain about this comment
If you need answers to any of the questions raised here on Scottish Labour's behalf, read this letter from Alex Salmond to Michael Moore which makes everything perfectly clear:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/11/19163646
Complain about this comment
So, Michael Moore, currently serving in a post that he and his party campaigned to abolish, is demanding that the Scottish people whose interests he is supposed to represent, should pay for a Westminster imposed IT upgrade, to maintain a facility that they don't want, for which they have already paid, and which will be shortly superceeded by Westminster imposed changes to Holyrood's tax powers.
And you're pitching this as a difficult week for John Swinney, Brian?
It's stunning how the most clear cut cases can be spun in unionist favour by their taxpayer funded spin doctors, the BBC. Shocking, Brian.
Complain about this comment
Comment 7; I attempted to paste Alex Salmonds letter on here for informative purposes only to be told it broke house rules due to some sort of copyright problem. Surely if this is in the public domain it should be ok to reproduce. It doesnt look good having a debate on a subject matter without having and also refusing access to a key element of the issue.
Complain about this comment
Well well well
We all knew this version of events was on its way but did anybody expect this! course we did!
If the current SoS Moore is trying to make political gain here and now in 2010, Will the BBC be asking why the previous SoS Murphy didn't make an issue of this in 2007, 2008, 2009.
As I pay for my state broadcaster to offer a balanced view of a story I expect that my funds go towards questions such as this being answered!
Some of us have no fear what that answer will be based on the Facts.
Complain about this comment
Interesting on the Loch Lomond front yet again it's London stepping in and taking over. On the Tartan Tax front wouldn't the cost be sorted if we had fiscal autonomy all the money raised in Scotland by a Scottish Tax Collection Agency. Rather than paying London to collect our taxes which are then sent to London and spent by London?
Complain about this comment
Unbelievable! We are supposed to PAY the HMRC for the privelage of taxing ourselves. You couldn't make it up.
Wouldn't it just be more sensible to govern ourselves - completely. I for one have had more than enough of the duplicity of the Westminster/Unionist parasites. Let's just be shot of them and govern our own country. At least then we'd only have ourselves to blame.
Independence from Westminster seems to be the ONLY way forward.
Complain about this comment
And it took since last Thursday to come up with this!! With no mention of the response form the FM which was copied to everybody and their dog, but which the BBC cannot seem to publish, or analyse with a balanced hand. Fact as its a statement of public record.
Complain about this comment
Brian as a journalist have a look at the Scottish Government website.
Response on tax powers
The clear impression can only be that your letter was not about the cost of financial powers that are going to be superseded, but rather about establishing a precedent for the Scottish Government paying to instal and administer the Calman tax proposals - which unlike the SVR will require to be used every year.
Why should we pay for a flawed unworkable system?
Complain about this comment
How come Jim Murphy never mentioned the SNP stopping the 50 grand payments whilst he was in the scottish office?
I also notice on Jim spences blog he occassionally answers some of the questions put to him. His is indeed a jolly with jim. Come on brian, have a blether back with some of the guys above.
Complain about this comment
What it really shows is how the BBC, Labour and LibDems are working together against Scotland. Remember this when it comes to voting and finding alternative ways of receiving unspin doctored news!
Complain about this comment
So Brian, the current holder of the position as Scotland's Maninlondon, or London's Maninscotland, who has been around for a few short weeks, raises an issue that has been around since 2007, doing so with public utterances and by omitting the salient points. Does it perhaps occur to our finest political analysts that those holding the same post from 2007 onwards may have something to say on the subject during their time in office, if there was any merit to the tale? One of those incumbents in particular, and all of their London masters were known for hiding their contempt for ther government of our nation. Have you asked any of them what their knowledge was, or their views may have been?
Any thoughts either on the response of our First Minister, you know, the letter the BBC refuse to publish in full?
Complain about this comment
So let me get this straight, England wanted us to pay them for the privilege of the option of raising our own taxes (which if we did then they would also dock the amount we raised from the portion of the UK budget allocated to Scotland), and then they wanted to upgrade their own computer system (which was a complete fiasco as we all know) and we would be expected to pay extra for that, and then they wanted us to pay again. And this is all without actually using the option? And now the unionists are upset we declined to take part in the little shakedown scam?
Nice little earner for down south isn't it. I'd be more upset if we had paid.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Brian I assume you have now had the time to read Rab's report on FMQs - do you still stand by your version?
Complain about this comment
Is that it?
Nothing in the last 30mins or closed?
Complain about this comment
So a referees strike is bigger news than Swinneys response.
Complain about this comment
The two letters from Michael Moore and Alex Salmond have entirely different narratives.
In Michael Moore's letter the narrative is that the SNP stopped the £50,000 yearly payments for maintenance of the HMRC's systems in 2007 and because of that HMRC will now take two years to put it right again.
For the sake of £150,000 over three years the SNP has made the SVR power unusable by other parties for the next two years.
In Alex Salmond's letter HMRC informed the Scottish Government in 2007 that they were changing their tax system and in 2008 informed the Scottish Government that they were installing a completely new system. HMRC then demanded £7 Million in July 2010 to make it work with the SVR. The Scottish Government refused to pay and requested talks with HMRC about it and the first Government communication they received about the issue was Michael Moore's letter.
I've no idea if the £50,000 payments were stopped in 2007 because the new HMRC system was coming in but even if they had been paid for 2008, 2009 and 2010 then the Scottish Government would still have been hit for a demand for £7 Million and a two year delay because the issue is not the maintenance of the original systems used by HMRC but the fact that HMRC have rebuilt the systems and are unilaterally demanding money to rebuild into them the capability to handle the SVR. The Scottish Government would also have wasted £150,000 on maintaining a system which was scrapped in 2010.
Michael Moore's letter can only be described as economical with the truth.
Complain about this comment
I see Brian is still rather misery with the truth. As is the Scottish Office in their reply to Swinney.
And they still haven't published Salmonds reply.
"A Scotland Office spokesman said: "The forthcoming Scotland Bill has nothing to do with a decision by the Scottish government to remove Holyrood's SVR power. They are two very different things."
I'm afraid they are not. Still pedalling the same old lies I see by attempting to hide the true costs of the Calman Tax being foisted upon Scotland. Or do you expect the millions its going to cost to be blindly coughed up by a compliant Holyrood.
Oh! by the way, the Scottish Government has not removed Holyroods SVR power.
""The SVR power was available to MSPs and now it isn't. It can be used again in 2013 at the earliest." -Why? because HMRC cannot cope with their outdated computers...
Complain about this comment
The Scottish Parliament has not lost any powers.
HMRC has lost, temporarily, the ability to collect the SVR until 2012/13 because of its new IT upgrade and wants us to pay £7 million to add the functionality which was part of the old system and for which we paid £12 million in 2000.
The Secretary of State for Scotland lost the plot and wrote to Mr Salmond then released the letter to the media before Mr Salmond had a chance to reply.
The BBC has lost their copy of Mr Salmond's letter to the Scottish Secretary and in their failure to acknoledge it had been snet they have lost any claims to 'impartiality'.
The Scottish Press seem to have lost their copy of Mr Salmond's letter too.
An awful lot of losses but at least the Parliament still has its unused tax raising powers and we, the people, still have the £7 million.
How many apprenticeships, policemen, nurses or teachers will we get for that Mr Gray?
Complain about this comment
The problem with Calman is not just that they will be foisting an unworkable, detrimental part tax system in the words of economic experts on to Scotland. Calman grabs back powers and responsibilities to London. All thanks to Labour and the LibDems.
Complain about this comment
Just shows how "on the ball " Skeletor Murphy was in his short spell as Brown's enforcer in Scotland ; was it that the treasury didn't bother telling him, or else did he fail to understand the implications. Swinney should be congratulated for giving up the option, why should Scotland be saddled with higher levels of tax than the rest of the UK ?
Complain about this comment
Its another of those scare stories that generate a huge amount of "anger", "fury" etc etc then just as quickly disappear having accomplished their task, the task this time was to divert away from a very competent budget statement by Swinney, mission accomplished, move along nothing to see here.
Any more news on the Loch Lomond bomb story, no, dont expect anything too soon
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
FROM ANOTHER PLACE.
Dubbieside said...
Thought that you might be interested in an article from the Times in 2009 posted in The Scotsman comments, discussion about the SNP attempt to introduce a local income tax.
From The Times
January 23, 2009
“David Hartnett, head of Revenue and Customs, will send a letter to Scotland's top civil servant saying that there is no legal basis for a local tax and that the Revenue would refuse to collect it.”
“HMRC does not have the power to collect or administer a local income tax: its role in relation to the devolved administration is confined to administering the Scottish Variable Rate,” a reference to the Scottish Parliament's never-used power to raise or lower the basic rate of income tax by up to 3p in the pound. UK Government sources said last night that a key purpose of the letter from the Revenue was to disabuse the SNP Government of the notion that it could “instruct” the taxman to collect a local income tax.”
Note, no mention from HMRC of the Scottish Variable Rate having been constitutionally abandoned.
So did the ability to collect this tax still exist in 2009? According to HNRC it did if this letter is correct.
22 November 2010 12:08
Complain about this comment
Is it just me or does Michael Moore have a strange shaped head a bit like a Mekon? They do say the Lib Dems aren't from here don't they!
Complain about this comment
Let me get this right,Salmond has apparently published a letter in response to this mince.Mr Taylor hasn`t MENTIONED it,maybe it doesn`t exist.
Months ago, Mr Taylor CLAIMED to have seen a letter backing up Iain Grays claims about SDS (which was also mince) ,maybe it does exist but nobody else has seen it.
Impartiality is so confusing.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
People are now talking about the mess of the Calman Tax. Has anyone looked at what else Calman will do? WAKE UP!!!!
Complain about this comment
Brian is there ever going to be a story that you report on that highlights the Labour Party in anything less than fawning admiration ?
do you not feel the merest twinge of regret when writing your blog when you avoid the main issues only to concentrate on any story that may show the SNP Government in a less than favourable light ?
I dont think Mr Swinney has anything to worry about compared to the parcel of rogues.
Complain about this comment
Scottish Variable Rate of tax no longer available
This site has a government health warning!
Complain about this comment
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] Michael Moore's letter to Alex Salmond makes interesting reading on a number of points.
What started Scottish Secretary Michael Moore thinking about the state of HMRC's computer systems and the Scottish Variable Rate and where did he get his information about the current state of play between the Scottish Government and HMRC?
If Michael Moore had picked up the phone and talked to HMRC then he would have been, "privy to the dialogue", between the Scottish Government, "in the past three years", so he must have got his information from some other source as he appears quite knowledgeable about some aspects of the situation such as the request from HMRC for cash in 2010 and the fact they can't get their new systems capable of coping with the SVR for the next two years.
Michael Moore pulled the trigger with his letter to Alex Salmond but who handed him the dud ammunition? It's speculation of course but his Scottish Lib-Dem Colleague Danny Alexander works as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Again it's speculation, but the Lib-Dem Highland constituencies are under threat from the SNP and a Labour Executive in Holyrood would give the Lib-Dems a chance at coalition government in Scotland again.
Complain about this comment
33. Vakov2000
"Is it just me or does Michael Moore have a strange shaped head a bit like a Mekon? They do say the Lib Dems aren't from here don't they!"
He is acting rather green.
Complain about this comment
35. Peter Mason
I'd change your tablets before posting again then people will be able to understand what your trying to say in a coherent manner, deep breaths if the pharmacy is closed.
Complain about this comment
Interesting. My link was to a google page which contained a link to a pdf of Michael Moore's letter so the direct link to a pdf rule wasn't broken.
If you want to see Michael Moore's letter go to
http://www.betternation.org/2010/11/a-nationalist-government/
and there's a link to the letter in that post.
Unless of course linking to that letter is as doubleplusungood as mentioning Alex's letter.
Complain about this comment
good evening Peter #35 , always good to hear from one of our southern cousins, Glad to hear the average Englishman would be happy for Scotland to go it's own way.feel free to campain thanks.
"Scots hatred of everyone and everything English has not diminished"
I am sorry you feel this way and would attempt to prove to you that apart form the British political class nothing could be further from the truth.
"confirming me in my determination not to knowingly buy Scots goods or services after all why should some-one pay good money to those who hate them?"
if you and your countrymen were to adopt that policy world wide you wouldn't get much trade done would you!!
feel free to call back anytime for a chat Peter
Sid
Complain about this comment
Sphincter-nomics
Other sites are available.
Complain about this comment
9. Paul McDonald
"If you need answers to any of the questions raised here on Scottish Labour's behalf, read this letter from Alex Salmond to Michael Moore which makes everything perfectly clear:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/11/19163646"
Should we trouble to ask why Brian Taylor makes no mention of this letter?
Complain about this comment
10. Paul McDonald
"So, Michael Moore, currently serving in a post that he and his party campaigned to abolish, is demanding that the Scottish people whose interests he is supposed to represent..."
The Secretary of State for Scotland does not represent the interests of Scotland's people. If that was ever the purpose of the office it long since ceased to be so. For as long as I can remember the SoS has represented the British state and the asserted sovereignty of Westminster.
Complain about this comment
39. DougtheDug
Just heard that Danny boy is getting grilled Thurs afternoon after FM kickabout.
Complain about this comment
35. Peter Mason
"The average Englishman would be quite happy for Scotland to go it's own way as post-devolution it's become clear that Scots hatred for every one and everything English hasn't diminished as a result of Union..."
How sad that you can only find self-affirmation in the imagined "hatred" of others.
Complain about this comment
#43. I'd love to know what he puts in his petrol tank. Or how he can run his central heating system. No Scotch in his drinks cabinet either. Mind you , who would attend his drinky poo's parties if the heating is off.
Complain about this comment
What has happened to the posts, at present there are three that have been awaiting moderation since 10:35 pm last night, I can appreciate that overnight things slow down but come on
Complain about this comment
50. soosider
All the BBC blogs seemed to be down overnight.
Complain about this comment
Presumably, come independence, HMRC will have to upgrade their system to recognise Scottish addresses in order to delete them. Will they ask us to pay for that too?
Complain about this comment
i really don't understand why people here get them selfs worked up by unionist propagandists. the British state is on its last legs. it's riddled with corruption westminster expenses claims,like any failing state its arm forces are being cut to the extent where there is only one Scottish regiment they are closing airbases even the coastguard are threatening to end it's deep sea tugs service in scotland. don't let them determine the agenda. lets make it clear to people in scotland that rather than argue over this or that little tit bit, that it should be all power to the Scottish parliament and nothing less.
Complain about this comment
has any one had a numbers count on how many labour peer's are in Scotland at this time. these "working class" lords could give lessons to the new crop of we will sell our souls and anything else for london rule. the bbc could provide facilities, sorry extended existing support on how to tell tall tales the drama department could teach them to perfect the well known labour tricks of contrived shock and sincerity.
Complain about this comment
tamO #53
I wrote to Michael Moore a few weeks ago to ask if someone could explain to me why 35% accountability is right and 100% accountability is wrong. He hasn't got back to me yet.
Complain about this comment
Royal Wedding 29 April 2011 : Scottish & Welsh elections 6 days later.
Complain about this comment
29th of April 1911!
The unionists are really getting the woblies.
Complain about this comment
56. reincarnation
"Royal Wedding 29 April 2011 : Scottish & Welsh elections 6 days later."
A deliberately contrived clash of dates? Or just plain thoughtlessness?
Complain about this comment
So, the royal wedding to take place on the 29th April 2011. 6 days before the Scottish elections. There's a surprise, the meeja won't have any airtime available for coverage of the election (except the usual Labour propaganda, of course). Isn't that so convenient for those that won't want the people of Scotland to have too much time to think about the real issues. The establishment machine is working overtime! Methinks that they are very, very worried that the union is going to fall apart, and they NEED the Scottish resources very, very much.
Complain about this comment
So I'm not the only one who listens to the news...lol!
Complain about this comment
Call me a cynic but I believe there will be two or three election specials around 30 minutes long timed for 10:30+ pm, lots more 2 hour long prime time wedding specials.
Complain about this comment
58. Electric Hermit
"A deliberately contrived clash of dates? Or just plain thoughtlessness?"
A bit of both, I imagine. But politicians will have looked for party advantage as always.
Difficult to guess the direct effect on the Scottish & Welsh elections. Certainly "Britishness" will be emphasized. Ultra-Royalists and Republicans won't be affected, so no difference there. Scotland is much less OTT about the Royals than England is, so the wall to wall coverage may put as many backs up about constant commentary from London, as it encourages floaters to cast a vote for the UK.
The UK is supposed to be having a referendum on AV on the same day (which the Tories didn't want). If there was any political calculation by Cameron, I suspect it was much more focussed on derailing the referendum.
Either way, the timing of the wedding is disrespectful to the democratic process.
Complain about this comment
No chance of finding a slot for a leaders debate then? Schedule to full?
Complain about this comment
Just thought I would add that there are two very obvious readon that no administration has used the 3p tax raising powers. For employers in Scotland, they would either be forced to pay employees in scotland higher wages than if the employees were located in England to make up the shortfall or they would end up being less able to attract workers to Scotland (preferring England).
In the end, it's a sure-fire vote loser and political suicide for any party to go down this route... hence it will never be used and as such we shouldn't bother paying for it.
Well done to John Swinney for showing exactly how critically flawed this half-hearted tax raising power actually is. I would suspect that it was engineered by the unionist parties to be critically flawed.
Complain about this comment
Forgot to mention the additional squeeze with the AV debates.
Complain about this comment
Good grief, now even the Royal Wedding is anti-SNP. Get a grip of yourselves.
Complain about this comment
Still no BBC publication of Alex Salmonds response to Michael Moore. Whatever happened to impartiality? Is it hiding somewhere along with Iain Grays SDS document? I think we need to know!
Complain about this comment
66. deducted4points
So you are happy that a proposed major change in the voting system of the UK should be sidelined by a pomp and circumstance event just before the vote?
Complain about this comment
66. deducted4points
No, not anti-SNP, anti-democratic, not "Respect" for Scotland from David Cameron.
Why not have the wedding in the summer, after the elections.
Complain about this comment
#66. deducted4points wrote:
"Good grief, now even the Royal Wedding is anti-SNP. Get a grip of yourselves."
Actually, all through history the royals have contrived to maintain the Union... the motive is obvious, it maintains their power and it is actually naive and harder to believe that they wouldn't have considered the advantage to be gained.
Complain about this comment
I would also add that the Royals have an army of advisers which work on everything from what the Queen will wear to whats in the Xmas Speech. To believe that the timing was not discussed in great detail form all viewpoints (political and non-political) is cause for me using the comment 'good grief'deducted4points.
Complain about this comment
#66. deducted4braincells
You obviously have no idea the lengths the establishment will go to to defend its little empire. Especially when it needs the resources that one of its minions has and it doesn't. When it comes to dirty tricks they wrote the book.
Complain about this comment
66. deducted4points
Could the royal wedding impact on next May’s key elections?
Notice the 's' its plural.
Complain about this comment
This is an interesting article and I suspect some smoke and mirrors with the release of the date of 28th April... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331917/Kate-Middletons-Royal-wedding-Lib-Dems-fear-April-clash-voting-referendum.html
...and as an aside, what do you think this quote from the article means deducted4points; "Royal aides last night spoke of their ‘frustrations’ over delays to the announcement of the wedding date and venue, which has been stalled by back-and-forth discussions involving the couple and their advisers."
As I said in a previous post a week ago "Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Wedding has to be held on the weekend of the elections, they will almost certainly hold it about one month after (say the end of May to mid June), this way they will maximise media 'build-up & hype' to co-incide with the Scottish Elections... It's not the day itself that's critical!"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2010/11/blood_sport.html#P (post #26)
I believe there may still be a further change of date to come.
Complain about this comment
For those that have forgotten the coverage in the run up to May 2010 election, dominated by 'UK' debates where the Scottish debate was pushed to the background.
Now we have Scottish elections and guess what will happen, they will be pushed to the background by the "Royal Wedding Specials" and the "AV Constitutional Debates".
This is not paranoia, it happened this year, it will happen next year.
"Too wee, too stupid, TOO INSIGNIFICANT"
Complain about this comment
66. At 12:52pm on 23 Nov 2010, deducted4points wrote:
Good grief, now even the Royal Wedding is anti-SNP. Get a grip of yourselves.
Did Lizzie not go on TV and state that she remembered being crowned
Queen of (insert list of countries) and Scotland, in the week before the
1979 vote.
Sorry, but neutral they are not, I see an opportunistic selection of
dates - and I agree above, its probably more of a move to undermine
the AV debate as much as rally the union camp in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
So many people are missing the point and, I am afraid, trying to make political points. Of course the tax varying powers will not be used and standing up to demands for payments from Westminster can be seen as very reasonable. Clearly the issue of who pays for such things needs to be out in the open and that, is where the problems start for the Government. The problem for John Swinney and the Government is that they chose not to inform parliament of what was going on. That assumes it was a choice and not just neglect. Whether you agree with the outcome or not, failing to keep parliament informed that their actions were changing what Scotland voted for is actually quite serious.
Complain about this comment
I see the wedding date has also been picked up by Political Betting re the clash with voting. Whilst Holyrood have still to confirm the public holiday position it does of course fall in the week of Easter Monday, and is followed by a further holiday on Monday 2 May, before we cast our votes a few days later. So possibly three days off at the height of the campaign, with the union flag waving proudly and the BBC giving it laldy. And what does three days of no business in the space of a week do to the robust economy? Schools closed for four days out of nine for those used as polling stations, and that of course just after at least a fortnight off for 'spring break'.
Complain about this comment
There is a tendency on this blog by many posters to see everything said or done as a slight against Scotland, or a conspiracy against the SNP. The truth for those willing to look objectively is very different. To suggest that the timing of a royal marriage is a contrivance to disadvantage Scotland or its nationalist minority, or as one poster put it:
"Either way, the timing of the wedding is disrespectful to the democratic process".
is to take conspiracy paranoia to new heights. One look at the diary of the monarch, written months and years in advance of the commitments recorded within it, should suggest to those with more open minds that there would be very few suitable dates available for the wedding, and once other considerations are factored in for such a large state occasion, fewer still. The world doesn't stop because some elections are being held the following week. I would respectfully suggest that the royal wedding will have zero impact on the way that people vote.
Complain about this comment
#77, not missing the point at all as I believe it to be. I understand that the Scottish Government requested further discussions on the issues with the HMRC and no response was forthcoming. It was then the HMRC who stated that the payments had lapsed and that they could no longer administrate the SVR. This would point to the fault being firmly with the HMRC rather than the Scottish Government.
Complain about this comment
79. PickledPete
"should suggest to those with more open minds that there would be very few suitable dates available for the wedding"
So the democratic process takes second place so that a priveleged few can strut their exuberance of riches to the majority, in case you haven't noticed this is the 21st not 15th century we are living in.
Complain about this comment
#97, PickledPete. First of all, the term 'Conspiracy Theory/Theorist' or 'Conspiracy Paranoia' as you state it, is a long used mechanism for subduing articulate dissention with respect to those opposed to any viewpoint which is held by those using it. It is often followed by 'Conspiracy theory nuts' and other derogatory terms.
In truth though, many times in history have shown that the conspiracies were indeed factual and did indeed happen.
Finally, your final statement; "I would respectfully suggest that the royal wedding will have zero impact on the way that people vote.", is quite bizarre indeed. There is absolutely no way you can possibly know that as fact... none of us can and indeed, following the ballots, without having another ballot 'minus a wedding' there is really no way to measure how much of an effect it made, if it did make any.
Daft comment really.
Complain about this comment
Mmm...
The Royal Marriage.
Is it a contrivance or conspiracy? No, I don't think so. What I think it is, is a happy coincedence.
Would they schedule it for 6 days before a General Election? And before you say that is a more important election, I would argue that a Scottish or Welsh elections is just as important to people who live within those borders as a GE.
@ #79 Pickled Pete. If you look hard enough you'll find anything in the words and actions of others. The thing is the UK Government (and the Monarchy I suppose in history) has form in not favouring Scotland and Wales in decision making, I would argue you're not being objective if you don't take that into account.
Complain about this comment
#82 pa_broon74 wrote; "What I think it is, is a happy coincedence."
Pa_broon... coincidences rarely happen by coincedence!!!
Complain about this comment
79. PickledPete
It's not very clever to take a quote out of context - especially when the full post #62 is just a little further upthread.
I was referring to an important referendum for the whole UK, as well as the Scottish and Welsh elections. Were this just an ordinary family wedding, then there would be no problem. But, whatever one's views of the monarchy are, the Queen is Head of State in the UK, and chose to prioritise other engagements in the royal diaries, rather than the elections and referendum. I consider that to be disrespectful of democracy.
As to the actual effect, I indicated that this was difficult to call. The Scottish Government have pointed out that the death of Diana did not affect the result of the 1997 referendum.
Complain about this comment
My post at 35 was not allowed because I dared to question the impartiality of the BBC and yourself Brian. What delicate wee souls you are. Why are you so afraid that you have to censor your blog? It just adds to the North Korean feel of the whole thing. The most popular political blog in the UK is Guidos who does not censor, at least not that you would notice, why are you so precious?
Where are the much asked for by the BBC, "silent majority," who will put the case for the maintenance of the union?
Where is the much asked for reference and acknowledgement by you of the very relevant and important Salmond letter to Moore, what are you afraid of?
You cannot duck the allegation that you are biased towards the Labour party and the status quo, the evidence is here before us in the archive of your blog, it is blatant and self evident.
Where is the Iain Gray evidence “documented” that you said he had regarding the SDS, why are you so afraid to admit you were wrong?
The best way forward for Alex Salmond now is to put forward the budget and then the entire Scottish cabinet resign if the Unionist cabal have the moral fibre to vote it down. That will scupper the cynical disrespect agenda in putting the British state affair in the middle of one of the most important election campaigns ever in Scotand. Their Royal Wedding and their AV vote will look very hollow after a resounding SNP win in March.
Complain about this comment
Not all conspiracies are theories!
Complain about this comment
79. At 2:26pm on 23 Nov 2010,
PickledPete, do you have access to the Monarchs diary?
I am sure that there are no events that cannot be cancelled for a Royal Wedding.
It is a blatant attempt at influencing the democratic process, the British establishment is running scared, and so they should, the golden goose of Scotland is about to fly the nest.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown told us that high house prices made us all wealthy. So why on earth would anyone believe anything Labour said now?
Complain about this comment
Nothing like front loading an arguement. The following can be seen on the BBC's recenly published article on the Scotland/Politics page. The article in question is reasonably balanced (IMO) but they just can't help themselves! (Note large font, bold at the reference.)
"His refusal to provide straight answers to straight questions or offer any regret is beginning to make his position look very difficult”
End Quote Andy Kerr Labour finance spokesman"
Complain about this comment
It is curious that first the AV referendum was chosen to be held on the same day as the Scottish Election, and now this scheduled for 6 days before.
Is it merely coincidence or conspiracy? Or is it all deliberately planned to minimise the impact and publicity and importance of the Scottish Election?
You choose!!
But lets have a look at some basic known facts.
Westminster knew very well what the date of the Scottish Election, and still chose to hold the AV referendum on that date. Not much Respect there, Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg!
The Royal Wedding had the whole of the summer to choose dates for, and the Government and Royal Household could easily have chosen another free date after the Scottish election, even given whatever the engagements the Queen may have in her diary.
Would either of these events have been held at the same time as a General Election??? Almost certainly not!!!
Complain about this comment
What absolute drivel you Nats are spouting - nothing unusual there!
You are obviously starting to look for excuses to use when you lot are booted out at the election next year.
Complain about this comment
92. deducted4points
"So you are happy that a proposed major change in the voting system of the UK should be sidelined by a pomp and circumstance event just before the vote?"
That comment is up to your normal standard of "political debate". However, I repeat my previous question to you -
"So you are happy that a proposed major change in the voting system of the UK should be sidelined by a pomp and circumstance event just before the vote?"
Complain about this comment
93. reincarnation
My computer has a drivel filter, so that detucted4points actual comment was replaced by my sensible question!
I've switched it off just so that it is clear what his/her level of argument was - "What absolute drivel you Nats are spouting"
Complain about this comment
93 - Are you suggesting that a wedding (albeit a Royal one) will change the opinion of those voting in the election... If you are then you have a very low opinion of the Scottish electorate.
To answer the point you made - I am neither happy nor unhappy as the proposed major change to the voting system will not be sidelined - if you think it will be then more fool you.
Complain about this comment
95. deducted4points
"If you are then you have a very low opinion of the Scottish electorate."
Actually, I'm rather more concerned about our Southern brethren. They tend to be much more exercised about the Royals. As BT himself pointed out on the news, 40% of Scots are unconcerned about the wedding.
The issue is not whether the wedding WILL affect any referendum or election, but that it MIGHT. You may have missed Cameron being asked on Sky News as to its possible effects, and his reply that he didn't think it would affect the referendum "or any local" election result.
Of course, it might be that the media give the same coverage to the referendum and election campaigns that they would sans wedding - but that seems unlikely.
The Royals can't have a wedding during Lent, due to Church of England protocols, and so it has been arranged in the next week. Is it too much to ask that they prioritised the democratic process, and had the ceremony after the elections?
Complain about this comment
96 Reincarnation:
"Actually, I'm rather more concerned about our Southern brethren. They tend to be much more exercised about the Royals".
+++++++++++++++++++
I wouldn't worry if I were you; we English may be more enthused about the Crown (though I see no evidence that a majority of Scots are republican) than you are personally, but I hope that you are not suggesting that we are not sufficiently sophisticated politically to separate a royal event from a political one?
Complain about this comment
I would be very grateful if anyone could answer the following questions :
1. If SVR powers are enshrined in law via the Scotland Act 1998 (part
v) then can these powers really be contingent upon meeting cash
demands from HMRC ?
2. If HMRC have embarked upon an upgrade of their systems that will
remove any possibility of using SVR until 2012/13 then in what sense
is the Scottish Government responsible for this loss in capacity ?
3. If we accept the principle that Scotland pays the costs incurred
by any UK agency/department as a result of exercising devolved
powers - are we to expect a hefty bill from London every time we
move a parliamentary muscle ?
4. Why has the BBC still not published the First Minister's letter
regarding these matters ?
Complain about this comment
Brian
Surely some mistake. If we are to pay Westminster for everything we do, why do we not just cut out Westminster and do it for ourselves? This cannot be the thought that our esteemed SoS wishes to implant in the heads of the too wee, too poor and too stupid? I mean a Scotsman and his money are not easily parted and the consequential Scotsman with a grievance is easily distinguishable from a ray of sunshine.
Nor is the timing particularly apposite, what with Christmas coming and the New Year with a rise in VAT as well as the Christmas bills. So maybe we'll have stopped bitching about it by the rise in NI in April followed by Westminster pouring out more of our taxes on a Wedding in London to add to the Olympics in London, CrossRail in London and the HighSpeed lines 1 and 2 to London.
I'm afraid the ConDem government are showing little forethought to add to their lack of respect in their dealings with Scotland.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS