'Academic ping pong'
"Academic ping pong": thus Brian Adam of the SNP on the exchanges at the Scotland Bill committee last week with Professors Drew Scott and Andrew Hughes Hallett.
Mr Adam apologised for what he believed was aggressive questioning directed at the profs by committee members from other parties.
No such apology from the presiding officer who has just replied to a complaint from Prof Scott. Indeed, from Alex Fergusson, notable caution on all fronts.
He notes that conduct in committee is the responsibility of conveners, he notes that "robust conclusions" require the testing of all evidence and he expresses a hope that relations with the academic world will not be damaged.
Which offers a little of something for everyone - as was presumably the intention - without cutting across the committee or suggesting that the questioning was inappropriate.
So what was the row all about? Fiscal autonomy / independence / responsibility.
Wherein lay the complaint from the academics who said they had prepared to answer questions on the Scotland Bill: the subject of the investitation.
Fiscal autonomy
It might have been better, perhaps, had the questioning at the committee started with the bill itself - which suggests further devolution of income tax - rather than instantly pouncing on the two professors' adherence to broader fiscal autonomy.
However, it was entirely legitimate to pursue the issue of fiscal autonomy, given that it is the suggested alternative to the measures in the Scotland Bill and has been advocated by the Scottish Government, drawing upon work by the two profs.
More to the point, there is now a substantial argument about the evidence offered - and the Scottish government interpretation.
In an academic paper in March, Prof Hughes Hallett and Prof Scott noted that "a 1% point increase in fiscal devolution {share of local expenditures in total government spending for that region} . . . might be expected to raise GDP by 1.3% after 5 years above what would otherwise have been the case."
However, in quoting this point, the Scottish government would appear to have altered the wording slightly, saying that "a 1% increase in fiscal devolution {the proportion of revenue and expenditure devolved} might be expected to raise GDP by 1.3% after five years above what would otherwise have been the case."
Version one talks of spending. Version two talks of spending and revenue. Labour has now asked the permanent secretary at the SG to explain the difference.
We will await that answer but it probably lies in a clarification offered to the committee by the profs themselves who argued it was implicit that the new devolution involved both spending and tax-varying; that is the broad panoply of government financial control.
Footnote controversy
Prof Hughes Hallett offered to revise his terminology with a new footnote in the original document.
Enter controversy number two. The evidence cited by the two profs is drawn from work by Professor Lars Feld of the University of Freiburg.
Labour and the Tories are now drawing attention to evidence Prof Feld has himself submitted to the Bill committee.
This notes that that he has been unable to discern "any robust significant effect of decentralisation on economic growth."
Which means, say the SNP's opponents, that the evidence presented to the committee was not well-founded and was further damaged by the change of wording.
However, Prof Feld is not against economic decentralisation per se.
He argues rather that it must be balanced between expenditure and tax (as in Switzerland) rather than weighted towards expenditure (as in Germany.)
Economic performance
Here is his summary conclusion in full: "Decentralised taxing powers are advantageous because financial responsibility is enhanced, political accountability regarding the relation between voters (taxpayers) and parliaments/governments in-creases.
"Decentralisation of taxes and spending leads to a more efficient public sector and it enhances economic performance.
"Fiscal decentralisation does not lead to higher economic growth because economic growth is much more driven by factors other than taxes and spending, e.g., by increases in technological progress and improved human capital. "
In committee, Prof Hughes Hallett insisted there was evidence of a growth bounce from decentralisation in comparable OECD countries (that is, taking out developing countries.)
Prof Scott noted that it was not his contention that devolving tax would automatically boost GDP. David McLetchie of the Conservatives said that was precisely the suggestion made repeatedly by the first minister and others.
Which leaves us where? In dispute, that's where.
Prof Feld says of the Scotland Bill that "the goal of financial accountability of the Parliament and Government in Scotland will be enhanced by the proposals in the Bill and the White paper.
Tax control
"A decentralisation of taxing powers will meet an already existing decentralisation of spending."
Professors Scott and Hughes Hallett argue that enhancement of accountability will be more limited than is suggested by the UK government and that the proclaimed advantages are outweighed by the relative risk of devolving further control of a single tax, on income.
This afternoon the committee will be taking evidence from, among others, Sir Kenneth Calman.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~37~RS~)
I'm 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
It is plainly obvious that the convenor of the Scotland Bill scrutiny committee did NOT want to hear the evidence that the professors wished to give, as it conflicted with her already made up mind. The professors scrutiny of the Bill and their evidence is not really required, as this commitee has already made up its mind that their unionist bill is very good for westminster (although VERY VERY bad for Scotland). It would also appear to be the case that anyone wishing to complain about the conduct of a committee can ONLY complain to the convenor of that committee. So anyone wishing to complain about Wendys conduct can only complain to Wendy. How wrong is that! Sic a parcel 'o rogues!
PS - For Sneckedagain - I responded to your post 61 on the BwB Apparent Clarity blog, but it was referred for further consideration. They have now posted it (as they had to do) as it is all TRUE. Here is the post:
61. sneckedagain wrote:
"Not to mention Baron Zippo of Flaming Curtains"
Indeed, Snecked, the worthy Baron Watson of Invergowrie! I knew there was a fourth musketeer. All good Queens men. Only one of them a known arsonist! Though Foulkes has been convicted of being drunk and disorderly. Martin only guilty of a bit of lavish re-decoration, a lot of shopping by taxi, blocking any reforms to the westmonster gravy train and doing his dmnedest to stop the public finding out about the expenses scandals. Jack is of course squeaky kleen, although a bit of a lad in his day so he told us. I wonder what title Devine might take?
Complain about this comment
The Labour, Tory and Liberal MSP's can't even reach consensus and agree within their own party's on the issue of Minimum Pricing of Alcohol...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12212240
What makes anyone think they can be coherent on the important question of fiscal responsibility?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The behaviour of the convener of the Scotland Bill committee, towards professors Drew Scott and Andrew Hughes-Hallett was utterly disgraceful and clearly politically motivated. There is a clear comparison with how an early economist was treated, being Professor Iain McLean, who is well known by repute to be sympathetic to the Calman commission’s aims and is usually happy to provide his views in any argument against the SNP’s desire for full fiscal autonomy. The treatment of Maclean compared with the later witnesses was like night and day!
As professors Drew Scott and Andrew Hughes-Hallett had written papers previously in support of the SNP argument, Ms Alexander along with Mr Mcletchie went out of their way to attack these previous papers, despite the fact that professors Drew Scott and Andrew Hughes-Hallett were there to give their views on the Scotland Bill and the Scotland Bill only (that’s what was on the invite, so that’s what their going to talk about). Now we learn that their complaints to the presiding officer, Alex Fergusson, have been rejected, which in itself is a further disgrace. The make up of the Scotland Bill Committee is flawed in that its convened by Wendy Alexander, who was part and parcel of the Calman commission, its further staffed by those who took part in the commission, so any idea of impartial and intelligent thinking is by default thrown out the window.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
You refer us to a letter from the Presiding Officer to the professors where, inter alia, Alex Fergusson says "I have therefore forwarded your letter to the convener of the Scotland Bill Committee so that your specific concerns can be considered in the appropriate forum".
Concurrently, BBC Scotland Politics (On-line) states: "Holyrood expert concern dismissed".
The first tells me that this is now the responsibility of the Convenor of the subject commitee, whereas the second tells me that no further action will be taken.
Which is correct?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Brian,
I will not try to describe your input as not more than what can be found on the midden any time of the year.
The very fact that the convener of the Committee allowed questions to the Prof’s on an out of date paper to which they both subscribed, but had no direct relationship to the question to hand nor the criteria laid down to that committee was downright ignorance at its best, and at its worst a resignation matter.
This young Lady has idea’s above her station in life, a family trait no less, if one is to do one’s job and do it well one must try hard to emulate the Judiciary and only accept evidence relevant to the case in hand, to allow others to offer opinion on other matters is not allowed nor acceptable.
So I expect you Brian to start campaigning for another resignation from Wendy and Taxi McLetchie,
But I do not expect this to be published, no more than I expect pig’s to fly.
Complain about this comment
The profs (if profs were needed) appear to have skin thinner than their conclusions; clearly someone's had their Lars Feld ...
Complain about this comment
If you actually review the work by Professor Lars Feld you will note two aspects of current research into fiscal federalism.
1. Fiscal federalism has an overall negative effect on economic growth in 'developing' countries.
2. Fiscal federalism has an overall positive effect on economic growth in 'developed' countries.
Now these are telling conclusions.
In order to sustain criticism of Hallet's and Scott's work on fiscal autonomy both Wendy Alexander and David McLetchie must hold the view that Scotland is a 'developing' nation.
Here again we see the old Unionist mantra being trumpeted of Scots being TOO POOR and TOO STUPID, and Scotland being TOO SMALL.
Complain about this comment
Both Labour and the Tories are making the arguement in debating the Scotland Bill that the Scottish economy is akin to a third world country and as such fiscal autonomy would damage the economy.
The definition of a third world country are colonies or former colonies who are dependent on economic aid.
Is this how both Labour and the Tories see Scotland - an economic basket case. It is very telling.
Complain about this comment
I fail to see how the Presiding Officer can reject the complaint, excusing the committees action as, basically, information gathering.
The professors were invited to discuss the Scotland Bill...yet the committee focussed elsewhere. Why is this excused? Do the committee regularly invite specialists to educate the committee but then go off topic? If so, why bother inviting experts to discuss and advise on issues?
I will not pretend to know the ins and outs of the Scotland bill, or fiscal autonomy etc etc, but surely experts should be listeneed to and considered? Not deceived and attacked?
I would contact the PO and Wendy, but let's face it, we know there would be a generic, vague and wishy washy response. I find this disturbing and disheartening. Do you think complaining to libs/snp msp's would lead to anything being done?
Complain about this comment
As this story seems largely about words, it is perhaps misleading to say that the Presiding Officer dismissed the complaint, is it not more accurate to report that in his opinion it is not within in his remit to have a view on this topic as the conduct of a committee is entirely the responsibility of the convenor.
It is also seems as if the actual point in question is that the Professors were invited to discuss one thing, with the papers correctly posted, however unknown to them previous papers they worked on were posted with out there consent or knowledge. It is that which to my mind makes this the issue that it is. A committee can choose to discuss anything it so wishes, but due process is to ensure that those you intend to question have been properly informed. For that reason and that one alone it is clear to me that this treatment of these professors was nothing more than a very crude political stunt. A stunt that has damaged the standing of our Parliament and will no doubt make some people invited to future committees consider their availability.
Complain about this comment
It seems brian that we have some economists who disagree with each other. I am sure that each side is equally capable of picking holes in the other side's arguments. After all both sides are speculating on what will happen.
However insstead of being able to hear the rational arguments in favour of each side, we get the one side's points being reproduced by yourself above, and the other side's points being drowned out in the committee room.
Lets get one thing straight: this was not a session of the finance committee (where all aspects of government finance may be scrutinised). This was a session of the Scotland bill committee. The remit of the Scotland bill committee is to assess the Scotland bill. There is no need to assess the alternatives as there is no imperative for any alternative. Your idea that because the Scotland bill is to do with funding the government (and removing powers from it) that any paper on funding a government that has been mentionned by anyone in the government to be funded (which by the way is not enacting the legislation) is fair game just does not fly. It would be like the health committee, scrutinising the minimum pricing legislation asking on an expert, and then questioning them on knife crime.
so what we have is that the convenor of the committee was presented with 16 pages of evidence pertaining directly to the remit of the committee, and instead of scrutinising that she chose to ignore it. More than that, she has let off a smoke screen (and don't kid yourself, that is what this is) to bury that evidence as it doesn't agree with her. Very mature, and to think she is supposed to have a brain the size of a planet. An ego the size of a planet more like.
If you wanted to do your readers a proper service brian, you would be going through the 16 pages of evidence that was submitted by the professors, trying to find out what it was that WA didn't want us to hear. That is what a political reporter would do.
John
Complain about this comment
The evidence cited by the two profs
The evidence cited by the two Profs regarding the Scotland Bill
was never discussed.
Evidence they used in a previous paper published 2 years ago
which draws upon previous work by Professor Lars Feld was used
to challenge them - challenge them unprepared, without the
papers.
This is more and more looking to be a kangeroo committee where
any dissent from the previously chosen result is met with distraction,
divergence from the committee remit and personal attacks.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Brian,
I believe your justification of the questioning of the 2 professors on their paper on Fiscal Autonomy, during a committee convened to scrutinise the Scotland Bill is inappropriate.
You state...
"However, it was entirely legitimate to pursue the issue of fiscal autonomy, given that it is the suggested alternative to the measures in the Scotland Bill and has been advocated by the Scottish Government, drawing upon work by the two profs."
I would opine - "It was most certainly not!"
The purpose of the committee is to scritinise the proposals (pro's and con's) of the Scotland Bill in itself, and if need be, make relative comparison against the staus quo, rather than against any number of alternative fiscal models not on the table for consideration.
Will this Scotland Bill work if passed? Will it be a good or bad thing? Will it improve or degrade the current situation. That sort of stuff.
Scrutiny of the Bill at hand.
Not - Is it better or worse than some other things we could have come up with?
You seem to confuse Scrutiny with Debate.
You may recall that Fiscal Autonomy was specifically NOT on the table in either the Calman Commission or the Scotland Bill at the behest of the Labour, Liberal Democrat, or Conservative parties that set the agenda for such studies and Bills at various points.
It is therefore wrong for those same parties (even those same individuals in some cases) to now look to pick holes in an entirely different proposition which is not on the table, at the expense of scrutinising their own bill on its fitness for purpose.
It is deflection from independent scrutiny of the Bill itself.
To invite academics to provide their thoughts on the Scotland Bill, as it is currently proposed; To have them prepare and submit a paper on the Scotland Bill (all be it a critical one!); and then to ignore that submission in favour of questioning some earlier work not related to the Scotland Bill (how can it be, when this earlier work was completed before the Scotland Bill was started!) - is completely unjustifiable.
I feel you should retract your "justification".
I also feel Ms Alexander & Mr McLetchie should apologise rather than continuing the attack on their invited guests, and should invite them back to discuss their thoughts regarding the merits or otherwise of the Bill, as opposed to their opinion on any other matters.
Poor show, and highly damaging to democracy in Scotland and numerous associated institutions.
Complain about this comment
"Prof Scott noted that it was not his contention that devolving tax would automatically boost GDP. David McLetchie of the Conservatives said that was precisely the suggestion made repeatedly by the first minister and others."
I think the point is that a decentralisation of tax gives the opportunity for a boost in GDP over and above what would have been achieved without the decentralisation of tax. I think Mr Mcletchie is failing to understand the finer points of financial modelling (or indeed any sort of modelling).
The only thing that will automatically increase GDP on its own is an increase in production.
John
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#5 BMC
"The first tells me that this is now the responsibility of the Convenor of the subject commitee, whereas the second tells me that no further action will be taken.
Which is correct?"
Maybe bendy has already carefully considered her response and dismissed the allegations against herself? Maybe she has already given a briefing to the BBC to this effect?
John
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"However, it was entirely legitimate to pursue the issue of fiscal autonomy, given that it is the suggested alternative to the measures in the Scotland Bill and has been advocated by the Scottish Government, drawing upon work by the two profs."
This is excellent news Brian. Another 'suggested alternative to the measures in the Scotland Bill and has been advocated by the Scottish Government', as you put it, is full blown independence. Do you have any dates when experts are to be called to discuss this as an alternative, and which experts might be included and can you buy tickets for the event or is it just first come at the door for these things?
Complain about this comment
Dr Lars Feld says "Fiscal decentralisation does not lead to higher economic growth because economic growth is much more driven by factors other than taxes and spending, e.g., by increases in technological progress and improved human capital. "
But is this not a chicken and egg argument? Technological progress and human capital are largely governed by the economic situation nurtured by the fiscal system in place? For example, tax breaks for biotech industries or favourable operating conditions for universities and the students who attend?
Oh! Hold on...
As I understand it, Wendy Alexander did deviate from the committee remit on the Scotland Bill, it was an opportunity to pour further scorn on an alternative not on the table as far as her party, the committee and all other opposing parties are concerned. The only people extolling the virtues of FFA are the SNP, what else could it have been other than a political point scoring exercise conducted in entirely the wrong forum against political rivals, that isn't what these committees are for, we have BBC Scotland for that.
Complain about this comment
Brian, when I posted in pleading tones for you to discuss the Scotland Bill this wasn't really what I meant. I guess I should have been more specific but I had hoped we would explore the inherent deflationary bias. Alas it seems we may not get round to that and it seems neither have the Scotland Bill Committee.
I wonder if anyone ever will?
Complain about this comment
Mr Taylor,
You wrote:
""However, it was entirely legitimate to pursue the issue of fiscal autonomy, given that it is the suggested alternative to the measures in the Scotland Bill and has been advocated by the Scottish Government, drawing upon work by the two profs.""
No it was NOT entirely legitimate to pursue the issue of fiscal autonomy.
The Committee's remit is to examine the provisions of the draft Scotland Bill and nowhere in that Bill is there any provision for fiscal autonomy. The professors were called to give evidence specifically on the provisions within the Scotland Bill and had prepared accordingly. The professors opening statement to the Committee made clear that that was what they were present to discuss and NOT fiscal autonomy because it was not part of the Bill.
If after hearing their specific evidence relating to the Scotland Bill the committee had asked them, politely, if they could give some further comments with regard to full fiscal autonomy then fair enough. But that was not the approach taken by the convenor of the committee or Mr McLetchie.
Full Fiscal Autonomy may very well be the preferred option of the Scottish Government BUT the specific remit of this comittee was, and is, the Scotland Bill NOT full fiscal autonomy.
The integrity of this comittee was compromised by the appointment of Ms Alexander as convenor when the Calman Commission, whose work forms the basis for this Bill, was originally proposed by her. Ms Alexander then further undermined the integrity of the Committee by appointing as an independent adviser to the committee the man who had been instrumental in drawing up the Bill. The proper role for both of them would be as witnesses to the Committee not convenor and adviser.
Complain about this comment
There is no academic "ping pong" merely a pong caused by ignorance ,arrogance and utter contempt.
For shame!
Complain about this comment
....so the deflationary bias, can anyone out there explain it to me, remembering that I am economically illiterate. I had hoped that I could read some editorials or opinion pieces which would help me with it but they're thin on the ground you know.
Complain about this comment
The professors original 16 page submission to the committee is now
available on the website of the Scotland Bill Committee - under the
link on submissions.
I urge one and all to read it.
It would be comic if it this was not so tragic.
The sheer lack of thought to the Scotland Bill, the finger in
the wind method used to pull out budget numbers and loan limits
along with the fact that Scotland Office Impact Assessment offered
no economic analysis of the new regime for Scotland. None.
This coupled with the attempt to divert attention from what little
independent analysis is available... well I'd be concerned, actually
I am not concerned, I am afraid.
Complain about this comment
Today I discovered the Scotland Bill submissions - Well
buy the cat a goldfish.
I see that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and
Wales see a poisoned chalice when they see it.
The Scottish Government would need the power to potentially vary all taxes to enable it to cater for varying economic circumstances. For example, if the revenue from Income Tax was less than forecast, there is little Holyrood would be able to do to compensate. Only with full fiscal independence could other taxes be varied to compensate.
Whereas the Scottish, the older institute, stays silent on all but
implementation details. Guess they dont want to get hammered by
Wee W's Un-British Activities Committee.
Complain about this comment
What conclusion can we draw?
unionists can not be trusted with the future of Scotland!
C McK
Complain about this comment
I'd agree with #24 cwh about Brian's statement.
However, it was entirely legitimate to pursue the issue of fiscal autonomy, given that it is the suggested alternative to the measures in the Scotland Bill and has been advocated by the Scottish Government, drawing upon work by the two profs. More to the point, there is now a substantial argument about the evidence offered - and the Scottish government interpretation.
It was not legitimate to pursue the issue of fiscal autonomy as an alternative because this was the wrong place and time to do it. Fiscal autonomy is not in the bill and it wasn't a recommendation from the Calman Commission whose output was used as the basis of the bill and in fact it wasn't even discussed in the Calman Commission.
Wendy Alexander tried to use the committee to prove that the evidence in the paper that Professors Scott and Hughes Hallet wrote and that the Scottish Government used to call for fiscal autonomy was flawed. What she did was to use the committee as a platform not to gather evidence on the Scotland Bill but as a platform to attack an alternative to the Scotland Bill put forward by the Scottish Government. It was an odd way to scrutinise a bill. She wasn't interested in comparing the economic provisions in the Scotland Bill with the current methods used in the financing of Scotland but was focused entirely on trying to discredit both the professors and the Scottish Government's alternative. I don't know of many bill committees where the convener's focus is not on the provisions in a bill but on alternative proposals which haven't made it into the bill in an attempt to either justify or obscure the actual contents of the bill in question.
In their joint opening statement Professor Drew Scott said,
"However, before I do so, I want to make two contextual points for the sake of clarity. First, as economists, we have focused exclusively on the economic implications of the bill's financial provisions as set out in the accompanying command paper. In our evidence, we do not comment on any other aspects of the bill or on the political or constitutional implications of the proposed funding regime.
Secondly, our evidence presents an economic analysis of the Scotland Bill's provisions. We do not offer any commentary on the relative or absolute merits of alternative financial arrangements, including fiscal autonomy, which we have written about quite extensively. I say this for two reasons: first, as we understand it, the committee's purpose is to examine the Scotland Bill, not alternatives to it; and, secondly, we want to alert the committee to the fact that, when we invoke comparisons either implicitly or explicitly in our evidence, our comparator is the status quo ante—in other words, what we have just now or what one might call the full Barnett model."
In a nutshell they said
1. We're only going to look at the economic aspects of the bill
2. We're not going to talk about alternatives to the bill such as fiscal autonomy
3. We're only going to compare the bill to the current funding arrangement.
And straight after that opening statement Wendy went into full swing about fiscal autonomy. It can only be assumed that from the preparation she had done and from the fact that she ignored their opening statement that she had planned to use the committee to avoid discussion of the Scotland Bill and to attack the both Professors and the Scottish Government and their alternative from the outset. This wasn't a discussion which had veered towards fiscal autonomy during the presentation by the professors but was a deliberate and staged use of the committee for party political gain and to avoid evidence from those critical of the bill.
This blog post actually follows the script that Wendy Alexander followed in the Committee. Firstly the focus on fiscal autonomy not on the contents of the Scotland Bill and secondly by trying to throw doubt on the figures in the paper written by Scott and Hughes Hallet and used by the Scottish Government.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Mr Adam apologised for what he (believed?)( tut tut Brian)
was aggressive questioning directed at the profs by committee members from other parties."
He was not the only one who witnessed and was ashamed of the disgusting politically motivated aggresive behaviour by Wendy Alexander and unionist buddie Mcletchie.
Both Alexander and her unionist cohort Mcletchie were totally out of order.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
You cannot seriously think Wendy Alexander's behaviour as convener of that committee was acceptable?
Really?
Ironic then that the Blether With Brian moderators would almost certainly have excluded her questioning as being "of topic"
Tighter rules of engagement on a blog than on a Parliamentary Committee. Now there's a thing!
Very sad.
Complain about this comment
My understanding is that the purpose of the committe is to scrutinise the Scotland Bill to ensure that it's fit for purpose. This session was not used for that purpose, but for what appears to be a politicised and underhand attack on an alternative that wasn't even under discussion. Proper scrutiny of the bill has been sidelined.
This was a waste of the committee's time and the academics' time, and has damaged relations between politicians and those who might usefully advise them. If academics, whose job is to try to examine the evidence impartially before arriving at informed conclusions, are to be attacked and undermined as if they were politically motivated, it's difficult to see why they would wish to expose themselves to that.
Complain about this comment
So who was it that said that Labour and the Tories don't work hand in hand, as Bendy Wendy and Dave 3 conspire together to ridicule leading academics because they don't fit in with their agenda.
They are one!
I think it should be noted that come this election it is Scotland(SNP) versus the Imperial Alien Condemlab Colonial Coalition Cabal. It really doesn't matter what rosette the Cabal member wears, it means nothing more than foreign rule.
Scotland deserves better!
Complain about this comment
So my limited understanding is that other taxes generally grow at a faster rate than income tax does and the grant from the Barnett formula derives from all of these taxes so that kind of evens out the faster and slower growing taxes. If a proportion of our taxes comes solely from income tax which is a slow grower we lose out.
Complain about this comment
Definitely more "pong" than "ping" in the unedifying spectacle of our Parliamntary committee process brought down to the level of underhand party politic gaming.
Robust debate is necessary and welcome if our legislation is to be authentic, justified and respected. These three fundamental principles cannot be assured if debate is deflected, deviated and denied. Just why were the two invited expert witnesses not informed that their 2009 paper etc. would form a major part of their evidence on which they would be questioned? Why keep it secret, if not to spring a surprise interrogation? I presume the committee had pre-arranged questions to which all members were privy - and if not, why not? Surely the fact that the Deputy Convenor apologised to the witnesses for their unexpected experience speaks volumes or was he wrong to apologise for something that did not occur?
Complain about this comment
Brian Taylor said: However, it was entirely legitimate to pursue the issue of fiscal autonomy, given that it is the suggested alternative to the measures in the Scotland Bill and has been advocated by the Scottish Government, drawing upon work by the two profs.
Not without bloody well telling them in advance so they at least have a copy of their own work available!
It was an ambush. Pure and simple.
Complain about this comment
Brian Taylor said: he expresses a hope that relations with the academic world will not be damaged.
No doubt the ones who agree with the Unionist parties won't consider it damaged. As for any others, don't hold your breath. Thus, they ensured ONLY hearing the side that that they want to hear.
What a farce.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
36. Yes, snowthistle. Thats about right. To risk the Barnett formula over income tax could have serious consequences. That is what Scott and Hallett are warning about.
On another note though. if you watch the debate again, around 2hr 4min in
Alexander tries to catch out hallett with "has there been any paper which shows a rise in GDP to 1.3% on a 1% increase. Prof Hallett says yes. This catches Alexander out and a beauty. Then i think it's Mcletchie who jumps in to try to break the discussion because Alexander has just blown the whole arguement. Hallett bangs the table with his pen as a "nailed you that time sweetie". Watch it again. If Scott and Hallett had been prepared for this type of interrogation, I'm sure they would had made mincemeat out of Mcletchie and Alexander from the begining.
Complain about this comment
16. dear_wendy
"To invite academics to provide their thoughts on the Scotland Bill, as it is currently proposed; To have them prepare and submit a paper on the Scotland Bill (all be it a critical one!); and then to ignore that submission in favour of questioning some earlier work not related to the Scotland Bill (how can it be, when this earlier work was completed before the Scotland Bill was started!) - is completely unjustifiable.
I feel you should retract your "justification"."
Indeed. It is an outrageous proposition that acedemics should be asked to give evidence on one subject--the topic of the committee--and then raked over the coals on a totally different topic.
Ferguson (and, frankly, Mr. Taylor) should be ashamed of themselves. They have held, in the esitmation of this American, Scotland up for ridicule.
Can you seriously imagine any acedemic agreeing to testify after this? Even unionists would have to hesitate if the convener was an SNP member. The committees have now been told they will receive no oversight and that the convener can do whatever they want.
Unbelievable!
Complain about this comment
Brian Taylor said: This afternoon the committee will be taking evidence from, among others, Sir Kenneth Calman.
And unbiased source of course. He has not stake in something called the Calman proposals... right?
*rolls eyes*
But I am sure he will be questioned, unlike the good professors, with the utmost respect.
An utter farce.
Complain about this comment
Ferguson is not fit to be the PO, he is just another incompetent unionist politician who has no intrest in what is best for Scotland.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The Scotland bill is Smoke and mirrors, designed to keep Scotland on Subsistance levels, designed to make us pay more tax, to make it look like we can't afford to be independent. Also you can be sure Westminster will want to put new nucular power stations and or waste in Scotland. (because its not England) In the words of a line from the Film Avitar, "they are ------ on us without the decency to call it rain"
Complain about this comment
Antispindoctor #41,
Thanks, I will watch it again. I have been reading the submission which the profs had hoped to discuss but find it a little hard to get my head round it. I wish we had been able to hear them explain their concerns.
Complain about this comment
Ms MacClure, of course I mean how could i ever question the BBC's impartiality! :-) I always like to read your comments, nice to get an outside view.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Brian Taylor said: Professors Scott and Hughes Hallett argue that enhancement of accountability will be more limited than is suggested by the UK government and that the proclaimed advantages are outweighed by the relative risk of devolving further control of a single tax, on income.
Which contention, oddly enough, the convener of the committee did not care to ask them about.
Now, isn't that odd? Or is it.
Now I am sure that every academic in the world is going to be in a hurry to testify before Holyrood committees in order to be raked over the coals about an unrelated paper (written a year before) which they don't even have in front of them to reference!
Oh, yes. Good job by the presiding officer.
Complain about this comment
48. peteraberdeenshire
"Ms MacClure, of course I mean how could i ever question the BBC's impartiality! :-) I always like to read your comments, nice to get an outside view."
Hehe. Some people aren't so glad to hear my view. Why I actually think that Scots should vote on their own status. SHOCKING! ;-)
And I was certain that was really what you meant.
Complain about this comment
Apart from being surprised by Alex Fergusson's reaction to the 'Grilling' and 'bully boy' tactics of the Union parties used against the professors, it was pretty obvious the Labour party was in 'feart' mode and they made sure nothing came out of this that could look in favour of the Government and independence. This is the stinking vile side of politics...this is Labour.
Complain about this comment
51. JRMacClure wrote:
"Some people aren't so glad to hear my view."
Very true Ms MacClure! Glad I'm not one of them. Imagine thinking that Scots should get a say in their own future! We have the "scottish" (westmonster) newoldnew labour "party" to do that for us, with complete co-operation from their union-sucking coalition chums.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
53. X_Sticks
"Imagine thinking that Scots should get a say in their own future!"
Quite seriously, I have an opinion, which some of you can guess, on what the Scots should do. But my opinion doesn't matter. Neither should the opinion of Mr. Cameron, et al.
What should matter is the decision of the people of Scotland expressed at the ballot box. And I question the validity of a government which refuses to put it to a vote when the clear majority of Scots just wants to be given the chance to make that decision.
And the entire point of the shameful exercise in the Holyrood committee here being discussed is to try to excuse not putting Scotland's future to a vote!
Complain about this comment
This is all testament to the terror gripping the unionists as the SNP and independence vote stands firm in the face of the most concentrated attack any of us have ever witnessed.
We have to go through this and it is all subject to diminishing returns for the desperate unionists.
In particular intelligent support is moving towards the SNP and this latest little episode has not gone unnoticed among that section of society.
When the SNP again is the largest party after the May election (as it will be) things will become very interesting indeed.
Look out for "Glenrothes" reruns at the ballot box, Tartan Terrorists and every piece of dirt dragged up or invented about the SNP and its officers.
More and more people are becoming aware that the SNP wants to rule Scotland for the people of Scotland and the others want to rule Scotland for the people in London.
Complain about this comment
We will of course get the "too wee", "to poor", "too stupid" stuff amplified as if this state, which presumably the union has got us into, is somehow an arguement for more of the same.
Scotland, the beggar nation and a parasite on the English nation.
But even a parasite knows when the host is failing and gets away from it.
Complain about this comment
Amusing #1 X_sticks
How is that non-combatants in the form of academics get a hard time from Little Red Riding Hood, when the Demon former PM Mr Blair gets shielded aided and abetted by a well oiled civil service secret society aka letters between blair & bush!
Dropped out of Uni / medicine, perhaps to do with the lack of care & respect and poor bed side manner!
Are you surprised that two so called expert academics have opposing views, I'm not. Even with an expensive education and qualifications in the end can count for nothing!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#45 and #59
Keep going through the complaint channels. Don't give up on that. I'm not.
Complain about this comment
Brian Taylor said: 'However, it was entirely legitimate to pursue the issue of fiscal autonomy, given that it is the suggested alternative to the measures in the Scotland Bill and has been advocated by the Scottish Government, drawing upon work by the two profs.'
Brian - co you REALLY think it was 'legitimate'? Really?! Please explain to your readers why you think that, we would be interested in your logic.
Complain about this comment
Brian - now that you are up and running again after New Year, I look forward to your examination of the stances taken by Labour and LibDem/Con on alcohol pricing. Interesting to see their different stances north and south of the border. Good material for you, no?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#38
Yes - you are absolutely correct. It was an ambush.
However we should not be too surprised at the response from the Presiding Officer. He is a Tory after all isn't he?
Complain about this comment
58. At 07:28am on 19 Jan 2011, redrobb wrote:
"Dropped out of Uni / medicine, perhaps to do with the lack of care & respect and poor bed side manner!"
She was probably lecturing the lecturers on how they should be doing their jobs! After all, how could they possibly know better than her? The noticable difference in the committees treatment of Iain McLean who is a supporter of the Calman (lets stitch Scotland up for once and for all) report and Drew Scott and Andrew Hughes-Hallett (who are deeply concerned this bill is very bad for Scotland) says it all. The comittee simply didn't want the lerned Profs to be able to make their case at all. It would have been bad for the union.
Complain about this comment
The other thing that jumps out from the tax proposals is that the Scottish Government cannot lower taxes. OK, they will have the power to lower them but there is no practical circumstance where they could do that to benefit Scotland.
I guess it's been designed like that to keep us in line with the rest of the UK and to protect the union, but coupled with the deflationary bias I spoke of at #36, the only thing they can do is cut services or raise taxes.
It does seem to be a bit of a disaster but we're all to busy talking about Ms Alexander to notice.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The unionists are determined to push the Scotland Bill through. It is westminsters stepping stone to "getting Scotland back in line". It will be used to keep Scotland in its place and reduce the amount of money Scotland is allowed to spend. This in turn wil be used to force Scotland to give up the small gains that the SNP have manged to introduce over the last five years. The westminster agenda will include:
Forcing Scotland to adopt the underhand privitisation of the NHS (as is happening in England).
The sale of Scottish Water (and how badly do they want to get their hands on that!).
The introduction of Student fees in line with England.
Forcing Scotland to build nuclear plants (to provide England with the power they need at a knock-down price).
Rolling back the free care for the elderly.
Re-introduction of bridge tolls (and probably some toll roads too, the Aberdeen Western Periphery Route for one).
If the unionists get back into power in Scotland al the above will come to pass. It will herald the end of any chance Scotland has for independence. The asset stripping will continue unabated. Anyone thinking of voting for any of these unionist charlatans will be voting for the demise of Scotland as a country we can be proud of.
Complain about this comment
X-Sticks,
Can I add to your post that any money accrued from the sale of Scottish Water would go to the UK treasury not to the Scottish Government.
Complain about this comment
Wow. I don't think I've ever seen a comments thread on this blog before in which *not a single person* agrees with Brian. Could it be that even the Unionist regulars are too embarrassed by this fiasco to try to defend it?
As pretty much everyone has already said - you don't invite someone to come and give evidence on an ostensibly important subject, get them to prepare in good faith on that basis, and then ambush them by attacking their views on a different subject which is not within the remit of your committee anyway. It is as clear and black-and-white a case of disgraceful and inappropriate behaviour as the Parliament could ever hope (not) to see.
If Wendy Alexander has a problem with things the SNP have said in relation to the two professors' other work she can take it up with the First Minister. The academic gentlemen are in no way whatsoever responsible for what he says and to treat them as if they are is the absolute height of discourtesy and brings shame on Holyrood.
Complain about this comment
#30 Doug, excellent post and summary of the situation... just watch you don't keep posting too many like that, or Brian will be getting worried about competition for his job ;o)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS