It is time the Unionist parties gave us clarification about the Calman proposals
IT is disingenuous of the Unionist parties to attempt to bounce us with some immediacy into their so-called “new” powers agenda, with emphasis on the process, when they have had several years to prepare for it (“No camp accused of panic as Brown unveils powers plan”, The Herald, September 9). The unanswered questions are: why were these not put on the table in time to be considered prior to the referendum on September 18? Even now, with only one week to go, they cannot describe the details.
All three Unionist parties stood shoulder-to-shoulder on the Calman income tax proposals, since enshrined in the Scotland Act 2012, but before the ink was dry, they went their separate ways.
We need clarification on what we might be facing regarding the administrative structure and, even if it is now redundant, it is relevant to use the details of the Calman proposal to explore the probability, whatever scheme, or amalgam of schemes, emerges.
Under Calman, we would have taken responsibility for the 10p, one-half of the standard rate of income tax, and its £5 billion proceeds. The £5bn would be deducted from the block grant – so a block grant of £25bn would come down to £20bn. The stated objective is for Scotland to raise more of the tax it spends, but that ignores the fact that we do raise all of our taxes now – what they mean is: levy the rate of tax.
The £5bn can only be a baseline starting figure which would be subject to variation. We are right to be suspicious about the provenance of the figure, with the Scottish Government having been obliged to pay, out of funding intended to provide devolved services, £125m into a “rainy day fund”, in case of a shortfall in the £5bn, in which case the budget would not balance.
But we should be alarmed about us having taken measures to increase employment, and hence, increased the tax take, and whether the extra tax would also be deducted from the block grant. Furthermore, if we, unwisely, decided to increase the rate of income tax, would that extra revenue, too, come off the grant? It all boils down to the ability of HMRC to discriminate between what the baseline figures, in out-turn terms, were, and how much was on account of the proceeds of the increase in the tax rate – or is the intention that we should not benefit from any such increase? Douglas R Mayer, 76 Thomson Crescent, Currie.
LORD CALMAN: Under his plans, Holyrood would have greater tax-raising powers and receive a smaller block grant. THE Scottish Government must be putting something in our water. Maybe that’s why I’ve shifted over the past year from being a determined No voter to having today put a cross in the Yes box on my postal vote.
Of course the reasons for my change of heart and mind are rather more complex than drug-induced confusion. I’ve thought at length about the key issues and have listened to those who have contributed to the debate very carefully. As always on complex matters, there’s a range of factors that have helped change my position.
I am no more impressed by the SNP’s economic evasions than I was a year ago. They pretend that we can have Scandinavian levels of public services with the current levels of taxation. Impossible. However, if the economy grows and taxes are levelled fairly, so that those who are most able to pay contribute the most, then we can certainly improve our public services and reduce inequality, and those are goals worth pursuing.
What has also become clear over the past months is that this debate isn’t about politics in the conventional sense. I’ve always supported the Labour Party and have been an activist and indeed candidate for them. I would love to see a government with Labour values in power at Westminster, but just can’t see it happening. Westminster Labour trims and twists and contorts to cobble together a set of policies that will attract enough swing voters in marginal seats in the Midlands and south of England to get it into power. Labour voters in Scotland, Wales and the north of England are taken for granted; Labour values go by the wayside.
If I needed a final prompt to cast my vote for Yes, it came with the recent panic from the Westminster parties when they woke up to the fact they may lose. Their latest offer of more powers to the Scottish Parliament is farcical at this stage.
What they propose would also be unstable. More tax powers to Holyrood inevitably raises the profile of the West Lothian Question. The rest of the UK simply wouldn’t put up with Scottish MPs voting on a Budget that didn’t include its full share of revenue from Scotland: “No representation without taxation” would be the cry, and rightly so.
Eventually, separation would happen, whether by Scottish pull or rUK push; so best we get on with it now, while we’ve still got 40 years of oil revenue to invest in building a better, fairer, more equal Scotland. Doug Maughan, 52 Menteith View, Dunblane. REGARDING Better Together’s latest offer during a lecture on political administration I was told to always remember that when a politician produces a rabbit out of the hat, it is, in essence, only a stupid rabbit.
Sums up Better Together’s cuddly bunny. George McKenzie, Rubha nan Gall, 48 Ardbeg Road, Rothesay. REINER Luyken (Letters, September 11) believes the UK to be a “shining example” to Europe of how a union can, and should, work. I disagree, in fact I tend to believe in the UK in the same way the average Ukip/Tory voter in England believes in the EU, that is, disenfranchised.
I am not an SNP supporter, will never be a Tory supporter, and I believe the Liberal Democrats have shown over the past two years that they are willing to prostitute themselves in pursuit of power. Labour on the other hand, whilst maintaining their pretence to be the party of the people, have long since given up any pretence to be a party of the Left. Meanwhile, despairing of Alistair Darling’s feeble attempts to keep Scotland within the UK, Better Together has handed control of its campaign to a man who unleashed the bankers and a world-wide economic crisis upon us, but who on becoming leader of the Labour Party, was afraid to put his leadership to the test until he ran out of time. The consequence? A Tory-led coalition, with built-in austerity, to clear up the mess he helped make.
Are we expected to trust the likes of him with our vote? Cal Waterson, 37 Crosshill Street, Lennoxtown. IT is interesting that the independence debate has descended into modern myths, although that is probably symptomatic of Scots. The only people who apparently call Scots “Too wee, too poor, too stupid”, are supporters of independence ( Prof WG Naphy, Letters, September 10). We are told (Ruth Marr, Letters, September 5) there will never be a Tory government of Scotland; this is based on a very narrow snapshot in time where the Tories are unpopular. It ignores the previous generation of Scots having given the Tories the biggest share of the vote that any political party has ever had, thus showing no grasp of understanding that the next generation of Scots could be completely different to the present. Worse, it is suggestive of homogeneous national identity, that’s probably the worst myth of all.
Westminster parties have been painfully slow to react to the desire for more autonomy, the thing that the pollsters always said was what the majority wanted. And with poor historical precedents it remains to be seen whether they can convince enough of the electorate.
Sadly, the supposed art of politics means trying to convince voters the “other side” is untrustworthy, while ignoring your own 180-degree turns. So, we have the SNP now wanting to join Nato and keeping the Queen as head of state, ignoring the previous three decades of party policy. While the Conservative Party now propose handing over more fiscal powers than either the Liberal Democrats, or Labour.
It would all be laughable if it wasn’t so important. Dr Ronnie Gallagher, 5 Wyndhead Steading, Lauder.