Thursday, September 04, 2008
Brown fight backs with shock U turn on tax powers
You would have missed it. While the UK national media were preoccupied with Gordon Brown’s climb down on a winter fuel payment, the really memorable part of his speech addressed the future of Scottish devolution. In what the Times calls “ a seismic event” Gordon Brown has performed a U turn and flagged up his willingness to give the Scottish Parliament tax raising powers. He talked in code, but the message was clear: “while he would do nothing to put the economic union of the UK at risk, that should not be confused with “unthinking opposition to change and development in how our union governs itself. “The constitution of the Union has always evolved to meet the changing needs and rising hopes of our people as it did most notably when we created the Scottish Parliament 10 years ago.”
Changing the political habits of a life time, Brown is taking the fight unto Alex Salmond’s own ground in a stunning response to the SNP’s leader’s challenge of using the Parliament’s powers to levy local income tax to replace the hated council tax.The devil now is in the detail. Brown has to explain how if at all, he intends to give more than the tax varying powers the Parliament already possesses but has never used and how his scheme would change the UK’s unified tax structure. He cannot leave it all up to the Calman Commission. In doing this, Brown is sidelining his own stumbling Labour party in Holyrood and moving to regain the initiative in Scottish politics he has been losing so comprehensively to Alex Salmond since last year. His aim is “to strengthen Scotland’s place within the Union.” and in the meantime to rally support around himself. Whatever else, it is the first bold stroke of his premiership.
Brian Walker @ 10:36 PM
Brian,
“His aim is “to strengthen Scotland’s place within the Union.”
Its his only move left. It won’t work though.
UK is doomed, Irish/Scottish full independence is on its way.Posted by on Sep 04, 2008 @ 11:18 PMInteresting - could do with a fight in Glenrothes.
Posted by on Sep 04, 2008 @ 11:29 PMI think a fudge is coming. Limited tax raising powers to given over certain items? Beer and fags only? It’ll be something like that.
And of course, when somebody eventually takes a politically unpopular decision, it will be expedient for Brown to say “well you got what you wanted, didn’t you?”. That’s how mealy-mouthed this government is.
Of course, how long has Gordon got left? And how long would it take to introduce and see through such legislation?
Because it’s 1:00am, and I can’t be arsed looking - can anyone post what the Tories stance on local tax-raising powers is?
Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 12:08 AMPercy-I would not have your certitude on these matters.
Certainly a more federal Britain seems to be evolving.
Salmond has thought for a long time that once the MSPs (of any plitical colour) got some power they would want more.
He also believes that the Scottish people will want more devolution of powers not less as time goes on.Scottish independence may well be a process rather than a traumatic event.
Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 08:53 AMGordon has all the appearance of a dead man walking so unless he does a lazarus it may be more important to hear what David Cameron(what an actual policy i hear you cry) has to say on the subject or Gordons successor?
Mind you anyone that would actually be foolish enough to want to lead the labour party at this time would be showing seriously bad judgement and totally ansuitable to lead.Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 08:59 AMBlinding
Salmond is ,to an extent, banking on a Cameron administration.
The Tories will have very few MPs returned to Westminster.
The mandate issue ( “The Doomsday Scenario") will be in play again.
There was a mild version of the legitimation crisis in Scottish politics when I was in the SNP in the mid 80s.
It can return-though this time-the government in Edinburgh-SNP led-will be going head-to-head with Westminster.
This is all very good from a Scottish separatist standpoint.Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 09:05 AMphil
aye, its rare that people are swept into power, or countries rise and fall with such certainty.
I just have a good feeling (stiffie) about it ;-)Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 09:11 AMThere was a division in the 1970s/80s in the SNP between gradualists and “fundies” (fundamentalists).
Gradualists believed in devolution as a stepping stone, that national independence was a process not a heroic event.Fundies believed that devolution would kill the desire in scotland for statehood.
In that the fundies shared the view of new labour.It was mentioned to me on a recent trip to the Scottish parliament by a sage political correspondent of the SNP “everyone is a gradualist now”.
They can all see that it is working.
Westminster is being focussed on less and less by ordinary Scots “their” government sits in Edinburgh.Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 09:12 AMtoo much info Percy...........
Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 09:15 AMI couldnt live in America-I need irony in my life and for those around me to get that.
Who would have thought,say, at the time of the Hunger Strikes that in 2008 the movement of Bobby Sands would be under-writing the Union and the greatest threat to the UK would be coming from some very reasonable law-abiding folk in Edinburgh?
Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 09:58 AMPhil
another way of looking at it is to say that since 1922 more and more powers have been transferred away from Westminster to Ireland.
Look at the significant dates
1922, 1949, 1985, 1998, 2007 and all these signed treaties and the like.
It may seem like pulling teeth, but it is progress nonetheless.Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 10:09 AMGood point Percy although I do believe that St.Andrews is the definitive settlement and that Unionism has won (I didnt arrive at that view quickly or easily) on this island.
However the Scottish issue is now, I believe, centre stage in terms of the future viability of the UK as a polity.
The Provos are no longer the problem-they are neutered and no threat to the UK-they need Northern Ireland and it’s assembly.Scotland’s political will is quite another matter
Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 10:19 AMRecalling all the objections to Salmond’s local income tax proposals in my previous post.
eg Suilven “...let’s assume we have a rich couple, both earning shedloads, living in a Band H mansion. Each paying £1080 is less than half their current council tax, so that nice Alex Salmond’s just given them a tax cut. Swell. Meanwhile a working couple, neither paying higher rate tax, but close to the boundary, living modestly in a band C house, find that their property taxes have just doubled. Oops!...”Here’s what what Simon Jenkins, a fervent supporter of localism has to say in the Guardian.
“Salmond should retain his council tax but roughly halve it. He should then let councils set their own income taxes up to his 3p cap. He should also adopt the admirable equity-release scheme devised by the Scottish economist David Bell for elderly home owners, excusing them local taxes for life in return for a death duty charge on their homes. This sort of imagination should be possible under devolution.”
Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 10:49 AMquite right phil
Its definitely an interesting time;
Gordon Brown skewered by Salmond and Charles Clarke,
who are more than happy to baste and roast him over the spit.
I like people who can cook.Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 10:49 AMPercy the key relationship now is between the SNP in Edinburgh and the political class in Westminster.
If ordinary Scots see Edinburgh advocating for them against what Westminster wants “for the country as a whole” then that is a key part of Salmond’s plan.
Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 10:55 AMMore irony.
People born in Ireland who wanted to retain a political link to Westminster re-invented themselves as “Ulstur Scots” complete with a flatpack language to heighten their Britishness.The main threat to the Britain they are loyal to now comes from-real Scottish people.
I definitely couldnt live among Americans....
Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 11:29 AMPhil
Since you’ve “returned home to Ireland”, I presume you’ve never considered yourself to be a “real Scottish person” although that doesn’t seem to have stopped you being involved in the SNP.
Which leads me to ask who is Scottish for the SNP’s purposes. Anybody who just happens to reside in Scotland, even retired English people and those still prefer to think of themselves as Irish?Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 12:13 PMI would let them have their tax varying powers - give Salmond enough rope to hang himself.
Because Tax Varying Powers to parochial, serial spending separatists like him are really Tax Raising Powers.
If they try to reduce taxes then their subsidy should quite rightly be cut by the rest of the UK.As in the US everyone has to pay the Federal Income Tax so tax varying powers in the individual States is all about how high the State equivalent taxes are.
Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 12:19 PMBrian
I think this thread is a bit misleading. Brown hasn’t proposed any additional tax raising powers rather he’s suggesting that Scotland would retain the revenue raised within its borders through the unitary tax system.
Is his idea to introduce Scots to the cold reality of independence my means which the SNP can only endorse?Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 12:41 PM“cold reality of independence”
Cold reality as in the performance of the countries shown below. what have they got in common I wonder ?
Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 01:14 PMGlen-the SNP has always advocated a civic nationalism.
Therefore a Scot, as far as the SNP, are concerned is anyone resident in Scotland.
The Glasgow Irish were-historically-resistant to voting SNP.
I recently blogged on my own site about the significance of the Glasgow East victory.Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 01:17 PMGood find Dewi.
A standard argument against Scottish independence in the 1970s (as I recall) was that Scotland would be cut adrift, an impoverished Albania.
Another argument was-quite frankly-was that the Scots may have been able to adminster the British empire, but not their own little country.
The inability to govern argument is off the table-taken off the table in a pre-election interview with Jack McConell.Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 01:26 PMPhil,
Could you please elaborate on what you mean when you say that the “Unionists have won on this island”? Also why do you say that SF are underwriting the Union, surely they can now be gradulists too rather than “fundies”? And therefore this does not mean that they are underwriting the Union, rather they are willing to work within structures that are a bridge into the Republic of Ireland. Dou you have to be a “fundie” in your view to achieve change in Ireland, whilst ok to be a gradualist in Scotland?
Are you not falling into the trap that without the war we lose?Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 02:30 PMDewi
I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to prove with that link.
You also make the common error of confusing GDP and GNP. On 2007 figures from Irish CSO GNP is 15% below GDP, the difference being in simple terms the profits of multinationals. GNP is what the Irish have for themselves.
And how many years did it take the Irish to reach this level? I’m sure the Scots will be pleased to know they’ll be richer than anybody else in 80 years time.Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 03:11 PMA perceptive point Dub although I see the SF leadership now needing the Stormont assembly to be inside the tent-on an all island basis they would be a small party-they need partition (more irony).
The Stormont gravy train and the cross border quangos have become the objective.
How else to you explain Martin McGuiness tearfully begging Peter Mandelson to give him his job back?
In Scotland there are not 55% of Scots who are ethnically/ideologically opposed to Scottish independence (although the Glasgow Irish used to
play that role.)
Moreover there isnt any possibility of a geographic partition of Scotland as happened in Ireland.Posted by on Sep 05, 2008 @ 04:00 PM
