May 2011 Election

[xbl]

The 10-till-10 rule, for a start, which is of massive inconvenience to people who don't work day shifts. And that's national. There are all sorts of other bits of micro-management in local licensing which serve no practical purpose save for annoying people (in Edinburgh, for instance, pouring a regular's drink before he has explicitly requested it is now a breach of license) as well. This dominated the news cycles and presumably took up a considerable amount of parliamentary time.

I'll take your word for it, you seem to know more than I do about it. But apart from alcohol, I'm still waiting for you to give me an example of any other civil liberty! I've had a think, and I still can't think of any.

To my knowledge none of those were put in motion by the Scottish government. It is certainly true that under the regime of the early 2000s the Scottish government would have probably acqiesced to anything the Westmister majority did, but that's no longer the political reality. Again, I'm looking for positives reasons to support the SNP other than "they're not Labour" if possible.

Are you sure? Just a couple months back, Labours hand picked "alcohol commission" reported back. Their suggestion, as I already said, almost exactly the same thing, but raising money for the government and crucially, set in Westminster. The positive reason in this example is simply that the SNP actually show some belief in Scotland. They put Scotland first and show a bit more initiative.

The criteria apply pretty broadly to all four major parties. As I say, I'll be holding my nose here. Nevertheless, part of the reason I'm in this discussion is to be convinced one way or the other.

But what seems odd to me is that you're saying that the criticism applies to all four parties, and yet you seem to be using it as a pretty big stick to beat the SNP. All over alcohol pricing! And not only that, but Labour actually support alcohol pricing anyway...just not set by the SNP. So not only does Labour have a much more impressive record of eroding civil liberties (although I await your SNP examples!), but they also support in principle the very thing you hate the most. So really, I don't see a single reason why you would want to vote Labour. Supporting the SNP does not mean that you support independence, but it does mean that you would prefer to see a government that puts Scotland first and stands up for a better deal!

[xbl]

The budget is out. Any budget minded folks wish to give an analysis?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/godfather-swinney-has-put-councils-on-the-spot-1.1069205

[vikingTON]

Seems reasonable enough. The local authorities need the shit kicked out of their budgets, maybe Inverclyde Council will now stop spunking money on flower-beds and the rest of their shite. The concession passes for old biddies should be moved up in terms of age, but they get off scot-free with every cut.

[xbl]

Seems reasonable enough. The local authorities need the shit kicked out of their budgets, maybe Inverclyde Council will now stop spunking money on flower-beds and the rest of their shite. The concession passes for old biddies should be moved up in terms of age, but they get off scot-free with every cut.

I'm surprised nobody else has anything to say about it! I've been looking at criticisms, and I can see only one...that they are producing a budget for 1 year rather than three. That seems to be the only thing the Unionists have against it.

[Ad Lib]

I'm surprised nobody else has anything to say about it! I've been looking at criticisms, and I can see only one...that they are producing a budget for 1 year rather than three. That seems to be the only thing the Unionists have against it.

Should have cut the income tax rate 3p, cancelled OAP bus passes, cancelled free care for the elderly, lowered business rates, imposed a 40% budget cut for every % point the councils increase council tax and cut police numbers more, but apart from that, I'm happy.

Edit: oh and I wouldn't have minded an introduction of tuition fees for Universities. Say, £50k per annum aye?

[banterman86]

What's happening with John Swinney and such today?

[xbl]

What's happening with John Swinney and such today?

From the bits and pieces I've noticed:

It was already out of date when the SNP took office.

They would have had to pay £7 million in order to get it back, going against the devolution settlement.

Swinney was told in his first briefing back in 2007 that he would not be able to vary tax till 2009.

So despite what the UK government has said, nothing has changed.

Swinney did not inform parliament of this (his only real error).

He apologised for that oversight.

Iain Gray called for his resignation.

[Ad Lib]

From the bits and pieces I've noticed:

It was already out of date when the SNP took office.

Yeah.

They would have had to pay £7 million in order to get it back, going against the devolution settlement.

Evidence that this goes against the devolution settlement?

Swinney was told in his first briefing back in 2007 that he would not be able to vary tax till 2009.

Never trust a Civil Servant.

So despite what the UK government has said, nothing has changed.

In what respect?

Swinney did not inform parliament of this (his only real error).

He apologised for that oversight.

Iain Gray called for his resignation.

I don't really see the fuss. If you want the tax power back, why not pay the £7 million. All I hear is this repeated "it's against the devolution settlement" without pointing to an actual provision in the Scotland Act and associated subordinate legislation to prove it.

[xbl]

Evidence that this goes against the devolution settlement?

I don't really see the fuss. If you want the tax power back, why not pay the £7 million. All I hear is this repeated "it's against the devolution settlement" without pointing to an actual provision in the Scotland Act and associated subordinate legislation to prove it.

We haven't lost the power, and even if we paid 7 million, we still couldn't use those powers for the same timescale!

I quoted this already, and even told you where to look, but here we go again:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/11/19163646

The then Scottish Executive paid the UK Government £12 million in 2000 to add SVR functionality to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) tax collection systems. Thereafter, an annual fee of £50,000 was paid.

HMRC said in 2007 that additional work was needed to maintain the readiness of the IT system, and in summer 2008 made clear that they would be installing a new IT platform. Scottish Government officials attempted to elicit information on what this meant for Scotland and the functionality of the 3p tax power.

We were finally asked on 28 July this year to pay over the sum of £7 million to HMRC for this purpose. Why nowhere in your letter did you mention this.demand?

Key bit:

And even if we had paid it - at a time when Scotland is on the receiving end of massive cuts to our budget from your government - the SVR under the new system could not have been implemented until 2012/13: another key point which you failed to mention. In any case, at that stage it seemed an academic debate because the SVR itelf is set to be replaced under any version of the legislation which you intend to introduce in the next few weeks.

Thats right, if we had paid the fee, we could not implement it till 2013...but because we didn't pay the fee, we can't implement it till 2013. And not only that, but its obsolete. Our benevolent Union want us to pay £7 million pounds to pay for an obsolete system which will be abolished before it is finished!

Big bit, with evidence:

HM Treasury's recently-updated Statement of Funding Policy states at paragraph 3.2.8 that:

"Where decisions of United Kingdom departments or agencies lead to additional costs for any of the devolved administrations, where other arrangements do not exist automatically to adjust for such extra costs, the body whose decision leads to the additional cost will meet that cost."

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.

So HMRC made a decision to upgrade their system. Therefore, by the treasury rules, this additional cost should be met by the body who made that decision.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this seems like a stitch up.

[Ad Lib]

We haven't lost the power, and even if we paid 7 million, we still couldn't use those powers for the same timescale!

I quoted this already, and even told you where to look, but here we go again:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/11/19163646

Yeah, so essentially the Scottish Government couldn't get information out of the Labour Government at Westminster as to the impact of HMRC upgrades on the 3p tax power.

Key bit:

Thats right, if we had paid the fee, we could not implement it till 2013...but because we didn't pay the fee, we can't implement it till 2013. And not only that, but its obsolete. Our benevolent Union want us to pay £7 million pounds to pay for an obsolete system which will be abolished before it is finished!

So a demand for £7 million Issued in June, so would, given the size of HMRC's operations, have almost certainly resulted from a consultation period before the election? Where is your evidence that this system is obsolete or indeed that it will be abolished?

Big bit, with evidence:

So HMRC made a decision to upgrade their system. Therefore, by the treasury rules, this additional cost should be met by the body who made that decision.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this seems like a stitch up.

You conveniently ignore the bit of the quote which says "where other arrangements do not exist automatically to adjust for such extra costs"

I'd suggest judgment be reserved before it is established conclusively whether such other arrangements exist. Say, perhaps, under the Barnett Formula?

(I'm no defender of the Barnett Formula but if it exists and makes such a provision, it's not unreasonable to expect the Scottish Executive to meet the demand.)

[xbl]

Yeah, so essentially the Scottish Government couldn't get information out of the Labour Government at Westminster as to the impact of HMRC upgrades on the 3p tax power.

So a demand for £7 million Issued in June, so would, given the size of HMRC's operations, have almost certainly resulted from a consultation period before the election? Where is your evidence that this system is obsolete or indeed that it will be abolished?

You conveniently ignore the bit of the quote which says "where other arrangements do not exist automatically to adjust for such extra costs"

I'd suggest judgment be reserved before it is established conclusively whether such other arrangements exist. Say, perhaps, under the Barnett Formula?

(I'm no defender of the Barnett Formula but if it exists and makes such a provision, it's not unreasonable to expect the Scottish Executive to meet the demand.)

We've already seen that the UK government has told some fibs on this. The Scottish Office somehow forgot to mention the £7 million in their press release. they only mentioned a £100k fee.

As for it becoming obsolete, ever heard of the Calman Commission? The Unionists agreed in their coalition deal to implement it, and the bill is expected through Parliament in the next ten months, meaning that the tax powers would have changed again. Would Scotland also be expected to pay for this? This deal that nobody voted for, that only the opposition parties implemented, and never saw any government approval.

Its instructive that rather than counter the SNP argument, the defenders of our cold dead union are instead choosing to ignore his points and continue to attack without offering anything new. If we had a less supine media, then the facts might actually emerge, and I agree with you, that we do need to hear the facts. I just doubt we'll get them.

Oh, and if other arrangements existed, wouldn't they be a bit more advanced than HMRC turning up and saying "gies"? Wouldn't there be some sort of automatic payment or something?

[Ad Lib]

We've already seen that the UK government has told some fibs on this. The Scottish Office somehow forgot to mention the £7 million in their press release. they only mentioned a £100k fee.

As for it becoming obsolete, ever heard of the Calman Commission?

I thought you were saying HMRC's systems were obsolete? Giving Scotland a handful of new tax-powers doesn't change the ongoing costs of HMRC, a general upgrade of which the SE are being asked to contribute their share?

The Unionists agreed in their coalition deal to implement it, and the bill is expected through Parliament in the next ten months, meaning that the tax powers would have changed again. Would Scotland also be expected to pay for this? This deal that nobody voted for, that only the opposition parties implemented, and never saw any government approval.

Why shouldn't Scotland pay for the additional costs of the changes to the tax system that affect it? Why should it need Scottish Government approval? Are you also forgetting that the other three main parties actually constitute a majority of the representatives in the Scottish Parliament?

Its instructive that rather than counter the SNP argument, the defenders of our cold dead union are instead choosing to ignore his points and continue to attack without offering anything new. If we had a less supine media, then the facts might actually emerge, and I agree with you, that we do need to hear the facts. I just doubt we'll get them.

It would be an awful lot easier if we just abolished the nation state and taxes. Then we wouldn't have to have petty and parochial arguments about "our money", be it in Westminster or Holyrood.

[xbl]

I thought you were saying HMRC's systems were obsolete? Giving Scotland a handful of new tax-powers doesn't change the ongoing costs of HMRC, a general upgrade of which the SE are being asked to contribute their share?

Apparently it does. If we want to use the variable rate, we gotta pay, apparently. How did the upgrade (carried out over the last few years, mind the outcry over the demands recently?) work otherwise? Does everyone get their tax upgraded, apart from taxpayers in Scotland?

Why shouldn't Scotland pay for the additional costs of the changes to the tax system that affect it? Why should it need Scottish Government approval? Are you also forgetting that the other three main parties actually constitute a majority of the representatives in the Scottish Parliament?

Right, so the Union say to the Scottish Government, "you're getting new tax powers". The Scottish Government responds with "these powers are useless, unworkable, and nothing to do with us. They are a sop thrown to the public by the combined Unionist parties, and we never asked for them". To which the UK government goes "tough, thats whats on offer, now gies some money". Sound reasonable?

[Ad Lib]

Apparently it does. If we want to use the variable rate, we gotta pay, apparently. How did the upgrade (carried out over the last few years, mind the outcry over the demands recently?) work otherwise? Does everyone get their tax upgraded, apart from taxpayers in Scotland?

That's not how I interpreted the request. The way I'm reading it, HMRC is in the process of a substantial upgrade to make it capable of dealing with more diverse tax proposals generally and for Scotland. They are requesting that to allow that transition to be given effect, the Scottish Executive forgo £7 million required to make that happen.

Right, so the Union say to the Scottish Government, "you're getting new tax powers". The Scottish Government responds with "these powers are useless, unworkable, and nothing to do with us. They are a sop thrown to the public by the combined Unionist parties, and we never asked for them". To which the UK government goes "tough, thats whats on offer, now gies some money". Sound reasonable?

"The Union" don't say it to them. "The Union" is an intangible. Stop being so misleading. You mean "HMRC".

The Scottish Executive don't represent the majority of Scots. The other three main parties sort of... do. If you believe in democracy (i.e. tyranny of the majority) you should see absolutely nothing wrong with a democratic majority imposing something on a devolved institution. Scotland is not sovereign, the Scottish Parliament exists only by means of UK statute and as such is at the beck and call of their Westminster paymasters. That is the reality of the devolution settlement. You can chomp away at your wine gums all you like, but until the SNP can command a majority in any legislature that's not going to change.

[xbl]

That's not how I interpreted the request. The way I'm reading it, HMRC is in the process of a substantial upgrade to make it capable of dealing with more diverse tax proposals generally and for Scotland. They are requesting that to allow that transition to be given effect, the Scottish Executive forgo £7 million required to make that happen.

But if that ability already existed, and HMRC's own policy is that the body who makes the decision to upgrade pays, then why should the Scottish Government?

"The Union" don't say it to them. "The Union" is an intangible. Stop being so misleading. You mean "HMRC".

The Scottish Executive don't represent the majority of Scots. The other three main parties sort of... do. If you believe in democracy (i.e. tyranny of the majority) you should see absolutely nothing wrong with a democratic majority imposing something on a devolved institution. Scotland is not sovereign, the Scottish Parliament exists only by means of UK statute and as such is at the beck and call of their Westminster paymasters. That is the reality of the devolution settlement. You can chomp away at your wine gums all you like, but until the SNP can command a majority in any legislature that's not going to change.

No, HMRC did not propose the Calman Commission, that was the combined powers of Unionism, panicking about the prospect of the SNP making something of their time in government. Or in other words, The Union. HMRC are fingers, hands, thats all.

[Ad Lib]

But if that ability already existed, and HMRC's own policy is that the body who makes the decision to upgrade pays, then why should the Scottish Government?

That ability didn't already exist, which is, I suspect, their point.

Again you choose to ignore "where other arrangements do not exist automatically to adjust for such extra costs"

Until we are clear as to the actual facts, rather than adversarial tit-for-tat between the two, no presumptions should be made as to whether "Scotland" is being "stitched-up".

And of course "policies" aren't worth the paper they're written on. I think it's perfectly fair to expect the devolved institution that benefits from upgrades to HMRC systems in being able to levy and vary taxes should pay their proportion of the cost to implement the system. What could possibly be unfair about that? The devolution settlement clearly leaves a huge proportion of the tax collection administrative expense at the feet of Westminster, and it's only fair that Holyrood should shoulder some of the burden.

No, HMRC did not propose the Calman Commission, that was the combined powers of Unionism, panicking about the prospect of the SNP making something of their time in government. Or in other words, The Union. HMRC are fingers, hands, thats all.

HMRC are the ones issuing the request, are they not? Either way the "UK Government", if you want to be more general are actually the ones "telling" the Scottish Executive that they're getting new taxpowers. Not the Calman Commission. The Calman Commission consisted of a cross party group's recommendations (as opposed to the SNP's 'National' 'conversation' with erm... themselves) not "the combined powers of Unionism".

You are absolutely obsessed with lumping anyone who is not the SNP under this huge big umbrella called "Unionism" implying that the reasons behind some people occasionally having the audacity to disagree with the Holyrood Administration is because they are anti-Scottish or trying to stich the Scottish up. That's a load of nonsense.

If anything, you undermine your own cause. If the Scottish people think that creating another pariah nation state they will vote for it at the ballot box. Except they won't do it because they're all a bunch of useless c***s who will vote Labour and Iain Gray into power.

[xbl]

That ability didn't already exist, which is, I suspect, their point.

Again you choose to ignore "where other arrangements do not exist automatically to adjust for such extra costs"

Until we are clear as to the actual facts, rather than adversarial tit-for-tat between the two, no presumptions should be made as to whether "Scotland" is being "stitched-up".

And of course "policies" aren't worth the paper they're written on. I think it's perfectly fair to expect the devolved institution that benefits from upgrades to HMRC systems in being able to levy and vary taxes should pay their proportion of the cost to implement the system. What could possibly be unfair about that? The devolution settlement clearly leaves a huge proportion of the tax collection administrative expense at the feet of Westminster, and it's only fair that Holyrood should shoulder some of the burden.

Then how did we have tax raising powers until 2007?

And what is the point in having policy at all if it is just overridden in the interest of Unionist politicking? At least you've acknowledged there is a policy now, the next step would be acceptance. What should the SNP have done? Sucked it up and paid £7 million down a black hole? If anything, I'm now glad they've shown some balls, I just wish they had handled it better. I suspect that at the time they didn't want to be accused of "picking fights with Westminster", an expression very much in vogue back in 2007. But now, I agree with their actions, just not the way they went about it.

HMRC are the ones issuing the request, are they not? Either way the "UK Government", if you want to be more general are actually the ones "telling" the Scottish Executive that they're getting new taxpowers. Not the Calman Commission. The Calman Commission consisted of a cross party group's recommendations (as opposed to the SNP's 'National' 'conversation' with erm... themselves) not "the combined powers of Unionism".

You are absolutely obsessed with lumping anyone who is not the SNP under this huge big umbrella called "Unionism" implying that the reasons behind some people occasionally having the audacity to disagree with the Holyrood Administration is because they are anti-Scottish or trying to stich the Scottish up. That's a load of nonsense.

If anything, you undermine your own cause. If the Scottish people think that creating another pariah nation state they will vote for it at the ballot box. Except they won't do it because they're all a bunch of useless c***s who will vote Labour and Iain Gray into power.

The Calman Commission was founded because the other parties refused to join the SNP's national conversation. The NC kept all options open, Calman explicitly ruled out options in advance before hearing a scrap of evidence. Don't try and portray Calman as some democratic worthy cause, its not. Its a desperate rearguard action by three reactionary Unionist Parties.

I can think of plenty of non SNP members who are not Unionists. The Greens and the SSP are pro Independence.

[Ad Lib]

Then how did we have tax raising powers until 2007?

And what is the point in having policy at all if it is just overridden in the interest of Unionist politicking? At least you've acknowledged there is a policy now, the next step would be acceptance. What should the SNP have done? Sucked it up and paid £7 million down a black hole? If anything, I'm now glad they've shown some balls, I just wish they had handled it better. I suspect that at the time they didn't want to be accused of "picking fights with Westminster", an expression very much in vogue back in 2007. But now, I agree with their actions, just not the way they went about it.

They weren't exercised. You'll probably find that with Labour in power in Holyrood and Westminster, they colluded not to use it because HMRC was already undergoing a hideously expensive series of overhauls at that time and another can of worms to throw into the mix would have caused them more PR disasters.

You also keep ignoring the point that the Scottish Executive would be bound to pay if "other arrangements do not exist automatically to adjust for such extra costs". Morally I am of the view they should pay for it anyway as it is them who benefit, even if they don't want it. If all the other parties in Scotland were against it or there was a clear majority in Scotland against the introduction of these new tax powers you might have a point, but there isn't. That is what being in a minority administration means. Sometimes you have to suck it up. Where tyranny of the majority rules and you're not the majority, it's tough titties and if anyone tries to defend democracy they have to also accept that.

The Calman Commission was founded because the other parties refused to join the SNP's national conversation. The NC kept all options open, Calman explicitly ruled out options in advance before hearing a scrap of evidence. Don't try and portray Calman as some democratic worthy cause, its not. Its a desperate rearguard action by three reactionary Unionist Parties.

So what if it ruled out options in advance? If the majority want to set their own terms of debate, that's their choice. That's how the façade that is democracy works. Haven't you realised this yet? Democracy is fucking shit. It does this. It creates this smokescreen of legitimacy by making the rule of the majority be the rule over all. And the sooner you realise this, drop your support for it and give-up your factional world-view and denounce nation states, it's all you're ever going to be left with.

I can think of plenty of non SNP members who are not Unionists. The Greens and the SSP are pro Independence.

And both are complete political irrelevances.

[xbl]

....or there was a clear majority in Scotland against the introduction of these new tax powers you might have a point, but there isn't. ....

..So what if it ruled out options in advance? If the majority want to set their own terms of debate, that's their choice.....

Interesting use of the "majority". Labour, the Libs, and the Tories were elected on a platform of "the scottish people have no appetite for further constitutional reform". So the choices were three shades of status quo, and one portion of change. Therefore, the SNP did not want the change offered, indeed, they proposed their own, so they don't count. The rest of the public voted for no change, so they can't count either. That leaves zero proponents of Calman. I mean its all very well for the Unionists to replace one set of unworkable powers with another set of unworkable powers, but you can't possibly claim there is a majority in support of them!

[Ad Lib]

Interesting use of the "majority". Labour, the Libs, and the Tories were elected on a platform of "the scottish people have no appetite for further constitutional reform". So the choices were three shades of status quo, and one portion of change. Therefore, the SNP did not want the change offered, indeed, they proposed their own, so they don't count. The rest of the public voted for no change, so they can't count either. That leaves zero proponents of Calman. I mean its all very well for the Unionists to replace one set of unworkable powers with another set of unworkable powers, but you can't possibly claim there is a majority in support of them!

The Libs have been calling for constitutional reform since time immemorial! Just not the kind you want... but I digress.

If you believe in representative democracy, then you don't actually vote for specific stances at an arbitrary point in time. You vote for a group of people who broadly represent your views. To suggest otherwise is utterly disingenuous. Manifestos mean absolutely f**k all. As soon as they become representatives they can do whatever the f**k they want.

Are you suggesting a legislature of 5 million? No, I didn't think so.

The ONLY answer to your question is to demolish nation states. By your own very loose definition of the status quo I consider what the SNP propose another "shade" of the status quo. They propose a continuation of nation statism, of tax and spend lunacy and of interference in our private lives by setting minimum prices on alcohol and stopping people from smoking in enclosed public places to name but two examples.