SNP rejects Whitehall claims on local income tax
The Scottish Government today dismissed as "nonsense" a Treasury claim that its flagship local income tax policy could not be implemented.
The policy falls foul of the Scotland Act, which set up the devolved settlement, since the tax would be set and collected centrally, the Treasury reportedly said.
But justice minister Kenny MacAskill insisted this view was wrong and accused London of trying to undermine the policy.
The SNP policy is for a local income tax set at 3p across Scotland.
Under the devolution settlement, local government finance is a devolved matter.
But a Treasury spokesman said: "It has to be set, spent and collected locally to be a devolved matter.
"There would have to be a change under the Scotland Act to change this definition if (the Nationalists) wanted to introduce a properly devolved tax.
Mr MacAskill told BBC Radio Scotland the Treasury view was "nonsense".
He said: "We as a government are getting on and replacing the unfair council tax with a fair system of taxation based on ability to pay, a local income tax."
He went on: "The Treasury would be better off sorting out their own mess of abolishing the 10p tax rate which is going to make the poorest in our society poorer, and jeopardise Scotland much more."
The justice minister went on to insist "We are not in breach of the Scotland Act.
"And the Treasury should sort its out mess out and let us deal with sorting out the mess we have inherited of an unfair council tax.
"We are intent on changing the council tax for a fair system of local income tax.
"The Treasury in the interim is seeking not only to seek to undermine our efforts to address the unfair council tax, they have actually made matters significantly worse for every taxpayer by the abolition the 10p tax.
"Perhaps they would be better to stop trying to bully the Scottish Government when it's getting on with making Scotland fairer and tackling the underlying problems they have created."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: spagan, heisker, scotland on 10:44am Wed 9 Apr 08
Go Kenny go!
Don't let Darling or Cairns or Browne or Brown bully you.
Slainte Mhor
Go Kenny go!
Don't let Darling or Cairns or Browne or Brown bully you.
Slainte Mhor
Posted by: pehman, sussex on 10:55am Wed 9 Apr 08
Have a look at Jeff Randell's article in this mornings Telegraph
Labour have wasted over ONE TRILLION POUNDS DOING NOTHING
PS the times shows maggie on a lower poll rating than even tony blair
Have a look at Jeff Randell's article in this mornings Telegraph
Labour have wasted over ONE TRILLION POUNDS DOING NOTHING
PS the times shows maggie on a lower poll rating than even tony blair
Posted by: daveymac, web on 11:07am Wed 9 Apr 08
This situation is fast becoming a conflict where both sides have passed a point of no return.
Both sides are entrenched in their positions and no compromise is possible without one side having to concede. This one issue could become pivotal in reshaping the whole constitutional setup.
The way I see it panning out is this:
This may or may not go to arbitration, but in any case the UK government can simply refuse to hand over the 400M. I think they have backed themselves into a corner and wont hand it over as the Electorate South of the border would made to see this as a hand out
(mainly through inaccurately and biased journalism, plus Liebours own rhetoric)
This will leave funding for LIT with a major problem.
This will in turn cause uproar and division in Scotland but overall people will correctly see this as an unjust dictate from Westminster and act accordingly.
This situation is fast becoming a conflict where both sides have passed a point of no return.
Both sides are entrenched in their positions and no compromise is possible without one side having to concede. This one issue could become pivotal in reshaping the whole constitutional setup.
The way I see it panning out is this:
This may or may not go to arbitration, but in any case the UK government can simply refuse to hand over the 400M. I think they have backed themselves into a corner and wont hand it over as the Electorate South of the border would made to see this as a hand out
(mainly through inaccurately and biased journalism, plus Liebours own rhetoric)
This will leave funding for LIT with a major problem.
This will in turn cause uproar and division in Scotland but overall people will correctly see this as an unjust dictate from Westminster and act accordingly.
Posted by: John F on 11:08am Wed 9 Apr 08
Where is Wendy ?
Posted by: Spoonsy, Glasgow on 11:09am Wed 9 Apr 08
Nice one Kenny - Westminster tell the SNP what the legal position is, and you call that bullying.
So I suppose next time some wee ned gets lifted, he's entitled to your support against the bully-boy tactics of the police?
On a more serious note, it's rapidly becoming apparent that the SNP really didn't think this LIT thing through. No idea of what it will raise, no idea how it will be collected, no idea what to do about the CTB black hole, no idea about what loopholed there will be, or how to plug them.
Brain of Saturn, Mr Swinney? Uranus!
Nice one Kenny - Westminster tell the SNP what the legal position is, and you call that bullying.
So I suppose next time some wee ned gets lifted, he's entitled to your support against the bully-boy tactics of the police?
On a more serious note, it's rapidly becoming apparent that the SNP really didn't think this LIT thing through. No idea of what it will raise, no idea how it will be collected, no idea what to do about the CTB black hole, no idea about what loopholed there will be, or how to plug them.
Brain of Saturn, Mr Swinney? Uranus!
Posted by: Disgusted Dorothy, Glasgow on 11:15am Wed 9 Apr 08
Ok , so cahnge it to a local matter!
Ok , so cahnge it to a local matter!
Posted by: nikostratos, edinburgh on 11:17am Wed 9 Apr 08
Why does Kenny believe telling someone they have to act[bold]within the law[/bold] is being bullied ...................
Alex hasn't quite managed to implement the [bold]the enabling act[/bold] ..........yet.
so the law doesn't just mean what the snp says it means....yet
Why does Kenny believe telling someone they have to act
within the law is being bullied ...................
Alex hasn't quite managed to implement the
the enabling act ..........yet.
so the law doesn't just mean what the snp says it means....yet
Posted by: Jimmy fae the West, Embra on 11:21am Wed 9 Apr 08
[quote]This will leave funding for LIT with a major problem.
This will in turn cause uproar and division in Scotland but overall people will correctly see this as an unjust dictate from Westminster and act accordingly.[/quote]
The only problem this leaves is how to prove that Westmister is supporting Scottish people. The UNion is dead!
This will leave funding for LIT with a major problem.
This will in turn cause uproar and division in Scotland but overall people will correctly see this as an unjust dictate from Westminster and act accordingly.
The only problem this leaves is how to prove that Westmister is supporting Scottish people. The UNion is dead!
Posted by: Ian Jones on 11:27am Wed 9 Apr 08
If the UK government wanted devolution to work, they would be going out of their way to support the wishes of the Scottish Parliament, not trying to disrupt it on party political grounds.
So, I'd have to agree with Jimmy, the Union will be dead very soon if they keep this up.
If the UK government wanted devolution to work, they would be going out of their way to support the wishes of the Scottish Parliament, not trying to disrupt it on party political grounds.
So, I'd have to agree with Jimmy, the Union will be dead very soon if they keep this up.
Posted by: Wallace, Perth on 11:34am Wed 9 Apr 08
While I agree that the case for or against a local income tax versus council tax has to be debated and thought out properly, it won't help any such debate if Westminster indulge in confrontation, rather than conversation.
I think that this new aggressive attitude, as exhibited recently by the likes of Des Browne, the part time Secretary of State for Scotland, and David Cairns, the patronising and virulently anti-Scottish "spokesman", is more down to Gordon Brown's plunging poll ratings south of the border, than anything else. He obviously thinks that taking an SNP bashing stance will sit well with the readers of the Torygraph and Daily Hate Maill, (not to mention the Northbritishman up here).
While I agree that the case for or against a local income tax versus council tax has to be debated and thought out properly, it won't help any such debate if Westminster indulge in confrontation, rather than conversation.
I think that this new aggressive attitude, as exhibited recently by the likes of Des Browne, the part time Secretary of State for Scotland, and David Cairns, the patronising and virulently anti-Scottish "spokesman", is more down to Gordon Brown's plunging poll ratings south of the border, than anything else. He obviously thinks that taking an SNP bashing stance will sit well with the readers of the Torygraph and Daily Hate Maill, (not to mention the Northbritishman up here).
Posted by: Tired of excuses, Galashiels on 11:38am Wed 9 Apr 08
[quote]So, I'd have to agree with Jimmy, the Union will be dead very soon if they keep this up.[/quote]
Anyone else feel this is becoming a bit like the Monty Python Parrot sketch, one side claiming the "parrot" full of health and vitality while the other repeatedly smacks the stuffed parrot off the counter and demands a refund ?
So, I'd have to agree with Jimmy, the Union will be dead very soon if they keep this up.
Anyone else feel this is becoming a bit like the Monty Python Parrot sketch, one side claiming the "parrot" full of health and vitality while the other repeatedly smacks the stuffed parrot off the counter and demands a refund ?
Posted by: subrosa on 11:54am Wed 9 Apr 08
This could well be trashed out in the courts. Good. I'm happy seeing my tax being spent on sorting out all the ambiguous jargon produced by Westminster.
This could well be trashed out in the courts. Good. I'm happy seeing my tax being spent on sorting out all the ambiguous jargon produced by Westminster.
Posted by: subrosa on 11:54am Wed 9 Apr 08
trashed should read thrashed. Apologies
trashed should read thrashed. Apologies
Posted by: sid the sceptic, renfrewshire on 11:55am Wed 9 Apr 08
morning all . dead simple solution DEVOLUTION MAX so WE collect all the taxes and WE deciede what it is spent on. not everything in like has to be so difficult.labour won't stand for it the tories never have and it is not enough for the nats so the only winners would be US the scottish people. how NOVEL would that be??
morning all . dead simple solution DEVOLUTION MAX so WE collect all the taxes and WE deciede what it is spent on. not everything in like has to be so difficult.labour won't stand for it the tories never have and it is not enough for the nats so the only winners would be US the scottish people. how NOVEL would that be??
Posted by: sailorjim, Portugal on 11:56am Wed 9 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Spoonsy[/bold] wrote:
Nice one Kenny - Westminster tell the SNP what the legal position is, and you call that bullying. So I suppose next time some wee ned gets lifted, he's entitled to your support against the bully-boy tactics of the police? On a more serious note, it's rapidly becoming apparent that the SNP really didn't think this LIT thing through. No idea of what it will raise, no idea how it will be collected, no idea what to do about the CTB black hole, no idea about what loopholed there will be, or how to plug them. Brain of Saturn, Mr Swinney? Uranus![/quote] Apparent to whom? Really! the 'brain of saturn' jibe does not 'ring' true. How come we don't know what you know? How come lots of us out here spent years being educated and have not learned a thing? How on earth have we survived all these years without your pearls of wisdom? Perhaps the answers to these and other such questions include: ' my eyes have been opened and I can now see'. or
'someone has switched-on the light and we are now able to dodge the liberal shovel-fulls of s..t (a la mushroom) that have been our diet for the past 200 years. You really must control these hysterical, new Tory - sorry - Labour out-bursts.
Spoonsy wrote:
Nice one Kenny - Westminster tell the SNP what the legal position is, and you call that bullying. So I suppose next time some wee ned gets lifted, he's entitled to your support against the bully-boy tactics of the police? On a more serious note, it's rapidly becoming apparent that the SNP really didn't think this LIT thing through. No idea of what it will raise, no idea how it will be collected, no idea what to do about the CTB black hole, no idea about what loopholed there will be, or how to plug them. Brain of Saturn, Mr Swinney? Uranus!
Apparent to whom? Really! the 'brain of saturn' jibe does not 'ring' true. How come we don't know what you know? How come lots of us out here spent years being educated and have not learned a thing? How on earth have we survived all these years without your pearls of wisdom? Perhaps the answers to these and other such questions include: ' my eyes have been opened and I can now see'. or
'someone has switched-on the light and we are now able to dodge the liberal shovel-fulls of s..t (a la mushroom) that have been our diet for the past 200 years. You really must control these hysterical, new Tory - sorry - Labour out-bursts.
Posted by: Globaltraveller, Scotland on 12:02pm Wed 9 Apr 08
I can scarcely believe it has taken Her Majesty's Treasury nearly one year to claim that such a visible part of the SNP's plans for government fall foul of the Scotland Act. Being pretty familiar with the aforementioned act.
It smacks to me of them desparately thrashing about to try and neuter these plans, by any means possible, rather than give an intellectual and incoherent rebuttal to the idea of an LIT. Another example of that was Mrs Cooper-Ball's rather unfortunate intervention claiming that Council Tax benefit would not be available to the Scottish Government - the polar opposite of what the Treasury statement of funding says.
I can scarcely believe it has taken Her Majesty's Treasury nearly one year to claim that such a visible part of the SNP's plans for government fall foul of the Scotland Act. Being pretty familiar with the aforementioned act.
It smacks to me of them desparately thrashing about to try and neuter these plans, by any means possible, rather than give an intellectual and incoherent rebuttal to the idea of an LIT. Another example of that was Mrs Cooper-Ball's rather unfortunate intervention claiming that Council Tax benefit would not be available to the Scottish Government - the polar opposite of what the Treasury statement of funding says.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 12:02pm Wed 9 Apr 08
[quote][bold]daveymac[/bold] wrote:
This situation is fast becoming a conflict where both sides have passed a point of no return.
Both sides are entrenched in their positions and no compromise is possible without one side having to concede. This one issue could become pivotal in reshaping the whole constitutional setup.
The way I see it panning out is this:
This may or may not go to arbitration, but in any case the UK government can simply refuse to hand over the 400M. I think they have backed themselves into a corner and wont hand it over as the Electorate South of the border would made to see this as a hand out
(mainly through inaccurately and biased journalism, plus Liebours own rhetoric)
This will leave funding for LIT with a major problem.
This will in turn cause uproar and division in Scotland but overall people will correctly see this as an unjust dictate from Westminster and act accordingly.[/quote]
The problem is that Westminster is ALSO disputing that this dispute can got to arbitration under the Devolution Joint Committee.
Nevermind, Gordon Brown AND Labour won't be around in London come the 2011 introduction of this policy.
daveymac wrote:
This situation is fast becoming a conflict where both sides have passed a point of no return.
Both sides are entrenched in their positions and no compromise is possible without one side having to concede. This one issue could become pivotal in reshaping the whole constitutional setup.
The way I see it panning out is this:
This may or may not go to arbitration, but in any case the UK government can simply refuse to hand over the 400M. I think they have backed themselves into a corner and wont hand it over as the Electorate South of the border would made to see this as a hand out
(mainly through inaccurately and biased journalism, plus Liebours own rhetoric)
This will leave funding for LIT with a major problem.
This will in turn cause uproar and division in Scotland but overall people will correctly see this as an unjust dictate from Westminster and act accordingly.
The problem is that Westminster is ALSO disputing that this dispute can got to arbitration under the Devolution Joint Committee.
Nevermind, Gordon Brown AND Labour won't be around in London come the 2011 introduction of this policy.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 12:07pm Wed 9 Apr 08
The treasury is plainly wrong, the Scotland Act doesn't refer to any details on local taxation as the act only refers to 'RESERVED MATTERS' not Devolved ones.
None of the relevant acts define a "local tax' as anything other than "taxes to fund local authority expenditure" - It isn't the locality of raising the tax that makes it 'local' it's the spending.
[quote][bold]The Scotland Act 1999[/bold]
Only defines 'Local Tax' as "taxes to fund local authority expenditure"
[bold]A1. Fiscal, economic and monetary policy[/bold]
Fiscal, economic and monetary policy, including the issue and circulation of money, taxes and excise duties, government borrowing and lending, control over United Kingdom public expenditure, the exchange rate and the Bank of England.
[bold]Exception[/bold]
[bold]Local taxes to fund local authority expenditure[/bold]
(for example, council tax and non-domestic rates).
[italic][Section A2.][/italic] [/quote]
[italic]So LIT Is Absolutely fine there.[/italic]
[bold]Local Government in Scotland Act 2003[/bold]
This legislation doesn't define 'Local Taxation' as anything but does refer to elements of 'Council Tax' rating & collection in the tories Local Govnrnment Finance Act 1992
[bold]Local Government Finance Act 1992[/bold]
Basically the piece of Legislation which introduced Council Tax to the UK, again however it doesn't define what local Taxation is....merely the details of what council tax is.
[quote]"....An Act to provide for certain local authorities to levy and collect a new tax, to be called council tax; to abolish community charges; to make further provision with respect to local government finance (including provision with respect to certain grants by local authorities); and for connected purposes....."[/quote]
So to summarise, non of the key elements of the relevant legislation gives any definition of what 'Local Taxation' is other than "taxes to fund local authority expenditure"
Labour's defence of this Tory ploy to spread the tax burden onto the poor is lamentable, their ardent stance against repeal and replacing this tax is nonsensical unless they are arguing that property based tax is somehow fair on our lowest earners and we all know know after the doubling of the lowest income tax rate what Labour's view on that is!
The treasury is plainly wrong, the Scotland Act doesn't refer to any details on local taxation as the act only refers to 'RESERVED MATTERS' not Devolved ones.
None of the relevant acts define a "local tax' as anything other than "taxes to fund local authority expenditure" - It isn't the locality of raising the tax that makes it 'local' it's the spending.
The Scotland Act 1999
Only defines 'Local Tax' as "taxes to fund local authority expenditure"
A1. Fiscal, economic and monetary policy
Fiscal, economic and monetary policy, including the issue and circulation of money, taxes and excise duties, government borrowing and lending, control over United Kingdom public expenditure, the exchange rate and the Bank of England.
Exception
Local taxes to fund local authority expenditure
(for example, council tax and non-domestic rates).
So LIT Is Absolutely fine there.
Local Government in Scotland Act 2003
This legislation doesn't define 'Local Taxation' as anything but does refer to elements of 'Council Tax' rating & collection in the tories Local Govnrnment Finance Act 1992
Local Government Finance Act 1992
Basically the piece of Legislation which introduced Council Tax to the UK, again however it doesn't define what local Taxation is....merely the details of what council tax is.
"....An Act to provide for certain local authorities to levy and collect a new tax, to be called council tax; to abolish community charges; to make further provision with respect to local government finance (including provision with respect to certain grants by local authorities); and for connected purposes....."
So to summarise, non of the key elements of the relevant legislation gives any definition of what 'Local Taxation' is other than "taxes to fund local authority expenditure"
Labour's defence of this Tory ploy to spread the tax burden onto the poor is lamentable, their ardent stance against repeal and replacing this tax is nonsensical unless they are arguing that property based tax is somehow fair on our lowest earners and we all know know after the doubling of the lowest income tax rate what Labour's view on that is!
Posted by: marzipan_mad, Edinburgh on 12:11pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Meanwhile Labour claims that Scotland does not deserve an independence referendum because apparently we already got our vote on that in May last year. They have the cheek to talk about "independence by the back door", what about "labour stabs democracy in the back"?
I'm sorry but votes for the SNP does not reflect all those who support independence. Voters were voting last year for the party of their choice, not voting on independence. This is just another example of tit for tat between Edinburgh and London when the issue could be solved right now if they just called the referendum!
Meanwhile Labour claims that Scotland does not deserve an independence referendum because apparently we already got our vote on that in May last year. They have the cheek to talk about "independence by the back door", what about "labour stabs democracy in the back"?
I'm sorry but votes for the SNP does not reflect all those who support independence. Voters were voting last year for the party of their choice, not voting on independence. This is just another example of tit for tat between Edinburgh and London when the issue could be solved right now if they just called the referendum!
Posted by: Tearlach, Stirling on 12:12pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Spoonsy - are you called that becuase you are a spoon? Why do you take Westminsters attempt to undermine the wishes of the vasr majority of Scotland as fact ?
The SNP are quite right, they are working within the restraints of Devolution and threfore London has no business to try obstruct this policy which the majority of Scotland would like to see before council tax - there is ongoing resentment from London which can only be described as attempted bullying.
Your NED comparison is just utter blinkered tripe.
Spoonsy - are you called that becuase you are a spoon? Why do you take Westminsters attempt to undermine the wishes of the vasr majority of Scotland as fact ?
The SNP are quite right, they are working within the restraints of Devolution and threfore London has no business to try obstruct this policy which the majority of Scotland would like to see before council tax - there is ongoing resentment from London which can only be described as attempted bullying.
Your NED comparison is just utter blinkered tripe.
Posted by: ex labour voter, glasgow on 12:21pm Wed 9 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Spoonsy[/bold] wrote:
Nice one Kenny - Westminster tell the SNP what the legal position is, and you call that bullying. So I suppose next time some wee ned gets lifted, he's entitled to your support against the bully-boy tactics of the police? On a more serious note, it's rapidly becoming apparent that the SNP really didn't think this LIT thing through. No idea of what it will raise, no idea how it will be collected, no idea what to do about the CTB black hole, no idea about what loopholed there will be, or how to plug them. Brain of Saturn, Mr Swinney? Uranus![/quote] Typical liebour idiot, are on wendy,s pay roll?
Spoonsy wrote:
Nice one Kenny - Westminster tell the SNP what the legal position is, and you call that bullying. So I suppose next time some wee ned gets lifted, he's entitled to your support against the bully-boy tactics of the police? On a more serious note, it's rapidly becoming apparent that the SNP really didn't think this LIT thing through. No idea of what it will raise, no idea how it will be collected, no idea what to do about the CTB black hole, no idea about what loopholed there will be, or how to plug them. Brain of Saturn, Mr Swinney? Uranus!
Typical liebour idiot, are on wendy,s pay roll?
Posted by: AyrshireScot, South Ayrshire on 12:29pm Wed 9 Apr 08
[quote][bold]ex labour voter[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Spoonsy[/bold] wrote: Nice one Kenny - Westminster tell the SNP what the legal position is, and you call that bullying. So I suppose next time some wee ned gets lifted, he's entitled to your support against the bully-boy tactics of the police? On a more serious note, it's rapidly becoming apparent that the SNP really didn't think this LIT thing through. No idea of what it will raise, no idea how it will be collected, no idea what to do about the CTB black hole, no idea about what loopholed there will be, or how to plug them. Brain of Saturn, Mr Swinney? Uranus![/quote] Typical liebour idiot, are on wendy,s pay roll? [/quote] Indeed, it it not ironic that the next article on this site displays the infallible and precise nature of Westminster government legal interpretation and skill......
--------------------
-----
"The Government's immigration policy was in tatters yesterday after a judge ruled that treatment of skilled workers who had challenged retrospective tightening of the rules was unfair and unlawful.
The Home Secretary was ordered to pay costs and refused the right to appeal.
The decision undermines controversial changes made retrospectively to test criteria for the government's Highly Skilled Migrants Programme
ex labour voter wrote:
Spoonsy wrote: Nice one Kenny - Westminster tell the SNP what the legal position is, and you call that bullying. So I suppose next time some wee ned gets lifted, he's entitled to your support against the bully-boy tactics of the police? On a more serious note, it's rapidly becoming apparent that the SNP really didn't think this LIT thing through. No idea of what it will raise, no idea how it will be collected, no idea what to do about the CTB black hole, no idea about what loopholed there will be, or how to plug them. Brain of Saturn, Mr Swinney? Uranus!
Typical liebour idiot, are on wendy,s pay roll?
Indeed, it it not ironic that the next article on this site displays the infallible and precise nature of Westminster government legal interpretation and skill......
--------------------
-----
"The Government's immigration policy was in tatters yesterday after a judge ruled that treatment of skilled workers who had challenged retrospective tightening of the rules was unfair and unlawful.
The Home Secretary was ordered to pay costs and refused the right to appeal.
The decision undermines controversial changes made retrospectively to test criteria for the government's Highly Skilled Migrants Programme
Posted by: nostress, grangemouth on 1:10pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Hello Van Helsing who signs himself W@nkers, it's dead easy - LABOUR LIE - when you grasp that fact everything falls into place.
Hello Van Helsing who signs himself W@nkers, it's dead easy - LABOUR LIE - when you grasp that fact everything falls into place.
Posted by: Jock in the Box, edinburgh on 1:13pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Van Helsing - Nat Slayer, Lanarkshire
He is a lawyer .
What are you?
Apart from the obvious that is.
The law is often as clear as mud ,and subject to interpretation.Thats why lawyers exist.
We dont know the answer?We did until Londons intervention and declared that the power to vary taxation in Scotland by 3% only applies when Labour are in power ! Thats what they are saying as far as I can see.
That is because London contests what was definitley given as a tax raising power ,well thats what Labour said ,and it does not suit their purpose to adhere to what they have devolved!
YOur tongue in cheek statement [italic]It must be true because kenny says so[/italic] is on an exact par with [italic]It must be wrong because Whitehall says so[/italic] !
If you cannot see that then what can I say ?
Your argument is at best pointless .
Van Helsing - Nat Slayer, Lanarkshire
He is a lawyer .
What are you?
Apart from the obvious that is.
The law is often as clear as mud ,and subject to interpretation.Thats why lawyers exist.
We dont know the answer?We did until Londons intervention and declared that the power to vary taxation in Scotland by 3% only applies when Labour are in power ! Thats what they are saying as far as I can see.
That is because London contests what was definitley given as a tax raising power ,well thats what Labour said ,and it does not suit their purpose to adhere to what they have devolved!
YOur tongue in cheek statement
It must be true because kenny says so is on an exact par with
It must be wrong because Whitehall says so !
If you cannot see that then what can I say ?
Your argument is at best pointless .
Posted by: tris, scotland on 1:16pm Wed 9 Apr 08
They are determined to scupper this proposal by fair means or foul.
I too am wondering why it took them so long to dream this up. It sounds a little like a few of them got together over dinner (on expenses) and a few bottles of wine (on expenses) and just after the Brandy (on expenses) they thought up this little scheme.
It's really a shame that they are drtiving such a wedge between the UK and Scotland just so they can keep their hands on the oil revenue and the dyed in the wool votes.
They are determined to scupper this proposal by fair means or foul.
I too am wondering why it took them so long to dream this up. It sounds a little like a few of them got together over dinner (on expenses) and a few bottles of wine (on expenses) and just after the Brandy (on expenses) they thought up this little scheme.
It's really a shame that they are drtiving such a wedge between the UK and Scotland just so they can keep their hands on the oil revenue and the dyed in the wool votes.
Posted by: Jock in the Box, edinburgh on 1:33pm Wed 9 Apr 08
[bold]tris, scotland on 1:16pm[/bold]
Im afraid you are correct.They dont care whether its justifiable or not.They think they can make, break and fake the law to suit their own ends.The people who support this party show how disingenuous(or is it just plain thick) they are.It has to be one of the two ,probably both,and anyone who would put the interests of party before country thorougly deserves the Quisling tag,(unless of course he is only guilty of the lesser charge of being THICK AS MINCE).
[bold]Anyone who would deliberately act against his own countrymen should be shown NO RESPECT whatsoever[/bold] .
tris, scotland on 1:16pm
Im afraid you are correct.They dont care whether its justifiable or not.They think they can make, break and fake the law to suit their own ends.The people who support this party show how disingenuous(or is it just plain thick) they are.It has to be one of the two ,probably both,and anyone who would put the interests of party before country thorougly deserves the Quisling tag,(unless of course he is only guilty of the lesser charge of being THICK AS MINCE).
Anyone who would deliberately act against his own countrymen should be shown NO RESPECT whatsoever .
Posted by: Gregor Addison, Scotland on 1:34pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Labour, not keen to cap the council tax, are seeking instead to cap Scotland's aspirations. It's becoming increasingly clear that the Westminster Government see their cohorts at Holyrood as nothing more than a Trojan horse to force upon Scotland policíes that Scotland has not voted for. Their argument that this is a minority government and so is somehow not legitimate is nonsense when they polled less, Brown became leader without an election, and Wendy stood unopposed (how many amongst the faithful regret that now?) The Labour party are keen that there is no difference between policies in Scotland and England. This would not be a problem to them if they grasped the fundamental problem of devolution, that it failed to give devolution to England. Until that issue is resolved the attempts to make Scotland slavishly follow what is done by Labour at Westminster will continue, whether Red Wendy is at the helm or someone else. If this problem is not grasped by the Westminster government, whoever it should be, then it will continue to dog British politics for years to come.
Labour, not keen to cap the council tax, are seeking instead to cap Scotland's aspirations. It's becoming increasingly clear that the Westminster Government see their cohorts at Holyrood as nothing more than a Trojan horse to force upon Scotland policíes that Scotland has not voted for. Their argument that this is a minority government and so is somehow not legitimate is nonsense when they polled less, Brown became leader without an election, and Wendy stood unopposed (how many amongst the faithful regret that now?) The Labour party are keen that there is no difference between policies in Scotland and England. This would not be a problem to them if they grasped the fundamental problem of devolution, that it failed to give devolution to England. Until that issue is resolved the attempts to make Scotland slavishly follow what is done by Labour at Westminster will continue, whether Red Wendy is at the helm or someone else. If this problem is not grasped by the Westminster government, whoever it should be, then it will continue to dog British politics for years to come.
Posted by: spagan, heisker, scotland on 1:38pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Perhaps the SNp were niaive to think that New Labou would want a taxation system that would benefit the poor rather than the rich?
Would GB pay more? Yes!
Would his Darling pay more? Yes!
Would Cairns and Browne pay more? Yes!
Would wee Wendy and wee Douglas pay more? Yes!
Now you can see why the Westminster Mafia think its a bad idea.
Slainte Mhor
Perhaps the SNp were niaive to think that New Labou would want a taxation system that would benefit the poor rather than the rich?
Would GB pay more? Yes!
Would his Darling pay more? Yes!
Would Cairns and Browne pay more? Yes!
Would wee Wendy and wee Douglas pay more? Yes!
Now you can see why the Westminster Mafia think its a bad idea.
Slainte Mhor
Posted by: Strathturret, Montrose on 1:39pm Wed 9 Apr 08
From a reply to an extremely good article by Vince Cable in today's Guardian about the impending financial crisis.
"The Lib-Dems were right over Iraq. They are right over Europe. They are right over local income tax, so much a vote loser it is being introduced in Scotland. They made the running over NR (not the public-school idiots in the Tory party). They were right over a 50% band for high earners but bottled it.
The British have had one failing Tory governemnt after one failing Labour government after one failing Tory government ... for decaeds. Will the Lib Dems sweep the board in a general election - no. A country gets the governemnt it desrves. There is something very wrong with the English (Scots vote SNP).
"
From a reply to an extremely good article by Vince Cable in today's Guardian about the impending financial crisis.
"The Lib-Dems were right over Iraq. They are right over Europe. They are right over local income tax, so much a vote loser it is being introduced in Scotland. They made the running over NR (not the public-school idiots in the Tory party). They were right over a 50% band for high earners but bottled it.
The British have had one failing Tory governemnt after one failing Labour government after one failing Tory government ... for decaeds. Will the Lib Dems sweep the board in a general election - no. A country gets the governemnt it desrves. There is something very wrong with the English (Scots vote SNP).
"
Posted by: Gregor Addison, Münster on 1:43pm Wed 9 Apr 08
I see Labour are getting their cyber-reds out to diss the nats at long last. I wondered why there were so few Labour supporters on these forums - I assumed it's because very few of them were proud enough of Labour's record to come on here and support it. Instead, we get the usual drivel about 'SNP bullies' (aw, you poor wee things), or Hamish McKropotkin yesterday writing about SNP supporters and comparing them to Nazis. As I write this from Münster in Germany where I am staying with my German girlfriend you can imagine how much this drivel annoys me. Still, if that's all they have to offer...we're home and dry...
I see Labour are getting their cyber-reds out to diss the nats at long last. I wondered why there were so few Labour supporters on these forums - I assumed it's because very few of them were proud enough of Labour's record to come on here and support it. Instead, we get the usual drivel about 'SNP bullies' (aw, you poor wee things), or Hamish McKropotkin yesterday writing about SNP supporters and comparing them to Nazis. As I write this from Münster in Germany where I am staying with my German girlfriend you can imagine how much this drivel annoys me. Still, if that's all they have to offer...we're home and dry...
Posted by: daveymac, web on 1:47pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Wardog, Buckie on 12:02pm
Yes indeed and that is why I stated ‘may or may not go to arbitration’
The only valid criticism of the SNP here is that they should have thought this through more and that they have underestimated the extent to Which Westminster will go to try and block this.
How can Labour call for a commision on handing more powers to Scotland while at the same time trying to block the LIT on nothing more than a possible technicality? This is breathtaking in its duplicity.
The Westminster argument is simply: “We don’t think you have the power to raise this tax in this particular way so the law technically says we can say No. And guess what we are saying No – so tough!”.
This intransigent position is simply unacceptable to me and I guess to most other voters in Scotland 80% of whom want significant change.
However lets look at some background. Where did this LIT idea come from?
Labour and the LIB dems launched an investigation into possibilities for replacing the council tax while they were in control of the Scottish ‘Executive’. LIT was examined as part of this.
The LIB Dems, as we know, then formulated a policy of a 5% LIT. I guess the SNP got many of their ideas from this Labour initiated process as well.
It appears that Labour didn’t like LIT and have opted for council rebanding instead. However (and this is the killer) neither Labour nor the LIBs nor the investigation concluded (at the time) that this was something somehow outside the Scottish parliaments remit.
Until…that is, that the SNP said they would implement it and now, suddenly we are not ‘allowed’.
I don’t have the link but this info can be found on the Scottish parliament website for those wanting to confirm…
Your move - Liebour.
Wardog, Buckie on 12:02pm
Yes indeed and that is why I stated ‘may or may not go to arbitration’
The only valid criticism of the SNP here is that they should have thought this through more and that they have underestimated the extent to Which Westminster will go to try and block this.
How can Labour call for a commision on handing more powers to Scotland while at the same time trying to block the LIT on nothing more than a possible technicality? This is breathtaking in its duplicity.
The Westminster argument is simply: “We don’t think you have the power to raise this tax in this particular way so the law technically says we can say No. And guess what we are saying No – so tough!”.
This intransigent position is simply unacceptable to me and I guess to most other voters in Scotland 80% of whom want significant change.
However lets look at some background. Where did this LIT idea come from?
Labour and the LIB dems launched an investigation into possibilities for replacing the council tax while they were in control of the Scottish ‘Executive’. LIT was examined as part of this.
The LIB Dems, as we know, then formulated a policy of a 5% LIT. I guess the SNP got many of their ideas from this Labour initiated process as well.
It appears that Labour didn’t like LIT and have opted for council rebanding instead. However (and this is the killer) neither Labour nor the LIBs nor the investigation concluded (at the time) that this was something somehow outside the Scottish parliaments remit.
Until…that is, that the SNP said they would implement it and now, suddenly we are not ‘allowed’.
I don’t have the link but this info can be found on the Scottish parliament website for those wanting to confirm…
Your move - Liebour.
Posted by: daveymac, web on 1:53pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Wardog, Buckie on 12:02pm
Yes indeed and that is why I stated ‘may or may not go to arbitration’
The only valid criticism of the SNP here is that they should have thought this through more and that they have underestimated the extent to Which Westminster will go to try and block this.
How can Labour call for a commision on handing more powers to Scotland while at the same time trying to block the LIT on nothing more than a possible technicality? This is breathtaking in its duplicity.
The Westminster argument is simply: “We don’t think you have the power to raise this tax in this particular way so the law technically says we can say No. And guess what we are saying No – so tough!”.
This intransigent position is simply unacceptable to me and I guess to most other voters in Scotland 80% of whom want significant change.
However lets look at some background. Where did this LIT idea come from?
Labour and the LIB dems launched an investigation into possibilities for replacing the council tax while they were in control of the Scottish ‘Executive’. LIT was examined as part of this.
The LIB Dems, as we know, then formulated a policy of a 5% LIT. I guess the SNP got many of their ideas from this Labour initiated process as well.
It appears that Labour didn’t like LIT and have opted for council rebanding instead. However (and this is the killer) neither Labour nor the LIBs nor the investigation concluded (at the time) that this was something somehow outside the Scottish parliaments remit.
Until…that is, that the SNP said they would implement it and now, suddenly we are not ‘allowed’.
I don’t have the link but this info can be found on the Scottish parliament website for those wanting to confirm…
Your move - Liebour.
Wardog, Buckie on 12:02pm
Yes indeed and that is why I stated ‘may or may not go to arbitration’
The only valid criticism of the SNP here is that they should have thought this through more and that they have underestimated the extent to Which Westminster will go to try and block this.
How can Labour call for a commision on handing more powers to Scotland while at the same time trying to block the LIT on nothing more than a possible technicality? This is breathtaking in its duplicity.
The Westminster argument is simply: “We don’t think you have the power to raise this tax in this particular way so the law technically says we can say No. And guess what we are saying No – so tough!”.
This intransigent position is simply unacceptable to me and I guess to most other voters in Scotland 80% of whom want significant change.
However lets look at some background. Where did this LIT idea come from?
Labour and the LIB dems launched an investigation into possibilities for replacing the council tax while they were in control of the Scottish ‘Executive’. LIT was examined as part of this.
The LIB Dems, as we know, then formulated a policy of a 5% LIT. I guess the SNP got many of their ideas from this Labour initiated process as well.
It appears that Labour didn’t like LIT and have opted for council rebanding instead. However (and this is the killer) neither Labour nor the LIBs nor the investigation concluded (at the time) that this was something somehow outside the Scottish parliaments remit.
Until…that is, that the SNP said they would implement it and now, suddenly we are not ‘allowed’.
I don’t have the link but this info can be found on the Scottish parliament website for those wanting to confirm…
Your move - Liebour.
Posted by: Gregor Addison, Münster on 1:54pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Not a whisper from the Lib Dems over this. I thought they supported an income tax? They certainly won't get it if they keep quiet. Nor will they get it if they support Labour.
Not a whisper from the Lib Dems over this. I thought they supported an income tax? They certainly won't get it if they keep quiet. Nor will they get it if they support Labour.
Posted by: Deasún, Glasgow on 2:01pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Another example of Westminster picking yet more fights with the Scottish Government and over a issue which would benefit those on low incomes. Just who do they represent?
Another example of Westminster picking yet more fights with the Scottish Government and over a issue which would benefit those on low incomes. Just who do they represent?
Posted by: Jwil, Lanarkshire on 2:02pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Why can't we have a proper examination of this type of (supposed) problem by the media? Why don't they invoke a micro-examination of the rhetoric spouted by the Labour party. They are not doing their duty by Scottish taxpayers. We want facts not obscure rhetoric!
Why can't we have a proper examination of this type of (supposed) problem by the media? Why don't they invoke a micro-examination of the rhetoric spouted by the Labour party. They are not doing their duty by Scottish taxpayers. We want facts not obscure rhetoric!
Posted by: Spoonsy, Glasgow on 2:03pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Actually, my ned comment was a joke. It was Kenny who was spouting blinkered tripe.
He's been told what the legal position is - yet, in his capacity as Justice Minister - he seems to call that bullying. Therefore, by extension all legal positions are just bullying if they say something you don't want to hear.
He said it, not me. The man's a clown.
But back to the matter at hand: The LIT policy has descended into farce, and the SNP should fess up about that now.
What's really worrying is it's their flagship policy and they can't provide one iota of detail on how it's to be implemented, and can't even establish a working relationship with the one body - Westminster - who's help they really need.
We're three years away from this tax becoming reality, and the wheels are already off the cart. Surely if they had all the boxes ticked and a workable way to implement LIT then they could at least get discussions going?
But no - all we get are unseemly spats and the unedifying spectacle of the Finance Minister going cap in hand to a foreign power - by their reckoning - for £400 million income taxt benefit to make their badly-thought out tax work. And that's not to create a harmonious tax regime for years to come - that's just to get the thing off the ground!
So don't spout on about this being the fault of a Westminster government blocking 'oor brave wee SNP' at every turn - That's just the usual chip-on-the-shoulder
, them-and-us claptrap from a clueless party who would struggle to manage a kid's piggie bank, let alone implement tax reform on this scale.
LIT? Oh, Let it be...
Next!
Actually, my ned comment was a joke. It was Kenny who was spouting blinkered tripe.
He's been told what the legal position is - yet, in his capacity as Justice Minister - he seems to call that bullying. Therefore, by extension all legal positions are just bullying if they say something you don't want to hear.
He said it, not me. The man's a clown.
But back to the matter at hand: The LIT policy has descended into farce, and the SNP should fess up about that now.
What's really worrying is it's their flagship policy and they can't provide one iota of detail on how it's to be implemented, and can't even establish a working relationship with the one body - Westminster - who's help they really need.
We're three years away from this tax becoming reality, and the wheels are already off the cart. Surely if they had all the boxes ticked and a workable way to implement LIT then they could at least get discussions going?
But no - all we get are unseemly spats and the unedifying spectacle of the Finance Minister going cap in hand to a foreign power - by their reckoning - for £400 million income taxt benefit to make their badly-thought out tax work. And that's not to create a harmonious tax regime for years to come - that's just to get the thing off the ground!
So don't spout on about this being the fault of a Westminster government blocking 'oor brave wee SNP' at every turn - That's just the usual chip-on-the-shoulder
, them-and-us claptrap from a clueless party who would struggle to manage a kid's piggie bank, let alone implement tax reform on this scale.
LIT? Oh, Let it be...
Next!
Posted by: Jwil, Lanarkshire on 2:09pm Wed 9 Apr 08
daveymac, web on 1:53pm today
[italic]The only valid criticism of the SNP here is that they should have thought this through more and that they have underestimated the extent to Which Westminster will go to try and block this.[/italic]
Are you suggesting that the SNP could have done something about it from a position in which they were not in power. If so, what?
I cannot see where the SNP could ever have thought they were going to get a clear run from the Westminster Government. They were just going to have to get through it by one means or another.
daveymac, web on 1:53pm today
The only valid criticism of the SNP here is that they should have thought this through more and that they have underestimated the extent to Which Westminster will go to try and block this.
Are you suggesting that the SNP could have done something about it from a position in which they were not in power. If so, what?
I cannot see where the SNP could ever have thought they were going to get a clear run from the Westminster Government. They were just going to have to get through it by one means or another.
Posted by: ratzo on 2:19pm Wed 9 Apr 08
the troll 'spoonsy' tends to post links to pornographic sites as 'answers', when his trolling doesn't work, so perhaps best left well alone?
the troll 'spoonsy' tends to post links to pornographic sites as 'answers', when his trolling doesn't work, so perhaps best left well alone?
Posted by: Spoonsy, Glasgow on 2:26pm Wed 9 Apr 08
That the best you can do, Ratzo? Can't answer the rhetoric, so you have to descend into smears.
How very ........ SNP of you.
And I've said it before - I don't know what a troll is, but if it's something offensive, then I'll ask you to keep things civil.
That the best you can do, Ratzo? Can't answer the rhetoric, so you have to descend into smears.
How very ........ SNP of you.
And I've said it before - I don't know what a troll is, but if it's something offensive, then I'll ask you to keep things civil.
Posted by: Charles Falconer, tain on 2:35pm Wed 9 Apr 08
No-one seems to have mentioned the point that the devolution settlement allows for a variable rate of up to 3% in the basic rate of income tax. The SNP policy is not for a local income tax, but to make maximum use of the scottish variable rate, and to abolish council tax. If this policy were implemented(most unlikely given the make-up of the Holyrood government), HM Revenue would have to implement it. It would not provide sufficient revenue to replace council tax, hence the need to obtain more funds from Westminster (eg the council tax rebate money).
No-one seems to have mentioned the point that the devolution settlement allows for a variable rate of up to 3% in the basic rate of income tax. The SNP policy is not for a local income tax, but to make maximum use of the scottish variable rate, and to abolish council tax. If this policy were implemented(most unlikely given the make-up of the Holyrood government), HM Revenue would have to implement it. It would not provide sufficient revenue to replace council tax, hence the need to obtain more funds from Westminster (eg the council tax rebate money).
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 2:48pm Wed 9 Apr 08
daveymac, web on 1:53pm today
Agreed Davey
You make an interesting point that neither Labour nor the Liberals raised during their last spell in administration.
The full Burt Report can be read in full here:
[bold]www.localgovernmentf
inancereview.org/rep
ort/report.aspx[/bold]
The report is generally dismissive of LIT, instead the report recommends use of a Local Property Tax which in truth seems little different to the Council Tax which the report recommend "should not be retained in its current form"...
The report is severely critical of Council Tax Benefit System and recommends significant reform.
Any property tax is not based on ABILITY TO PAY
It would still be based on a [italic]proportion[/italic] of the capital value of your home, not very fair if you don't own the home, there are over 800,000 domestic tenants in Scotland who would be taxed fairly under the Burt Report's recommendations.... [bold]stitch up?[/bold]
A Local property Tax is currently not supported by [bold]ANY[/bold] of Scotland's Political Parties
It's maybe time that the Liberals really started to have some input into this discussion, putting forward their ideas on locally set rates, they are sitting back on something which is one for their major policies.
[italic]A thought however......[/italic]
The Burt report didn't consider this but the SNP consultation paper on LIT also includes options for setting up a [bold]Scottish 'HMRC'[/bold] to collect local taxes......
[italic]Would that be such a bad thing?[/italic]
OK, it'll take some money to setup, but it's something we'd need under independence anyway....could this be the 'end game' scenario for an SNP Government 'forced' down this route by Westminister?
[italic]For anyone interested in contributing towards the public consultation to find a fairer local taxation system in Scotland, visit the following links to have your say.[/italic]
[italic]Full LIT Consultation Document....[/italic]
[bold]tinyurl.com/2bt5sc[/bold]
Online Consultation.... 10 minute questionaire
[bold]tinyurl.com/yw8fo7[/bold]
daveymac, web on 1:53pm today
Agreed Davey
You make an interesting point that neither Labour nor the Liberals raised during their last spell in administration.
The full Burt Report can be read in full here:
www.localgovernmentf
inancereview.org/rep
ort/report.aspx
The report is generally dismissive of LIT, instead the report recommends use of a Local Property Tax which in truth seems little different to the Council Tax which the report recommend "should not be retained in its current form"...
The report is severely critical of Council Tax Benefit System and recommends significant reform.
Any property tax is not based on ABILITY TO PAY
It would still be based on a
proportion of the capital value of your home, not very fair if you don't own the home, there are over 800,000 domestic tenants in Scotland who would be taxed fairly under the Burt Report's recommendations....
stitch up?
A Local property Tax is currently not supported by
ANY of Scotland's Political Parties
It's maybe time that the Liberals really started to have some input into this discussion, putting forward their ideas on locally set rates, they are sitting back on something which is one for their major policies.
A thought however......
The Burt report didn't consider this but the SNP consultation paper on LIT also includes options for setting up a
Scottish 'HMRC' to collect local taxes......
Would that be such a bad thing?
OK, it'll take some money to setup, but it's something we'd need under independence anyway....could this be the 'end game' scenario for an SNP Government 'forced' down this route by Westminister?
For anyone interested in contributing towards the public consultation to find a fairer local taxation system in Scotland, visit the following links to have your say.
Full LIT Consultation Document....
tinyurl.com/2bt5sc
Online Consultation.... 10 minute questionaire
tinyurl.com/yw8fo7
Posted by: robmcdonald, East Kilbride on 2:49pm Wed 9 Apr 08
I'm confused.
I thought the devolution settlement allowed for us to vary income tax by +/- 3%. It was never said by Westminster at that time that it wasn't possible so what's changed (apart from an SNP government)?
I'm confused.
I thought the devolution settlement allowed for us to vary income tax by +/- 3%. It was never said by Westminster at that time that it wasn't possible so what's changed (apart from an SNP government)?
Posted by: Mr Angry, ayrshire on 2:49pm Wed 9 Apr 08
SNP obviously knew that Labour would try everything to scupper this regardless if it was a good or bad idea.
They cannot lose , they either get LiT through and hopefully majority support it , or labour wreck it and people are up in arms and more votes for SNP.
SNP will not be able to work forever on fact that Brown and his labour numpties will keep putting their feet in their mouths, however they don't seem capable of any intelligence between them to do anything else to date.
Pity we have another 2 years before Brown and his band of clowns get chucked out.
SNP obviously knew that Labour would try everything to scupper this regardless if it was a good or bad idea.
They cannot lose , they either get LiT through and hopefully majority support it , or labour wreck it and people are up in arms and more votes for SNP.
SNP will not be able to work forever on fact that Brown and his labour numpties will keep putting their feet in their mouths, however they don't seem capable of any intelligence between them to do anything else to date.
Pity we have another 2 years before Brown and his band of clowns get chucked out.
Posted by: Freeman Stan, Glasgow on 2:56pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Charles Falconer
There is some confusion because the SNP's proposed 3% rate for Local Income Tax happens to be the same as the (plus or minus) 3% by which the Scottish Government is allowed to vary the basic rate of [bold]national[/bold] income tax. They are not the same thing, though perhaps the SNP thought of using the 3% Scottish Variable Rate as a fall-back position if Westminster made difficulties about introducing a local income tax. However, the 3% variable rate can apply only to [bold]basic[/bold] rate, wheras the 3% LIT rate is intended to apply to all earned income. So there would be a shortfall, even without the British stealing our contributions towards Council Tax Benefit.
However, if we cannot outwit the British, we deserve to suffer Council Tax!
Charles Falconer
There is some confusion because the SNP's proposed 3% rate for Local Income Tax happens to be the same as the (plus or minus) 3% by which the Scottish Government is allowed to vary the basic rate of
national income tax. They are not the same thing, though perhaps the SNP thought of using the 3% Scottish Variable Rate as a fall-back position if Westminster made difficulties about introducing a local income tax. However, the 3% variable rate can apply only to
basic rate, wheras the 3% LIT rate is intended to apply to all earned income. So there would be a shortfall, even without the British stealing our contributions towards Council Tax Benefit.
However, if we cannot outwit the British, we deserve to suffer Council Tax!
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 2:56pm Wed 9 Apr 08
The treasury obviously have a 'death by a thousand briefings' strategy to deal with the pesky SNP ideas for [bold]FAIRER[/bold] Local Tax.
The hootsman run a story every 5 days or so with the same headline.
Isn't it time some of these journalists simply asked these 'spokesmen' from Hm Treasury to which aprts of the legislation they are referring and from whom they have received legal advice?
This is afterall our national government.
It all stinks a wee bit of dodgey dossier's, snippets here, snippets there but nothing actually pinpointed..... Des Brown & Alistair Darling will be coming out soon to tell us if we vote for Independence or isf the Scottish Parliament votes for LIT the we will little over 45mins away from armageddon.
Incredibly desperate stuff from the Treasury
[bold]PS[/bold] When can we expect Darling's promised report on devolution, can't wait for that, it's guaranteed to be a hoot!
Are Scottish labour really going to go into the next Holyrood Election saying that Scotland couldn't as a sovereign nation?
The politics of fear & loathing.... [bold]New Labour 1997-2010 RIP[/bold]
The treasury obviously have a 'death by a thousand briefings' strategy to deal with the pesky SNP ideas for
FAIRER Local Tax.
The hootsman run a story every 5 days or so with the same headline.
Isn't it time some of these journalists simply asked these 'spokesmen' from Hm Treasury to which aprts of the legislation they are referring and from whom they have received legal advice?
This is afterall our national government.
It all stinks a wee bit of dodgey dossier's, snippets here, snippets there but nothing actually pinpointed..... Des Brown & Alistair Darling will be coming out soon to tell us if we vote for Independence or isf the Scottish Parliament votes for LIT the we will little over 45mins away from armageddon.
Incredibly desperate stuff from the Treasury
PS When can we expect Darling's promised report on devolution, can't wait for that, it's guaranteed to be a hoot!
Are Scottish labour really going to go into the next Holyrood Election saying that Scotland couldn't as a sovereign nation?
The politics of fear & loathing....
New Labour 1997-2010 RIP
Posted by: Grassy Knollington on 3:19pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Just checked this story on the BBC's Ceefax pages (162) and was intrigued to note that after referring to the SNP as the Government for the past few months they have mysteriously downgraded them to Broon's favoured term "administration".
Everyone pulling together in defence of Blighty it seems.
Just checked this story on the BBC's Ceefax pages (162) and was intrigued to note that after referring to the SNP as the Government for the past few months they have mysteriously downgraded them to Broon's favoured term "administration".
Everyone pulling together in defence of Blighty it seems.
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 3:56pm Wed 9 Apr 08
[quote][bold]John F[/bold] wrote:
Where is Wendy ?[/quote] On her way home to handbag her husband for speaking out of turn, before she sends him to sit on the naughty chair!
John F wrote:
Where is Wendy ?
On her way home to handbag her husband for speaking out of turn, before she sends him to sit on the naughty chair!
Posted by: britfree, camelon on 4:12pm Wed 9 Apr 08
the b b c are the cutting edge in the brit-state fight back a la Venezuela . the guests on the political shows are now handpicked for their anti-nationalst credentials , its now de rigeur for their talking heads to sneer at the few nationalist commentators invited to respond . their gordon brewers or glenn campbells are now openly unionist protagonists feeling quite free to join the anti nationalist rhetoric of their packed panel . whether its the constitution , the cannabis debate or whatever the topic the b b c will follow the brit-states iron line
the b b c are the cutting edge in the brit-state fight back a la Venezuela . the guests on the political shows are now handpicked for their anti-nationalst credentials , its now de rigeur for their talking heads to sneer at the few nationalist commentators invited to respond . their gordon brewers or glenn campbells are now openly unionist protagonists feeling quite free to join the anti nationalist rhetoric of their packed panel . whether its the constitution , the cannabis debate or whatever the topic the b b c will follow the brit-states iron line
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 4:12pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Spoonsy:
[quote]He's been told what the legal position is [/quote]
Your entire argument is holed below the waterline. Therefore all that follows from this is, quite simply, tosh. Others have more than capably pointed out chapter and verse the relevant legislation that shows that it is absolutely within the powers of the Scottish Government to introduce a Local Income Tax and that the Holyrood Government is entitled to the money from Westminster to cover this.
It is in fact the Westminster Government that is breaking the law, but nothing new there eh?
Spoonsy:
He's been told what the legal position is
Your entire argument is holed below the waterline. Therefore all that follows from this is, quite simply, tosh. Others have more than capably pointed out chapter and verse the relevant legislation that shows that it is absolutely within the powers of the Scottish Government to introduce a Local Income Tax and that the Holyrood Government is entitled to the money from Westminster to cover this.
It is in fact the Westminster Government that is breaking the law, but nothing new there eh?
Posted by: tris, scotland on 4:26pm Wed 9 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Deasún[/bold] wrote:
Another example of Westminster picking yet more fights with the Scottish Government and over a issue which would benefit those on low incomes. Just who do they represent?[/quote]
Easy. The Rich.
Deasún wrote:
Another example of Westminster picking yet more fights with the Scottish Government and over a issue which would benefit those on low incomes. Just who do they represent?
Easy. The Rich.
Posted by: daveymac, web on 4:31pm Wed 9 Apr 08
Wardog, Buckie on 2:48pm, thanks for the link.
I checked the doc and basically the conclusion was that the Scottish parliament is legally able to set the LIT as it wants but HMRC needs agreement from Wesminster to change tax collection.
There is nothing ILLEGAL about the LIT. It does need Westminster cooperation to put into effect. There is no Westminster cooperation at this time.
The big q. I would ask ask the liberals is: Along with Labour you initiated the Burt review and shorty afterwards came up with a 5% LIT policy. Was there any suggestion that this would not be lawful?
Labour needs to be asked: In a report that YOU commissioned that looked at LIT as an alternative to the Council Tax, why was there no problem surrounding its legality?
Relevant sections from the Burt report:
Powers to operate and enforce
112. An issue arises as to whether HMRC could administer a local income tax in Scotland, if asked to do
so by the Scottish Parliament, without the need for separate Westminster legislation. Legal advice we have
received indicates that Scottish Ministers and Commissioners of HMRC can enter into voluntary
arrangements over the handling of their respective functions. While the collection of local taxes is not a
function of Scottish Ministers but of local authorities, legal advice is that this difficulty could be addressed
through legislation in the Scottish Parliament.
113. To manage the collection of an important source of revenue through the continued co-operation of
HMRC in a voluntary arrangement is not a robust basis for doing so (in practical, if not legal, terms).
114. The legal advice we have received states that there would be nothing in law to prevent the Scottish
Parliament from conferring functions and duties upon HMRC. However, it is likely that HMRC does not
currently have the power to undertake any such functions and duties that the Scottish Parliament might
impose upon it (since HMRC does not at present collect any local tax). This power could be conferred by
an Order in Council.
115. Nevertheless, while the Scottish Parliament may be able to confer powers and functions upon HMRC
(with or without an Order in Council), our legal advisers find it difficult to envisage how either the Scottish
Parliament or Scottish local authorities could force HMRC and other UK authorities to carry out these
functions.
Wardog, Buckie on 2:48pm, thanks for the link.
I checked the doc and basically the conclusion was that the Scottish parliament is legally able to set the LIT as it wants but HMRC needs agreement from Wesminster to change tax collection.
There is nothing ILLEGAL about the LIT. It does need Westminster cooperation to put into effect. There is no Westminster cooperation at this time.
The big q. I would ask ask the liberals is: Along with Labour you initiated the Burt review and shorty afterwards came up with a 5% LIT policy. Was there any suggestion that this would not be lawful?
Labour needs to be asked: In a report that YOU commissioned that looked at LIT as an alternative to the Council Tax, why was there no problem surrounding its legality?
Relevant sections from the Burt report:
Powers to operate and enforce
112. An issue arises as to whether HMRC could administer a local income tax in Scotland, if asked to do
so by the Scottish Parliament, without the need for separate Westminster legislation. Legal advice we have
received indicates that Scottish Ministers and Commissioners of HMRC can enter into voluntary
arrangements over the handling of their respective functions. While the collection of local taxes is not a
function of Scottish Ministers but of local authorities, legal advice is that this difficulty could be addressed
through legislation in the Scottish Parliament.
113. To manage the collection of an important source of revenue through the continued co-operation of
HMRC in a voluntary arrangement is not a robust basis for doing so (in practical, if not legal, terms).
114. The legal advice we have received states that there would be nothing in law to prevent the Scottish
Parliament from conferring functions and duties upon HMRC. However, it is likely that HMRC does not
currently have the power to undertake any such functions and duties that the Scottish Parliament might
impose upon it (since HMRC does not at present collect any local tax). This power could be conferred by
an Order in Council.
115. Nevertheless, while the Scottish Parliament may be able to confer powers and functions upon HMRC
(with or without an Order in Council), our legal advisers find it difficult to envisage how either the Scottish
Parliament or Scottish local authorities could force HMRC and other UK authorities to carry out these
functions.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 4:33pm Wed 9 Apr 08
<
Politics
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (117)
