Workfare for Holyrood
The media is in full-on spin mode today, reporting Ruth Davidson’s miraculous Damascene conversion to the principle of “more powers” for the Scottish Parliament, just 18 short months after her Churchill-esque declaration of devolutionary defiance to the effect that the petty tinkering of the Scotland Act was a “line in the sand”.
Most of the papers, of course, feign critical analysis by highlighting Davidson’s U-turn. But what we haven’t seen in a single one is any sort of actual examination of the content of Ms Davidson’s speech to a micro-audience of literally several people in what appeared to be the corridor of an Edinburgh hotel yesterday.
We suspect that’s because anyone who did would be very hard-pressed indeed to credibly describe the measures she proposes as representing “more powers” for anything. In fact, they’re the opposite.
What Ruth Davidson actually promised Scots yesterday was responsibility without power. She promised to force the Scottish Parliament to construct a massive new bureaucracy to generate the money it already receives, but offered it no reward for that effort. What she offered, in short, was a political form of workfare.
The actual speech was anything but short. A mammoth affair almost 3700 words long, much as we’d like to we won’t be going through it line by line. Fortunately, since most of it was empty waffling drivel that won’t be much of a loss. The first 500 or so words of meaningless boilerplate about “patriotism”, for example, would have benefited greatly from a single giant stroke of an editor’s red pen. But then we get to something curious:
“The 1997 referendum was won because it spoke to the hopes of the people of Scotland; their aspirations for a better future. It reflected the desire of Scotland to have a bigger say in the running of our own affairs while still enjoying the shared benefits of the United Kingdom.”
It did? We don’t recall there being an option in the 1997 referendum to NOT “enjoy the shared benefits of the United Kingdom”, so one might as well say that the result reflected the fervent desire of Scots to endorse the selection of Katrina And The Waves as that year’s UK entry in the Eurovision Song Contest.
After some more waffle, we get another lie:
“We often hear the advocates of independence call for the positive case to be made for Scotland remaining within the United Kingdom. It’s a reasonable call to make, and in reply, I say:
Look around you. Listen to the people of Scotland. Listen to the voices of the millions of ordinary Scots who in poll after poll, and at election after election, affirm their preference for Scotland remaining within the United Kingdom.”
We hesitate to point out the bleeding obvious, but “ordinary Scots” have never, not once in over 300 years, been offered a democratic choice about Scotland remaining within the UK. Elections are not single-issue referendums. Ms Davidson and her party, and all the other Unionist parties in Scotland and the UK, have in fact fought tooth and nail for decades to ensure that question was never asked.
(And of course, even the 1997 vote on devolution so enthusiastically cited by Ms Davidson a few lines above was bitterly opposed every step of the way by the Tories.)
But we digress. Some more padding later, we get to this:
“Over the last year, the Scottish Conservatives have listened to the people of Scotland. We have heard their ambition for a devolved parliament – within the United Kingdom – with greater powers than it currently holds. We have listened, we have heard and we will act. We will respond positively to that ambition.”
“…by strenuously rejecting any attempt to democratically offer that ambition to them as a clearly-defined, cast-iron-promised option on the referendum ballot paper”, she for some reason didn’t go on to add.
But then, almost 2000 words in, we finally approach the meat:
“Of course we will continue to explore how best the existing powers of the Scottish Parliament, and further powers already on the way, can be used. With an estimated 70 per cent of identifiable public spending controlled by Holyrood those powers are considerable.
But the challenge is to make sure that level of spending is balanced by a proper level of responsibility and transparency.”
That’s not ambiguous. Davidson is not offering more power. She says, and we paraphrase, “We already have lots of power – now I want to add responsibility to it, not increase it”. She goes on:
“Today I am not going to offer a detailed blueprint for the future of devolution.”
No kidding.
“My experience of the Scottish Parliament is there are too many members whose sole concern is how money should be spent. Politicians who have little or no concern for those who generate the money in the first place; the overburdened and underappreciated Scottish taxpayer.
Politicians who regard taxpayers’ money as theirs by right, not hard-earned cash they take on trust to spend on the people of Scotland’s behalf. Politicians who take no real responsibility for difficult decisions and palm blame off on those who do.
Politicians who exploit the deficiencies of Holyrood – deficiencies laid bare by a majority nationalist government in whose interest it is to pervert the functions of parliament, hobble devolution and point the finger at the UK government.
A parliament with little responsibility for raising the money it spends will never be properly accountable to the people of Scotland. It can never have the proper incentive to cut the size and cost of government, or to reduce tax bills.
So that means in future a far greater share of the money spent by the Scottish Parliament should be raised by it.
We will examine the mix of taxes best suited to achieving that goal, but the principle is clear. If you spend the public’s money, then you must be accountable to the public both for how it is spent and how it is raised.”
Not one single solitary word of the central passage in Davidson’s speech describes “more powers”. It describes more responsibility being attached to the existing powers. The only reference to new powers in fact deals with powers which are coming to Holyrood anyway:
“The devolution of new powers over taxation to the Scottish Parliament means it would be the responsibility of the parliament to use those powers in the best interests of the Scottish people. And the position of the Scottish Conservatives on this is equally clear.
New powers over tax should mean one thing; tax rates being reduced and the burden of tax being lifted for every Scottish family. We’ve already set out our proposal for a one pence cut in income tax for Scottish families, and new powers over tax in Scotland could let us go further.”
The Scotland Act, if and when it takes effect in 2015, will already enable the Scottish Parliament to vary the rate of income tax by up to 10p. Ruth Davidson’s only concrete suggestion for “more powers” is in fact a power already on the statute books and about to be implemented. It is NOT a new or additional power in any sense.
What Ruth Davidson is offering under the guise of “more powers” if Scotland votes No is more red tape and more responsibility, in return for absolutely nothing. She promises only to FORCE the Scottish Parliament to use a poisoned-chalice “power” it has already been given, and which offers it no benefit of any kind.
(If altering the Scottish rate of income tax results in increased receipts after 2015, they will go straight into the coffers of the UK Treasury, not to Holyrood. Not a single word in Davidson’s epic filibuster of a speech suggests any change to that situation.)
This simple, hardly-concealed fact has entirely and bewilderingly escaped the Scottish media, for reasons we can only speculate upon. Their headlines present the diametric opposite of the reality. For all the press hype, Davidson has taken close to 4000 words to say what this site told you months ago in just four: Vote No, Get Nothing.
“She promised to force the Scottish Parliament to construct a massive new bureaucracy to generate the money it already receives”
So hang on – the argument is that this form of enhanced devolution will require “massive new bureaucracy”, but independence won’t? Odd.
Or Vote Naw, Get Hee Haw. – as seen on Twittersphere last night
“If altering the Scottish rate of income tax results in increased receipts after 2015, they will go straight into the coffers of the UK Treasury”
I think you need to justify that. As I understand it, variations in future Scottish income tax rates will be fully reflected in adjustments to Barnett.
Good piece rev but is the last link broken? or is it just me?
Boom!
And the Barnett Formula will be scrapped…
@Hermione
“She promised to force the Scottish Parliament to construct a massive new bureaucracy to generate the money it already receives”
So hang on – the argument is that this form of enhanced devolution will require “massive new bureaucracy”, but independence won’t? Odd.
But under independence we get all the powers of a nation state, under Davidson’s plan we only get a new bureaucracy (which Tories are always complaining up).
They’ve figured out they can’t scare us into voting no, so they will now try and con us into voting no. Labours move from scare to con should arrive soon and confirm the unionist tactic shift.
“Good piece rev but is the last link broken? or is it just me?”
Fixed, cheers.
Excellent piece. Last link broken for me as well
Hermione, wake up alert !
Guess what, an new independent nation will need new levels of bureaucracy because we will have offices of state to set up, a foreign dept, department of defence etc.
And at least we will be paying civil servants who live, work, spend and pay taxes in our country, not Westminster.
What Davidson is suggesting is that we still send our taxes to Westminster, but we’re going to scrap the Barnett Formula.
@tartanfever
And the Barnett Formula will be scrapped…
Exactly. From the speech: ” [the] Barnett Formula is already in its death-throes as it stands … and will have to be changed further if Holyrood’s tax-raising powers are extended.”
Apparently, it’s going to be changed after its ‘death’.
Well dug out from the fluff and crap. Not surprised by her line/spin though, it was what the Welsh Tory was saying when he was in the BBC gaggle ganging up on Humza the other day.
So not even jam – but gruel!
Vote Naw fur Hee Haw (Jock McDonnell ?@JockMcDonnell)
This was ruth sort of skirting round her theme of how 80% of scots contribute nothing and live off the fruits of the remaining 20%. Its all about cuts – without mentioning the cuts word, or the need for a cuts comission. But in the end, what she was saying, is a that a devo+ holyrood would have no new powers and would have cut services and introduce all the moronic policies of her betters in England. In essence this was just a rehash of their last pitch to ruin things in holyrood, it was just disguised as a pitch for constitutional reform. But it was not a geniune offer of change. It was the same old message of Tory cuts and Tory pain that they have been pedaling since 78. But as the old saying goes a polished turd is still a turd. And this turd seriously needs to be scraped off the heel of Scotlands shoe.
FFS, have we not heard all this BS before, nothing new here. Please Ms Davidson give the people you pruport to represent some credence of intelligence. Now go and get some real life experience or ask your predecessor auntie bella how to stop the tory vote in Scotland become extinct…hopefully soon.
‘what appeared to be the corridor of an Edinburgh hotel yesterday.’
I think the press conference was held at tory headquarters in Edinburgh, it’s on Northumberland Street I think. No 67 if anyone fancies popping in for a cuppa..
Only now does Davidson (and our wonderful media who uniformly followed the same line) realise that the absence of ‘devo-max’ on the ballot paper did not constitute a ‘devastating blow for Salmond’. As anyone who had eyes to see and ears to hear knew, it was a snare tactic to trap the unwitting Unionists.
Belatedly the Unionists now offer ‘more’ something or other, again aided and abetted by our wonderful media. Anyone who falls for this trick should seriously be kept away from sharp objects.
Incidentally, wasn’t it remarkable how the Tories’ ‘principled’ opposition to devolution pre-1997 melted away when they realised that some of them – no names, Annabel – might be handsomely rewarded for membership of this parliament?
It’s a wonder, is it not, that this hitherto nonentity Davidson, was not elected, but was parachuted into Holyrood as a List MSP – ‘to make up the numbers’ for the Tory party.
She was then ‘elevated’ beyond her competence to party leaderene from a rag-bag of negatively potential aspirants and week after week, we, the Scottish public and Alex Salmond get treated to her continuing train crash of a performance.
She then gathers all together in the proverbial phone-box scenario to pronounce yet more gibberish that in substance means precisely SFA to the Scottish people and one can’t help but think Cameron’s having a good old laugh at us for putting up with it.
Of course, the ever-more desperate MSM and good old Auntie MacBBC, with the more and more snivelling STV, give her a platform too far up in the clouds for her own good and our suffering patience. Just watching her on Scotland Tonight and Newsnight Scotland was so cringeful, even Brewer couldn’t conceal his over-exposed contempt.
And, we’re supposed to take this opposition as serious? Lamentable Lamont, Screwy Davidson and Risible Rennie – ye Gods – what are you not doing to the Bitter Togetherists!
Hermione
I know it is a bit of a challenge for unionists to get their heads round it but the purpose of independence is to allow us to run our country efficiently, properly. and very differently.
We keep getting pedestrian arguments from unionists who seem to think we want to be independent so we can continue mismanaging our affairs and our economy as they are mismanged now.
As R B Cunninghame Graham pointed out our enemies are “Scots born among us without imagination”
Actually Hermione, the people for the bureacracy of a nation state are already mainly in place, it’s just that they are working for Westminster.
MOD, HMRC, DWP (but not foreign office) all have staff in Scotland, and they would then be working for the new independent government of Scotland, as well as the current staff of the Civil Service working to the Scottish Government.
There you go, sorted
tartanfever says:
“Guess what, an new independent nation will need new levels of bureaucracy… ”
Thanks for admitting that. Why is it a good idea to spend £625m a year MORE on bureaucracy when it’s already being done more effectively for less?
If, as Ruth says, taking responsibility for raising all our taxes as wel las taking responsibility for all our spending is a good thing, then I agree……and that’s why I’m voting Yes….for independence!
@Training Day
Yes, remember all the Unionists gleefully rejecting a second question in the referendum as Salmond’s insurance card. This happened right up to, and for a short time after, the signing of the Edinburgh Agreement. I suspect the No parties polls, as well as the official ones, are telling them what an absolute mess they have made of it. They thought they had trapped Salmond and the wider Yes campaign. The hunter has become the hunted. Shame… 😆
Hermione says:
27 March, 2013 at 11:10 am
“If altering the Scottish rate of income tax results in increased receipts after 2015, they will go straight into the coffers of the UK Treasury”
I think you need to justify that. As I understand it, variations in future Scottish income tax rates will be fully reflected in adjustments to Barnett.
Hermione:
I don’t know what grades you got in reading comprehension at school, but if Scotland has to raise the money it spends instead of recieving it from Westminster OBVIOUSLY if it raises taxes it will go to the treasury (as it does now), since it’s the goverment that has to raise money using some alternative method, not getting it (as it has until now) from the Barnett formula. Of course you could say that maybe it will be arranged so that it works, but Davison didn’t talk of that either she just spoke of lowering taxes
Latest Holyrood poll (change since 2011 election):
SNP 47% (+2%)
Tories 12% (-1%)
Current Westminster VI (based Scottish data from all UK-wide polls).
SNP 42% (+22%)
Tories 14% (-3%)
I think that says it all really.
It’s worth listening to fringe parties sometimes. However, normally if they are saying things which are important and of interest to the electorate, their vote share should be rising, not falling.
Vote no get nothing I disagree this is what you’ll get
Is This Whit Ye Want
Dae ye want tae gang back tae the days in the street
Whaur the weans wir aye hungry and ran in bare feet
Whaur yer Granny when auld in this land o’ the brave
Is described as a pauper as she’s laid in her grave
Is this whit ye want
Dae ye want when yer sick, tae hiv tae choose whit tae buy
Is it pills for yer pain or milk fae the kye
Oor free education will surely be lost
And the brightest will suffer if they cann’t meet the cost
Is this whit ye want
Dae ye want when the nukes sail off doon the Clyde
Tae ken if they’re fired there’s nae place tae hide
If yer on top o’ the Ben or doon at the coast
We’ll a’ end up the same like a slice o’ burnt toast
Or is this whit ye want
Or dae ye see a bright beacon as oor time is noo near
Whaur we throw off the cringe and lose a’ the fear
Let’s go oot and dae this, is the rallying cry
Be the best ye can be no whit money can buy
So pu’ back yer shooders and rowe up yer sleeves
Get oan tae yer feet, get up off yer knees
We’re better than that, an we a’ ken that’s true
This is my vision for Scotland so how about you
It was always predicted on this website that the naysayers were being entrapped by a superior political machine. Enjoying watching them squirm but would not underestimate the GB establishment quite yet.
@Hermione
Thanks for admitting that. Why is it a good idea to spend £625m a year MORE on bureaucracy when it’s already being done more effectively for less?
Care to lists the additional powers the Scottish Parliament would receive if we vote Yes?
Worth noting from the consultation document in setting up a new Tax Management system in Scotland is that:
The Scotland Act empowers the Scottish Parliament will have the power to introduce and set a tax on land transactions and on disposals to landfill replacing the UK SDLT and Landfill Tax.
From April 2016, the Scottish Parliament will be asked to set a Scottish rate of income tax (SRIT), to replace a 10p in the pound reduction in UK Income Tax for Scottish taxpayers across all tax bands. SRIT will remain part of the UK Income Tax system and continue to be administered by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).
The UK Government will reduce the block grant paid to Scotland to offset the expected income from the two devolved taxes and from SRIT. The two governments have agreed in principle how the block grant adjustments will operate, although some detailed elements remain to be settled. It is expected that the effect on the Scottish budget will remain neutral in the first year of operation. Thereafter, the Scottish budget may move above or below the level it would have reached in the absence of the changes. The budget would move above this “no change” level if receipts from SRIT and/or the devolved taxes exceed the amount of the block grant adjustments. It would move below that level if tax receipts are lower than the amount of the block grant adjustments.
So, Ms Davidson seeks to duplicate administration and bureaucracy already identified as being undertaken by HMRC and, Barnet will be reduced, and therefore monies retained by HM Treasury.
All other tax rates (corporate, personal, VAT, excise, duties, IHT, Capital Gains, ATED, aggregates, APD, CCL, IPT et al) will be determined and imposed by HM Treasury which we, Scottish taxpayers, will still not have the benefit from.
And this is ‘more power’ how?
Tory speaks with forked tongue.
Ms Davidson is calling for nothing and she will deliver exactly nothing.
@ mato21 says
Exactly, and thank you.
What a couple of days eh, first we have Ruthie Davidson redrawing a line in the sand that I suppose will also never be crossed ‘just like the last one’, it must very hard for the leader of Scottish toryisum to hand out such levels of “JAM TOMORROW” and not have Scotland fall to their knees in gratitude.
Then this morning that lovely example of honesty and integrity bouncing Ballie “Jackie”, labours shadow health minister for Holyrood tells us all on radio Scotland this morning how the bedroom tax is all the SNP government’s fault and thousands of people will be evicted also the SNP’s fault. Now this for any reasonable radio presenter should have been a no brainer to tear to bits, but with the customary skill and insight of the BBC they let her talk right over any questions and get off scot-free.
Imagine with independence we could get rid of these hypocritical neeps, thats yet another reason to VOTE YES.
Alba Gu snooker loopy!.
Ms Davidson is calling for nothing and she will deliver exactly nothing.
According to polls, ~9/10 of the Scottish electorate are presumably of that belief.
So some responsibility good, complete responsibility bad.
Stu, my apologies for the lack of formatting on my last post, I tried to edit but was restricted as other posts had been made.
I also meant to add that welfare benefits including pensions and child benefit will also be determined and impsed by HMT.
“So hang on – the argument is that this form of enhanced devolution will require “massive new bureaucracy”, but independence won’t? Odd.”
Sigh. If you want to be taken seriously as a non-troll, you really ought to stop making up things that nobody said. Of course independence will require a new bureaucracy. Nobody said it wouldn’t. But Davidson is offering us all the cost and inconvenience of the new bureaucracy, except with none of the benefits.
So some responsibility good, complete responsibility bad.
The conservatives are a party of dependency. They believe in state handouts as opposed to standing on your own two feet, having aspirations, being fiscally responsible etc. It is this dependency culture with a heavy reliance on the [UK] state which is a major factor in the continuing decline of their vote share.
Rev, I just post off an article to you through the contact us link, then got sent to another site, did you get the article ?
And they call this jam tomorrow! Ruth’s long rant was full of wind with no substance whatsoever. What a bunch of con artists the Unionists are. This from the woman who disgracefully licked her English masters shoes by decrying her own countryfolks in a shameless boke induced, cringing hand wringing spectacle in front of the bad and the ugly of the English Tory Party faithful by labelling us Scots as spongers. This complete sell-out now wants that same Scottish audience to believe that she has our best interests at heart. Two faced hypocrite doesnt even begin to cover it.
Then watch in disbelief as a so called Scottish media would rather a Tory sell Scotland a lie than pull her up on her faux pas. Did you ever think we’d see that day. Tells us all we need to know about trusting any of the Unionists and their false dawns. As the song goes….Bathgate no more…Linwood no more…Lewis no more…
Hermione
An Independant Scotland would need more staff to cope with additional powers, but, as I stated earlier, most of the staff are already herejuror king for Wesminster departments that will then become parts of the government of Scotland, so your scare story is, as usual, without foundation
Oh dear Hermione – if you think an effective spending of Scottish tax is supporting overpaid civil servants living in one of the most expensive cities in the world working in bloated government departments, spending their money in London and supporting that city and it’s local economy, then good luck to you.
If thats ‘efficiency’ as you claim, then you leave me bewildered..
Personally I’d rather have a Scottish sized civil service and departments working for Scotland, in Scotland, paying their taxes to Scotland and spending their money here.
Of course I suppose it depends which side of the coin you’re on, most of us here probably think that paying more tax into London than we see returned is not ‘efficient’ – you however, seem completely happy with that scenario.
@Hermoine
“So hang on – the argument is that this form of enhanced devolution will require “massive new bureaucracy”, but independence won’t? Odd.”
“Why is it a good idea to spend £625m a year MORE on bureaucracy when it’s already being done more effectively for less?”
What you are not quite getting is the fact that if a DEVO +/more option goes ahead then Scotland will still end up with the same budget at the end of the day.
What ruth davidson is offering is to set up a new bureacracy (paid for out of our Block Grant) at the same time as we continue to fund the UK wide systems through our higher tax revenues…
Independence on the other hand would mean that the money we use to fund the UK ones would be re-allocated to the new Scottish services. If there were any increases in costs, these wouldd more than be offset by
1) The savings in things like Trident, Defence, Westminster, The Scottish Office, and so on…
2) The increased economic activity by having the money for Scottish governance spent in Scotland and not London. This would filter through to the wider economy through less unempoyment & more spending power.
Add to this the fact that with Devo +/more you still get the same budget as it doesnt matter whether you raise 10 – 50 – or 70% of your own finances, the overall figure is still 100% (as in the same as before) since the remaining part of the funding is based on a needs based formula. If Scots raised even more in taxes they would be told that “ah… you only need this much from central funding to EQUAL what we spend elsewhere”.
Under such a system you have no motivation to increase taxes – You get no benefit, starve money from your own economy and Westminster gets the surplus.
If you cut taxes then you get “ah… if you had the same taxes as us you would only need this much funding from the central pot to EQUAL what we spend elsewhere so you wont get any more than that to make up for the reduced tax take. Your people are benefitting from lower taxes.”
So you wind up needing cuts….
Either option is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.
So NO, setting up the trappings of government for an independent state and setting up an additional layer to be paid for out of a fixed budget are not the same.
Thanks, mato21, I really enjoyed that.
Can I make a couple of cheeky suggestions for the final verse?
First line:
Replace ‘Or dae ye’ with ‘Tae’
Last line:
That’s my vision for Scotland! How about you?
Hope you don’t take offence, but I think it would scan better.
@Mato 21
Thanks for that, Mato. Rolling up my sleeves, even as we speak.
Am I mistaken or does the new Scotland Act coming into force in 2015 allow for the unilateral and arbitrary removal of powers from the Scottish Parliament by Westminster? If I’m right, it would be a case of “vote NO and Westminster will see to it that Scotland will NEVER be in the position again of voting for independence”. (Or maybe I’m just scaremongering!)
Ms Davidson states: “We often hear the advocates of independence call for the positive case to be made for Scotland remaining within the United Kingdom. It’s a reasonable call to make, and in reply, I say:
Look around you. Listen to the people of Scotland. Listen to the voices of the millions of ordinary Scots who in poll after poll, and at election after election, affirm their preference for Scotland remaining within the United Kingdom.”
Sorry Ms D but, looking and listening to my peer group doesn’t tell me the positive case to made for remaining within the UK, all it tells me is that they’re relaying the ‘too wee, too poor and too small’ rhetoric of BT.
And, lest you forget, you and your cronies had the opportunity to have some sort of ‘devo’ qustion on the ballot, and you rejected it out of hand. So forgive me for thinking that your boss has told you that you’re losing the argument and you need to get your finger out and come up with something, anything, that would get you back in the papers.
@mato21 says11.44:
The more times I read your aphorism the more I become stronger in my conviction that a YES vote is a must for the people of Scotland.
Albamac
No offence taken as I agree and thank you I wasn’t happy myself but got interupted and sent it off as it was
TORY IN “WE WANT TO CUT TAXES” SHOCKER!!!
Ruth needs some lessons on brevity. It seems her speeches are as long-winded as her questions in First Minister Questions. I commend Stu for managing to read to the end of her speech – like with her questions at FMQs, I got distracted after about 5 minutes and did something more productive instead.
So, nothing new whatsoever from Ruth Davidson, and her Tory chums, rather a mischievous piece of obfuscation, designed one can only assume, to mislead. I do however think the only people she managed to fool yesterday was the ever so compliant lapdog unionist media in Scotland.
It is becoming very clear, that what is likely in the event of a no vote, will indeed be the ending of Barnett, and its replacement with a complex arrangement, which will ensure it can always be suggested that Scotland depends upon handouts. It will be the emasculation of Scotland and it’s parliament. The old argument ‘too poor’, and ‘scroungers’ will be shouted loudly, long and hard by the likes of Davidson and her Labour party accomplices.
However, what Ruth Davidson did prove yesterday, is just how placid and compliant the Scottish unionist media and BBC actually are. She also made clear just how much utter contempt she has for the people of Scotland.
Methinks the anti democracy unionist cabal is getting feart.
“Look around you. Listen to the people of Scotland. Listen to the voices of the millions of ordinary Scots who in poll after poll, and at election after election, affirm their preference for Scotland remaining within the United Kingdom.”
By Ruth’s logic we voted for independence in 2011!
If Scottish Skier’s theory is right Cameron would let slip that Scotland would get no more powers in the event of a No vote. That would almost certainly torpedo the good ship No, and the Scottish media would be left looking very sheepish as well. :D:
Doug Daniel,
I agree. It has always struck me, that Ruth Davidson is quite immature, and far too clever, clever for her own good.
Politicians who have little or no concern for those who generate the money in the first place; the overburdened and underappreciated Scottish taxpayer.
Sorry, What? I thought Davidson said 80% of us don’t contribute anything? Which is it? Are we underappreciated or are we sponging off England?
A parliament with little responsibility for raising the money it spends will never be properly accountable to the people of Scotland.
Good. Let’s make it 100% Accountable with Independence. That bit reminded me of when she stood up for localising Government before the local elections, which sounded pretty much like a good case for Independence then.
Only bankers are blessed with power without responsibility. All we are offered by the unionists is responsibility without power. No thanks.
I have a strange feeling that Ruth is being hung our to dry by her London masters on this, in fact it seems quite similar to Wendy Alexander and her infamous “bring it on” moment. Be careful Ruth! Expected support from your London masters may fail to materialize.
I wonder if Ruth and her Tory mates might consider this as an option: Scotland raises ALL of its taxes – including North Sea Oil and Gas Revenues, VAT, Corporation Tax, Crown Estates income, Air Passenger Duty, VAT, Income Tax, Land Fill Tax, etc., etc., etc.,. Then, since she is so keen on the union, we draw up a Barnet Formula in reverse – and we could give Westminster pocket money from it, based on our own calculations. Perhaps if we spend less on defence, we cut the Barnet consequentials to Westminster. If we spend more on the NHS, we increase their funds accordingly and the English NHS improves. That way, Scotland takes responsibilty for raising all its own taxes, as Ruth suggests, but is still within the Union.
Now it wouldn’t be my own choice – I’m for Indy first, second and last – but I think it should meet Ruth’s criteria for taking responsiblity for raising the money Scotland spends and staying within the union. 🙂
It just goes to show, you should never throw anything out.
I could have sworn I seen Alex Douglas Hume’s name at the bottom of her notes.
I watched Ruth Davidson on Newsnicht last night and two things struck me.
The first of course is that she is proposing a Scottish Commission to look at more devolved powers. That’s going to run straight into the question that all the Scottish regions of the UK parties face when proposing more devolved powers, “Will the main part of the party accept our recommendations?”, because Westminster is where the power to devolve powers lies.
Brewer kept asking her if the output of her Commission was going to be in the Conservative party manifesto and she kept refusing to answer because she simply doesn’t know.
I suspect not because as far as I know even the good old Federal loving Lib-Dems (ha ha) haven’t made Ming Cambell’s Scottish devolution report party policy. Labour and Lamont will face the same hurdle.
The second thing that struck me was that she insisted that she was the leader of a political party and I get the impression that she is pompous enough to actually believe it.
The reality of course is that there is no “Scottish Conservative Party” and Scottish Conservative Party leader’s name registered with the Electoral commission. She’s just a second string regional leader in the Conservative Party of Great Britain. Delusions of Grandeur are not good when you’re in politics.
Oh I forgot to mention that if you watch Ruthie delivery her speech the backdrop of the new tory logo the “double cross” is very apt.
Vote ‘NO’ and downsize.
Vote YES and prosper.
Hail Alba.
The disgrace that is Reporting Scotland probably spent most of the day drawing ‘lines in the sand, in the sand at Portobello, then waiting for a visually pleasing wave to come along and wash it away.
The trouble with drawing lines in the sand is that it’s difficult to remember where you put them after the tide’s washed them away.
Mato??? Yer yin o Jock Tamsons bairns. Well done.
DougTheDug: “Brewer kept asking her if the output of her Commission was going to be in the Conservative party manifesto and she kept refusing to answer because she simply doesn’t know.
I suspect not because as far as I know even the good old Federal loving Lib-Dems (ha ha) haven’t made Ming Cambell’s Scottish devolution report party policy. Labour and Lamont will face the same hurdle.”
And of course, we won’t find out what jam any of the three parties offer until they publish their manifestos, which conveniently won’t be until after the referendum has already taken place.
This is when we need the media to be at its sharpest, because if the three of them get away with this, it makes a complete mockery of democracy. Just as well we’ve secured the services of ONE independent journalist…
Hermione,
Do you even know how the Barnett formula works?
Let me explain it in 4 simple steps.
1.Scotland uses its tax raising powers and increases income tax.
2. Scotland raises an additional £500 million in tax (made up figure for the purposes of this explanation).
3. Scotland has £500 million slashed off its block grant by Westminster under Barnett (assuming it survives).
4. People of Scotland then pay more income tax and get nothing in return other than the privellage of having £500 million rifled from our pockets.
That’s how devolution works and that’s why the tax raising power is a poisoned chalice.
David Cameron & Ruth Davidson really do think our heads zip up the back!
Now be a nice tory and troll somewhere else please.
Whenever I see the Tories on TV, it makes me think of a favourite track from a friend’s old band:
link to theplimptons.bandcamp.com
I think in the event of a No vote we would see a massive show of triumphalism by the No parties and the MSM. They would have a GIRUY attitude towards the SNP, and pro-independence supporters and voters. Any demand for further powers would be meet with derision and scorn.
Hermione brings to mind a boss who at a meeting offered his wisdom to us all “I only ask these silly questions to encourage debate”. Much sniggering among the troops of course and whispered opinions on his wisdom.
I see IDS has been heckled during his speech in Edinburgh. Not really a good sign for BT.
Rab:
That’s not actually correct.
If the Scottish Government raises personal taxation rates in Scotland then it gets to keep the surplus. If it cuts the personal taxation rates it’s got to pay for it out of the block grant or in other words, cuts in public services.
If Ruth Davidson wants to cut tax under the new Scotland Act 2012 then it means that there will be less money for public services as the money will have to be used to fund the tax cut.
Scotland will be the only country in the world where public service funding and personal taxation will be so tightly coupled.
All the devolution schemes can be summed up a follows:
Controlled Taxes: The part of the block grant the SG collects directly from Scots taxpayers.
Assigned Taxes: Westminster works out the Scottish share of some tax base and gives to the SG as part of the block grant.
Top up grant: The part of the block grant which is left when you subtract controlled taxes and assigned taxes from the block grant. It is given to the SG by Westminster.
The total of all three parts will come to the Barnett formula until they scrap it and replace it with something that gives less to Scotland.
Controlled taxes: If you leave them as they are you’ll get funded to the Barnett formula level based on English spending. If you want more money to offset the cuts we’re going to make in England then you’ll have to put them up. In other words if you want to be better than England then the taxpayer will have to suffer.
Oil Revenue: Your ‘aving a larf aintcha?
OT Rev, have you seen this? Fecking BBC at it again, making out that it’s Labour pushing the SNP to make sure no one is evicted over bedroom tax! Couldn’t believe it when I saw it but then I remembered it was the BBC. They’re so far beyond a joke, they pretend to show balance by mentioning later on in the article that the SNP were already fighting eviction at council level but they give the headline and credit to Labour for demanding more be done, but these are the bastards that wouldn’t scrap the policy if they got power again.
‘Scottish Labour seeks emergency law change to avoid ‘bedroom tax’ evictions’
Also thanks for that Mato, hope you’re compiling all of these! Maybe the good Rev could give you a wee poetry corner on WOS?
muttley79 says:
27 March, 2013 at 2:05 pm
I see IDS has been heckled during his speech in Edinburgh. Not really a good sign for BT.
Thanks for the heads up mutley. Its good to see IDS and the Tories being called out at last for the parasites they are. We want a better Scotland said one of the protesters to him. Here here. Better Together? Not a chance in hell for us if we remain with Westminster. Regards this protest, im sure it was organised by the Radical Left as i was sent an email about this IDS protest last week. Good for them. I think its time Scotland cranked it up on these charlatans.
@vellofello
I like your “boss” story. I’ve got a favourite one of my own – My boss, before he was my boss, he gave me a piece of advice: “It’s not how your boss manages you that matters, Jeannie, it’s how you manage your boss”. (He’d learned it on a course). I thought that was a great piece of advice and went away and thought about it. Unfortunately for him, there was then a swap of boss remits and three weeks later, he found, to his dismay, that he was now my boss. He told me when he left, 8 years later, that there wasn’t a single day in that 8 years when he didn’t regret giving me that advice.
Do you think maybe we should apply that advice to our elected politicians and start managing them better?
Here’s IDratbagS getting hecked:
link to bbc.co.uk worth a watch!
@ Craig P
Brilliant…if you like that sort of thing. Total carbon monoxide. Both subject and performance.
DougtheDug says:
27 March, 2013 at 2:31 pm
Rab:
That’s not actually correct.
I stand corrected Doug.
My understanding was that public spending was at a fixed percentage of spending accross the UK.
i.e If England spends £100 million we get £8.5 million.
@ Jeannie: I have a That Was THe Week THat Was record. In one sketch Some poetic license by me here, cannot be bothered pulling our the record for verbatum account:-
“Who are you then? I’m Bertrand Russell. What do you do then? I’m a philosopher, so I think. Do you think you could sweep out these floors instead of sitting there thinking?”.
.Ruthie Davidson brings that to mind, she should engage herself in some other activity that politics she adds no value to the job to hand. Ever considered just how easy it can be to secure a living in politics? Be reasonably photogenic, able to deliver a speech WITH conviction, yet be bereft of conviction politics – pliable to your bosses commands, not easily bored, willing to sit on a green bench for hours and yell.
My acid test in my days of business and supervision on assessing an employee was – Would you re-employ? Try that on our politicians.
Oh, and your response on yesterday’s discussions to “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of he few”, was well expressed.
“We need to become the many and so independence makes us that”.
How would Holyrood politicians fare with my Acid Test?
CameronB – suit yourself, I find it hilarious. Maybe that says too much about me…!
@ Craig P
You’ve got me totally wrong guv, I love garage. I just know it could be described as a specialist interest. Perhaps that says too much about me. 🙂
(garage punk – carbon monoxide – toxic Tories)
@velofello
Johann Lamont is certainly acidic but would I re-employ her? Depends what as. If I wanted somebody to man a stall down the Glasgow Barras, along with her pal Maigrit Curran, I might consider it. But would I employ her as First Minister of Scotland, as Scotland’s foremost representative to the rest of the world? I really don’t think so.
As for Ruthie, she’s just so clearly out of her depth that it’s becoming painful to watch. And no amount of ham acting can cover it up any more. Murdo Fraser can hardly keep the glee off his face.
I’d re-employ Nicola Sturgeon in a heartbeat though. She is, in my opinion, the dog’s bollocks.
I do sometimes wonder though, when it comes to the poor performance of some of our politicians if some of the fault doesn’t lie with ourselves. And it gets back to the question of management. If we, the electorate, don’t start making more of an effort to actively manage their behaviour, we’ll just get the same old.
On the basis of “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got“, maybe it’s we who need to change our own behaviour towards the politicians, manage them by holding them to account more and stop letting them off the hook so easily in between elections.
Rev Stu tries to hold them to account on a daily basis and that’s one of the reasons I support this site as well as other Indy blogs, Yes Scotland and all of the other grass roots movements that are springing up at the moment. It’s like a breath of fresh air. At the end of the day, if we, the people, don’t do it, who will?
@Jeannie
Johann Lamont is certainly acidic but would I re-employ her? Depends what as. If I wanted somebody to man a stall down the Glasgow Barras, along with her pal Maigrit Curran, I might consider it.
Classic image of Lamont and Curran running a stall in the Barras! 😀 😀 Lamont would be able to repeat endlessly her impersonation of Chic Murray…
Rab:
My understanding was that public spending was at a fixed percentage of spending accross the UK.
i.e If England spends £100 million we get £8.5 million.
That is correct and a fixed percentage of English spending is the baseline that the SG will always get regardless of how much of the tax base in Scotland is controlled or assigned to it. The baseline grant is always worked out on the assumption that taxes in Scotland will be the same as taxes in the rest of the UK.
However if the SG puts taxes up it can keep the surplus but on the other had if it puts taxes down it has to pay for it out of the baseline grant.
The only realistic way the SG can raise extra revenue is to put personal taxation up but that’s always been the case with the 3p in the pound variation that was in the Scotland Act 1998.
In other words all these marvellous gyrations about controlled and assigned taxes in all these papers on devo this or devo that means doodley squat in the end. They change nothing.
@Hermione: Who says government is being done for less? And why do they say it? Could you point me to the evidence? I’m not suggesting that there is evidence to the contrary, just that vague claims of huge extra costs are more like truthiness than truth.
Even today in GERSland, the bloated bureaucracy exists more in the fevered imaginations of Daily Mail readers than in reality and we can prove that easily enough. The biggest single item in the budget – GERSland, UK or any other reality – is the DWP’s spending. At the very worst – assuming every last penny of DEL expenditure is on admin – the DWP spend a stunning 6% of their budget on overheads. Contracts with ATOS and the like make things more difficult than they used to be, but it seems from the DWP’s accounts that your actual bureaucracy – like Soylent Green, it’s made from people! – comes in a about a third of that.
Yes, just 2% of the DWP’s budget goes on the army of 100,000+ civil servants. In other words, buggering around with the number of civil servants will have, to all intents and purposes, fuck all effect on the cost of delivering social protection, at least so far as the £15 billion which is – as PESA puts it – spent for Scotland by the Westminster government.
Now that isn’t true of everything. Even within the same broad category there are huge differences as, for example, the local government components of social protection spending are highly womanpower intensive.
But at least as far as the largest government department is concerned, in budgetary terms and in number of civil servants, embarking on a complicated analysis of spending in Scotland, which PESA does not do (if you are curious, this is discussed in section 9.13 et seq of PESA) would be a waste of time and effort.
As a byproduct of some other messing with government data, I can say with reasonable certainty that PESA, and thus GERS, is wrong on the real-world cost of delivering DWP services in Scotland-in-the-Union-as-it-is-today. But I couldn’t tell you whether the costs are over- or under-estimated. And even if I could, what would that say about the cost of delivering similar services in a quite different scenario, whether independence or more devolution? Not much, or so I think anyway.
@muttley 79
Lamont would be able to repeat endlessly her impersonation of Chic Murray…
Endlessly?….ah don’t know. That would be a tough gig and I’m not sure the Glasgow Barras audience would put up with her for all that long – they’re not known for taking prisoners either. Mind you, when I was wee, I remember seeing a strongman at the Barras and one of his things was to call boldly for 6 strong Glasgow men to pull against him in a public tug-of-war to impress the crowd. I could see Lamont standing in for the strongman!
Jeannie, your post on holding politicians to account is so true, we (and the MSM) do let them off the hook.
And therein lies the nub of the No campaign. Without the financial support and ‘talking points’ of the Westminster parties they truly would be shown up for their complete incompetence (as is now becoming more evident when they’re let loose on their own – eh Ruth?). Their primary purpose in campaigning for a No vote is self preservation because in an independent Scotland where the government will be under far more scrutiny, they’d be out on their ears.
I do love the picture of JL and MC at the Barras, beats mine of walking up and down Sauchiehall Street with a Tesco trolley full of empty bottles and cans.
@dmw42
@muttley 79
Listen to us! You’d think Johann and Maigrit had an image problem or something!
K.Mackay
Thank you I can assure you the wee poems are all my own work
@Jeannie
National Collective had a funny cartoon of the pair a few months ago.
@Jeannie
@mutley 79
See me? See ma maw? See fish?
Ma maw hates fish.
Noo hoos furra budgie, its goin cheap.
Jeannie says:
27 March, 2013 at 5:01 pm
@dmw42
@muttley 79
Listen to us! You’d think Johann and Maigrit had an image problem or something!
Jeannie – They do Lol ! Another poster Les Wilson suggested the other day to me that Darling, Davidson he could visualise them in a supermarket with Lamont on the till….and get this….the Grayman as the van driver;)
Perra towels……..pure top quality…….am I asking £10.00 furra perr….Naw……am I asking £5.00 furra perr……Naw…..£2.50 each…..cheap at hauf the price, Presiding Officer.
Has anyone got any idea of the numbers of jobs that will boost employment in Scotland, that are currently held in the UK departments that are responsible ( or irresponsible) for controlling all Scottish affairs from down there?
@Edin Scot
Another poster Les Wilson suggested the other day to me that Darling, Davidson he could visualise them in a supermarket with Lamont on the till….and get this….the Grayman as the van driver;)
Must’ve been Costcutters 🙂
Re-emphasising Holebender’s point where Davidson says:
“Scots who in poll after poll, and at election after election, affirm their preference for Scotland remaining within the United Kingdom.”
For years, unionists made the claim, that we did not need a referendum and that poll results which showed a majority in favour of independence did not count because we had the opportunity to vote for independence at every election. Only votes in an election counted.
Of course we knew that as soon as an election was won, they would immediately shift the goalposts. Which they have done, in as shameless a fashion as we have come to expect from them.
Davidson is wrong on both counts. First that ‘poll after poll has shown a preference for remaining in the UK’. I refer you again to the following table of polls on the straight question of independence.
link to docs.google.com
Next, they dismiss the last election result because the SNP only got 45% of the vote, ignoring the fact that with the other independence supporting parties and of course, Margo’s supporters, the tally is comfortably through the 50% mark.
How she can make that statement still, without turning bright crimson is beyond the ken of us mere mortals.
So at last, we come to the final volte-face where, even those who accept the truth of the past, after the last election resorted to pointing at polls which said not everyone who voted for a PI party supported independence or other polls which show that support for independence was less than 50%.
And we being decent, fair minded people, accept that a referendum is required.
They (U politicos) are a dispicable, dishonest, shameful collection of human beings almost beyond pity, IMHO.
@Jeannie
Their pal Jackie could manage that tug-o-war gig nae bother.
“The only realistic way the SG can raise extra revenue is to put personal taxation up but that’s always been the case with the 3p in the pound variation that was in the Scotland Act 1998.”
Doug the Dug is correct about what we could do previously with the 3p “Scottish Variable Rate” (although the ability to make the 3p change was lost when the SNP didnt renew the database of people that would be used to achieve this. This was because HMRC upgraded their systems and wanted £7m off the Scottish government – we were already paying £500k a year just to maintain the list… compiled in 1998 [9 Years out of date]. Of course when they decided to go back to HMRC suddently they wanted even more in ‘costs’). So we dont have the ability to change taxes at present and wont until the new powers come in for 10p in the £1.
Of course that 10p in the pound that we can change is on the standard rate of tax and not the higher bands. It means we cant raise taxes on the wealthiest without also raising taxes on those at the bottom, and that due to step changes the impact on those at the top is nowhere near a the same as an increase in the top rate tax band. (i.e paying 23% instead of 20% on your first £35k does not have the same impact as paying 53% instead of 50% for the tens of thousands you earned after the tax threshhold was reached.)
This makes the system regressive as it either penalises the poor disproportionately via higher taxes, or rewards the rich slightly if you try to cut the tax burden on the poor.
“I think in the event of a No vote we would see a massive show of triumphalism by the No parties and the MSM. They would have a GIRUY attitude towards the SNP, and pro-independence supporters and voters. Any demand for further powers would be meet with derision and scorn. ”
Though it might be mildly amusing, in a dark way, for some of us Yes campaigners as we sit back with a beer (quite possibly outside Scotland) after 2 years of campaigning and say to the No voters, “well, we’ve done our bit. Over to you guys who voted no for more devolution to fight for what you wanted. Good luck.”
CameronB – I like you man, you’re crazy, but I like you 🙂
@Albert Herring
🙂
Seriously though, I do hope the obvious and very predictable thought of the triumphalism of Tories, Labour, Westminster politicians and the ugly no camp will push a number of people to Yes at the last minute, even if they’re swithering.
“Seriously though, I do hope the obvious and very predictable thought of the triumphalism of Tories, Labour, Westminster politicians and the ugly no camp will push a number of people to Yes at the last minute, even if they’re swithering.”
link to facebook.com
We should hold politicians to account: Leading to the last general election our local church organised a hustings for the candidates. Our Labour MP Mr Brian Donahue declined stating that he dealt via the internet.
Alternative employment for politicians:
Visualise Lamont and Curran as Mine Hosts in a candlelit cellar nightclub in Paris,white silk blouses, black skirts. Cathie Jamieson chanteusing her Edith Piffling numbers. Regrettably there isn’t a roll(?) for Ms Baillie in the nightclub, hospital ward sister for her, comforting her patients.The pie-ty of the roll may entice her. .
Danny Alexander I would have carrying his Princesses’ glass slippers on a silk pillow.
Douglas Alexander busking as a tap dancer in the Bronx.
Sweet dreams are made of this.
@vellofello
. Regrettably there isn’t a roll(?) for Ms Baillie in the nightclub, hospital ward sister for her,
OMG -Velofello, imagine if you’ve to get a bed bath and she walks in!
How does it go…picture, thousand words…? That image will rightfully haunt this sorry bunch of sock-puppets. How can they step out their front doors in the morning, knowing their sole aim for the day is to confuse the public?
Vote No in 2014 For This: Are they watching Cartoon Cavalcade? Or are we?
velofello – I always wondered who Paladin was. Now I see he/she/it was a metaphor for the British state. Controlling the program behind the scenes. I must say, they don’t make them like they used to. I mean kid’s TV programs, not sock-puppets (please see above image).
The British Unity No facebook page has become a proper through the looking glass place. No mention at all of Ruthie’s speech, despite them generally reporting everything to do with Tories and posting all “good news” unionist bias articles.
Unsurprising, since when they asked about further devolution a couple of weeks back they got a furious UKIPian response about how Holyrood should be abolished, the NATS ground to dust etc, etc. Instead, they have an outraged piece about poor IDS being rudely and disgustingly heckled by people who must have been SNP plants!
It must be run from Surrey and peopled mostly by UKIP and the Tories.
Either that or it’s a key part of Scottish Skiers conspiracy theory 🙂
@Hermoine – Centre 1 in East Kilbride was specifically set up to collect tax from all employers based in Scotland in the 1970s. There are several other tax offices in the country.
Collecting the tax isn’t the problem – there are plenty of trained staff. Only the destination of the payments will change.
I would also hope the habit of giving employers an interest-free loan of an extra year to pay the PAYE they have collected will also end.
@Vellofello
Their probably watching the 2 nil defeat against Serbia.
Chic McGregor says:
28 March, 2013 at 12:01 am
@VellofelloTheir probably watching the 2 nil defeat against Serbia.
Chic I know where your coming from, but do you really think that next years World cup Coverage on the BBC will be the same jingoistic england crap, would Brazil be a better team if ronney was playing for them, or yanktertitzoff he wasn’t that good with sudbury, I realy think this time the press will play down engerlands chances least they score an owen goal
@dundee bloke
Sorry, don’t really follow English football, although, of course some of it is impossible not to see as things are. Its all huff and puff, aggressive, 100 mile an hour stuff with little class, guile or strategic subtlety, and has been as long as I can remember. Would much rather watch a La Liga game.
As to the World Cup, good luck to them. I will support whichever team seems the most deserving, yes, even in the unlikely event it is them.
I am suspicious of the pre-referendum ‘friendly’ though, especially given Scotland’s lowly position. The paranoid/persecuted (take your choice) part of my psyche suspects political machination. So I do hope that backfires on them.
However, quite pleased with the progress made under Gordon Strachan. No competitive wins yet but that last game was the first for a long while I felt we could have deservedly won. OK we didn’t but those are the breaks you get in football. Also feel it is a lot clearer who needs to go.
Chic McGregor,
the point I was getting at was that no matter the TEAM or the Player the engerlandshire commentators ALWAY find some way of talking about engerlandshire even if Nigeria were playing Russia they still go on about how good are engerlandshire