Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008 Change Date

The Scotsman Digital Archive - Special Christmas Offer

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Lib Dems 'win round one' as local income tax deal draws closer



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 October 2008
THE prospect of replacing the council tax with a local income tax came a step closer yesterday after the first stage of a deal between the SNP and Liberal Democrats was completed.
The two parties co-sponsored an amendment to a Conservative motion on local income tax (LIT) demanding the £400 million Scotland receives in council tax benefit should continue to come from Westminster, even if the council tax is abolished.

But, c
rucially, John Swinney, the finance secretary, conceded the money would go straight to local authorities and not to the Scottish Government.

The Lib Dems claimed to have won the first round in the battle between the two parties over the key issue which splits them – they want councils to decide the level of LIT, while the SNP wants the rate to be set centrally .

A Lib Dem source said: "We got exactly what we wanted out of the deal and we intend to push the principle of local accountability on to setting the rates."

Jeremy Purvis, the party's finance spokesman, has already told The Scotsman that if a "sunset clause" can be introduced that would allow councils to set the rate two or three years after LIT was introduced, his party would back the SNP plans.

If this happens, the parliamentary arithmetic means the SNP will still need to garner the support of the two Green MSPs by offering to look at their land value tax proposal.

However, if the Nationalists win the by-election expected in Motherwell and Wishaw when former Labour First Minister Jack McConnell takes up his post as High Commissioner in Malawi, they will need only the backing of the independent MSP Margo MacDonald, who has said she could be persuaded.

Yesterday's Tory motion was an attempt to smoke out details of how a centrally set LIT of 3p would be distributed. The Tories believe it will result in the North-east and Edinburgh, which already lose more than £100 million in business rates between them to other parts of Scotland, having to subsidise other areas by even more.

Derek Brownlee, the Conservative finance spokesman, said: "I'm no fan of local income tax. That's why I'm so pleased the Scottish Government looks likely to publish these details."

Labour was left embarrassed as the only party not to vote for the £400 million to be retained in Scotland. Their MSPs decided it was better to leave themselves open to claims they were voting against Scotland rather than supporting the SNP/Lib Dem amendment and opposing their colleagues in Westminster, who have said Scotland will lose the £400 million if LIT is introduced.





The full article contains 449 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 02 October 2008 11:39 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 03/10/2008 00:12:42
"Labour was left embarrassed as the only party not to vote for the £400m to be retained in Scotland." Not quite true, of course. Four Labour MSPs voted for - including David Whitton and Cathie Peattie - but Andy Kerr on Politics Now tonight assured us they had simply pressed the wrong buttons. No doubt they will be air brushed out of any future Labour party glossy campaign brochures.
2

subrosa,

03/10/2008 00:40:24
# 1

What kind of MSPs are they that can't press one of two buttons correctly? Pathetic. Then again, it could be they actually agreed with the government ...
3

frank mcbride,

lusitania 03/10/2008 00:56:37
Was one of the other befuddled NuLab MSPs Baffled?

Was it His Lordship Ffoulkessake?
4

famous 15,

Edinburgh 03/10/2008 01:45:14
I am a midnight cybernat and I am coming to haunt the ONIONIST bampots. Oh dear they have done themselves in all on their own. Spoilsports!
5

democracy,

Scottish Borders 03/10/2008 03:48:05
So the Lib/Dumbs/Dumber party want the new LIT to be decided at local level,forgive me,but is that not going back to the ever increasing regressive council tax??
6

Richardinho,

03/10/2008 05:56:37
Qutie shocking about the labour party voting against the 400million pounds being retained in Scotland. They have always argued that this money couldn't come to Scotland because of the change in tax laws, but it's obvious that they now actually don't want it to come to Scotland. For a Scottish party that is unforgivable.
7

Finnzz,

Offshore 03/10/2008 07:34:07
Just further confirmation that the interests of Scotland will never be considered above the interests of Westminster by the Labour Party.
Kerr appears determined to destroy any chances of his party's revival in the upcoming by-election.
8

carrottop,

Dumfries 03/10/2008 08:18:47
Local income tax will mean that people who duck out of paying for all the local services they use will now have to cough up, listen to them squeal.
9

Guga II,

Rockall 03/10/2008 08:22:10
The fact that the New Labour Sleaze and Corruption Party (North British Branch) voted against the £400 million being retained by Scotland, goes to illustrate the fact that they are given their instructions by London. Like their leader, Maggie Broon, they are quite happy to sell Scotland down the river.

Sic a parcel of rogues in a nation.
10

roughrider,

Glasgow 03/10/2008 09:14:30
Liebours hatred for the SNP doesn't get any worse than this, slab voting against Scotland retaining £400 million, DISGUSTING.

Labour are a total disgrace their pathetic despicable action on this vote is there for all to see.
Gray,Kerr,Curran,Jimmison should all hang their unionist puppet heads in shame.
Can labour get more treacherous than this?
This also shows the contempt labour have for the Scottish people. They do not give a sh*t for us.
Vote SNP and rid Scotland of these incompetent labour parasites.
11

Miss H,

03/10/2008 09:53:58
Love the line 'But, crucially, John Swinney, the finance secretary, conceded the money would go straight to local authorities and not to the Scottish Government.'

Conceded?

The idea that the SNP wants the money to go to the Scottish Government has only ever existed in the feverish imagination of unionist bloggers and, evidently, Scotsman journalists!
12

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 03/10/2008 10:44:53
They do hate Scotland, because increasingly it wants to separate them from their Westminster security blanket, and because it keeps ungratefully voting against them even though they've generously brought it Iraq and Trident and nuclear power stations and kids in poverty because Jack McConnell couldn't find anything in the entire country to spend £1.5bn on.
13

Westfield Bairns,

falkirk 03/10/2008 11:04:19
Labour are basicaly an anti-Scottish party FACT
14

The Tin Man,

03/10/2008 11:18:48
Theoretically, Scotland should still receive the money it pays for CT benefit, if a LIT was introduced. However, how would the rebate be calculated, practically?

Presumably, Scottish councils would still have to have made-up CT charges. How would that work?
15

Miss H,

03/10/2008 11:22:36
17 The rebate would be calculated the same way it is now. Entitlement to CTB is based on income.
16

The Tin Man,

03/10/2008 11:36:20
#18 Miss H

I am sorry, but that is far from the full picture. CT benefit is based on:

1. Income

2. The CT payable by the person receiving the benefit.

With a LIT, CT benefit 'would be calculated the same way it is now' how, exactly?
17

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 03/10/2008 11:41:37
#16 "I think you'll find both Trident and Polaris were ordered by Conservative governments. The Chevaline modernisation of Polaris was approved by Harold Wilson, though."

Oh dear. Unionist trolls are having an especially bad day today, having to resort to desperate semantic hairsplitting to get out of the indefensible positions they're trying to cling onto. You have my sympathies at this difficult time.
18

Anonym,

03/10/2008 11:50:16
# 18 and # 19

I think you may be barking up the wrong tree here...

As I understand it, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but one of the main points about abolishing council tax and introducing local income tax, is that the money currently spent on Council Tax rebates can be used for other purposes.

The opposing argument, that council tax rebates, or benefits, or whatever you call it, are no longer payable to Scotland if council tax is abolished, pre-supposes that the money must not and cannot be spent in any other capacity. (Which is a point of view I feel is not particularly helpful to Scotland.)

19

The Tin Man,

03/10/2008 12:03:52
#21 Anonym

I understand your point, but I don't understand how CT benefits would be calculated.

Currently, CT benefit rebates are paid directly to local authorities based on CT benefit claims.

How would CT benefits be calculated with a LIT in place?
20

The Tin Man,

03/10/2008 12:20:51
So we want the London government to gather revenues from Scotland, and the rest of the UK, through IT etc, in order to fund a CT rebate for the Edinburgh government, based on historical council tax benefits?
21

PoI2,

03/10/2008 12:44:42
"Their [Labour] MSPs decided it was better to leave themselves open to claims they were voting against Scotland rather than supporting the SNP/Lib Dem amendment and opposing their colleagues in Westminster"

Says it all really.
22

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

03/10/2008 12:47:35
Actually make it a LOCAL Income Tax and I will have no problems supporting it. A sunset clause is a good idea - it at least puts a timescale on making that happen. The policy as it stands stated it would happen but niot whn it would happen.

For once I have to congratulate the Lib Dems for trying to reach a sensible compromise. Labour need to take their heads out of the sand. If they genuinely support a property tax (and I have no problems with that) then they really need to tell us what it is instead of giving us all this airy-fairy guff.
23

Rosscobhoy,

03/10/2008 14:24:28
I think the last part of this sums up what was a very sad day for politics in Scotland. Regardless of what you support, there has to be credible opposition and credible governance for Scotland to move forward. When the main opposition party is in the position that Labour are now, their only motivation for existance now seemingly to disagree with the SNP, it doesn't give us much hope. I'm very pro independence but strong opposition is needed to keep the ruling party moving forward and to keep debate amongst the masses on the go. Political apathy is a major problem across the whole of the UK, arguably the biggest problem we face, and this will only make it worse.
24

livilion,

livingston 03/10/2008 15:42:58
25 The Federalist...
You are in favour of poorer local authorities with higher social deprivation, decrepit housing stocks and high unemployment being given the opportunity to tax local residents according to their needs?

The well off neighbouhoods get progressively more pleasant amenities according to their ability to pay.

Am I the only one who sees the conflict in this scenario?

By all means set local income taxes according to ability to pay, but are we really saying: you can have it IF you can pay for it?

Shouldn't this LIT go into the Scottish budget and spent where need is identified?
25

livilion,

livingston 03/10/2008 15:46:11
25 The Federalist...
>>For once I have to congratulate the Lib Dems **for trying** to reach a 'sensible' compromise<<

Doh!?
26

Calvinist,

03/10/2008 15:51:03
The Tories believe it will result in the North-east and Edinburgh, which already lose more than £100 million in business rates between them to other parts of Scotland, having to subsidise other areas by even more.

And not only that, those of us with jobs will subsidise those who live of unearned income. Of course, this is much fairer than a wealth tax, that would inconvenience the idle rich.
27

Theodore,

03/10/2008 16:12:45
Labour has voted against retention of the £400 million CT benefit for Scotland. Does that action mean the Labour party do not have the interests of the Scottish people in mind? Would it be more appropriate if the Labour party were run out of Scotland at the next G-Election? I'm sure the voters will remind the Labour party of the good they are doing for Scotland!
28

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

03/10/2008 16:29:19
#27 That might be true if LIT were the only source of local authority income - but it is not. The block grant could be used to fund statutory services and to ensure equitability of service provision.
29

livilion,

livingston 03/10/2008 18:34:45
32 sm753
>>What's indefensible about being a nuclear weapons state?<<

Let's see,how about those few states possesing nuclear weapons being able to destroy the planet for human habitation.

Spending more on our WMDs than the GDP of half the nations represented at the UN when there are far more worthy projects needing the money.

Having WMDs encourages other nations such as N.Korea and Iran to develop their own. Upgrading our WMD delivery platforms re-ignites the nuclear arms race and brings the likelyhood of first use and retaliatory strikes nearer.

How about the mindset of anyone who can contemplate using thermonuclear devices against innocent civilians?

What's this got to do with local taxation?
Have you no idea what it costs to produce and maintain nuclear WMDs and their delivery platforms in purely economic terms? Half the nations of the UN have a GDP less than we spend on Trident.

Use your imagination, if we weren't wasting this cash on a system we can never use what else would we be able to spend it on, reducing local taxation and/or improving local services perhaps?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.