Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


SNP suffers its first defeat over tax plans

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: 05 December 2008
THE SNP has suffered its first serious defeat on efforts to introduce the controversial 3p local income tax.
The Scottish Government is under pressure to allow alternatives to LIT to be considered when it tables its council tax abolition bill next year.

In what was described by the Conservatives as "a landmark vote" in Holyrood yesterday, MSPs decided t
hat all options for local taxation should be given a fair hearing when legislation is brought forward by the SNP.

An SNP amendment declaring the council tax to be discredited, claiming it should be abolished and saying that an LIT based on ability to pay is a fairer system of local taxation, was defeated.

It is the first time MSPs have specifically rejected the SNP's plan to replace the council tax with a 3p LIT – an idea opposed by business groups, trade unions and many other organisations.

Although the vote yesterday was not binding Alex Salmond, the First Minister, promised when he took office last year that he would not ignore the will of parliament. And if he accepts yesterday's vote, it will mean MSPs will have a multi-option bill next year. This will include the SNP's fixed rate 3p LIT, the Liberal Democrats' LIT, which can be varied by councils, the Tory proposal to lower and reform the council tax and the Greens' suggestion of a land value tax aimed at hitting developers who sit on landbanks.

Derek Brownlee, the Tory finance spokesman who proposed the motion, accused the SNP of wanting to leave MSPs with a straight choice between the status quo with the council tax, which he said nobody wants, or its version of LIT.

He added: "Polarising the debate between the government's preferred option and the status quo might give the government a slightly better chance of winning a vote, but it doesn't give Scotland a better system of local government finance."

The Conservatives won with the backing of Labour and Green MSPs, along with the independent MSP Margo MacDonald.

Patrick Harvie, a Green MSP, said the motion "gave Holyrood a great opportunity to move beyond the usual stale and unproductive approach. I urge the Scottish Government to work with the opposition parties to give all options consideration".

The motion was opposed by the SNP and Lib Dems. Alison McInnes, a Lib Dem MSP, said: "This is the first time I have come across the idea of a pick-and-mix, multi-option bill."

John Swinney, the finance secretary, said Labour had yet to come up with its own solution and accused the Tories of creating a mishmash, "chopping and changing" their position.

A spokesman for Mr Swinney last night said the Tory idea for a multi-option bill was "incompetent". But he added: "We will, of course, take account of the debate (and] we will update parliament on our plans early in 2009."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 December 2008 1:09 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Scottish National Party
 
1

Fifi la Bonbon,

05/12/2008 00:20:41
I think they should make a rule that they can't impose the SNP's Extra Scottish Extra Income Tax On Top Of Everyone's Other Income Tax (SEITOTOEOIT) until they come to an agreement with the UK government over the council tax benefit that doesn't involve Alex Salmond whingeing about how it's Scotland's Money. This would be called the Alex Has to Start Playing Nice Protocol.
2

,

05/12/2008 00:25:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

,

05/12/2008 00:33:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

Goggsie #,

Fife 05/12/2008 00:33:52
Instead of dreaming up more ways of taxing us, they ought to be carrying out a cull on national and local government bureaucracy!
5

Fifi la Bonbon,

05/12/2008 00:44:30
I get it. The SNP office determines that a particular story in the Scotsman is in some way adverse to its interests, and it unleashes a team to add various comments that attack the reporter and the editor and proprietor.

This is the modern day equivalent as the "claque" of organised boo-ers that infested opera performances in the 19th century.

I don't think this is particularly adverse reporting, but why is the SNP so touchy that it needs to attack named reporters for doing their job, and to crow about people losing their jobs?
6

Shamus,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 00:56:45
The LIT will be shot down by the Libs eventually. They know it is a shambles. They have time to posture then reality will set in. Salmond should resign he is just a loudmouth shouting to the gallery. The SNP MSPs have milked the British system. Time for them to go along with the rest.
7

subrosa,

05/12/2008 01:04:37
# 6

Oh yer bitter. Did you lose your labour councillor seat in 2007?
8

Guga II,

Rockall 05/12/2008 01:12:09
#5 Fifi.

You should be well aware by now that David MadDog is the press representative of the New Labour Sleaze and Corruption Party (North British Branch).

He may well be doing his job, as a Labour propaganda officer, but he does not do his alleged job as an investigative reporter. Generally speaking, all he does is edit Labour press releases, and the Hootsmon prints them as news articles.

As to the Hootsmon itself, it is blatantly obvious that they are a Labour Party mouthpiece; which is probably the main reason that their circultion figures are continually falling, and that their share price is in danger of crashing through the floor.

A decent newspaper presents facts as news stories, and presents political comment from both sides of the argument. Nobody could ever accuse the Hootsmon of acting like that.

The Hootsmon was, many, many years ago, a Whig rag. Nowadays it is a New Labour rag. They, like their political masters, continually castigate Scotland and the Scottish people, so it is little wonder that their circulation figures have taken a nosedive.

Incidentally, not all the people commenting here, including myself, are members of the SNP, but many of us object to being run into the ground, and sold out by London based Unionist parties and their running dogs and lackeys.
9

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 05/12/2008 01:14:12
Can someone explain to me how a motion to consider other tax forms is a defeat for teh SNP's plans?

This is poor reporting.

Fifi La Bonbon - it is completely disengenious of you to frame LIT as a 'Scotland Only Tax' when it will be replacing the much hated council tax. You lot must take the majority of the electorate to be complete buffoons - the very same majority who will be better off under this propsal.

Which form of tax do you support Fifi? - ah - right - just making noise are we?
10

Shamus,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 01:18:23
7# Naw just a few bob on the bookies.
11

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 05/12/2008 01:20:54

Face the facts! Strength and Muscle is NOT the SNP's forte, the word "defeat" will become their key word!

Making decisions need the public's approval, if one acts,....

...'Like a Bull in a China Shop', what can one expect?

'Mad-Hat' Policies of taxing the 'Booze' beyond reason, stopping an 21year old Adult from Purchasing a bottle of wine, to celebrate the birth of his child, and hiding the 'Fags', under the counter, wins NO support, NO support atall.

Scotland will NEVER have Independence, with this crowd in.

12

Nevsky,

Moscow 05/12/2008 01:35:32
Just what kind of whisky is David Maddox on? He should be working for a Labour tabloid, how can anyone spend all their life being a journalist and be happy to produce this dross, it really is an embarassement for a paper to have this level of biased journalism.

No wonder the paper is in dire straits. Perhaps it is time they employes some young Scottish journalists to report events fairly and with a little intelligence.

Personally very tired of this kind of absolute tabloid nonsense!
13

Shamus,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 01:38:41
13# What about a lot of intelligence.
14

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 05/12/2008 01:39:02


I have NO political preferences or motives, my view, is one of reality!

Brown is now, 'Giving Candy to us All'!

Salmond on the other hand, seems to want to intrude on our Life Styles.

Like Children, Pets, Blah, Blah, treat one with,...

....'NO RESPECTS', one turns away to the one that treats them good!

Unfortunately up-to-now, and beyond, I only see the SNP, continuing to upset People and getting their Backs-Up!,

People are NOT STUPID!, even us 'Scotts', intrusions on our life style, is not permitted!

To now 'Give' as Brown is doing, Wins Votes!!


15

,

05/12/2008 01:43:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

,

05/12/2008 01:47:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

,

05/12/2008 01:54:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

,

05/12/2008 01:55:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 05/12/2008 02:37:19


Slag all ye want, but here is the 'Bet' of realism!

Walk down Princes Street in Edinburgh or any busy shopping centre in Scotland, and ask 100 people at random this Question!

"Do you think if Salmond was in Power, He would help your Life Style and 'Purse Stings'?

The Answer would be from a 98%,..'A BIG FAT NO'!!

OH YES I REMEMBER WELL!

HBOS nothing done! At this time instead of giving muscle and Helping, what does one, 'Choose to Do'?

Tell 'Adults' in Scotland, they cant have Alcohol!!

Talk about 'Scottish Mountains'?

This says "Mountains" about Salmond, does it not?



20

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 05/12/2008 02:48:04


Mistakes one can be forgiven!, but if Salmond wants to Win Popularity and Respect, he better STOP telling Children, they Cant have a 'Penny Chew' and start dealing with the Real Problems PDQ!!
21

donald,

glasgow 05/12/2008 06:07:07
The Northbritishperson would do well to take cognisance of the fate of that other Labour hackery piece in Weegieland.
22

tommy M,

Scotland 05/12/2008 07:55:58
LIT "opposed by...many other organisations" erm, yeah, like the liebour party and conservative and UNIONIST party.

Call this journalism??

LIT seems fairer to me. What's YOUR alternative then Liebour party?
23

Guga II,

Rockall 05/12/2008 08:03:40
#25 tommy M.

"What's YOUR alternative then Liebour party?"

Their usual, no doubt, tax, tax and more tax, direct, indirect and stealth tax. Except, of course, for their business buddies, many of whom pay little or no tax.
24

caithness,

still snowy north 05/12/2008 08:19:26
I personally thought the poll tax was the fairest in that everyone paid. It was shot down by Labour running a campaign of political mischief and the benefits of that tax were never allowed to be spelt out.
25

Grahamski,

Falkirk 05/12/2008 08:25:44
Mr Salmond will be breathing a sigh of relief as it becomes more likely that his unworkable, uncosted, discredited and illegal back-of-a-fag-packet proposals for local government finance will be rejected by our parliament in Holyrood.
Plenty of people to blame and girn about for Mr Salmond and his facile policies remain as illusory as the mist at Brigadoon.....so win win for the nats?
26

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 08:29:25
#25 tommy M

Actually, these organisations (and more) are opposed to the SNP’s local income tax:

• Institute of Directors Scotland
• Unison Scotland
• Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy
• CBI Scotland
• Federation of Small Businesses
• Scottish TUC
• The Policy Institute
• Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce
• National Union of Students
• Institute of Chartered Accountants
• Scottish Council for Development and Industry.
27

TWC,

05/12/2008 08:30:43
5 Fifi la Bonbon,05, new Labour poodle

You were first to post and immediately attack SNP, instead of making a real contribution. Perhaps even an alternative policy.
The Council tax must stop and after Calman we can see that the Tories & Labour are trying to stop all financial changes.

23 Rulesbutnotrulers,You sjhould take the ref to federation out of your name

28

gus1940,

Edinburgh 05/12/2008 08:32:46
Still waiting for Liebour's long 'promised' proposals for reform of Council Tax.

Why is no press pressure being put on them to come up with something instead of supporting their negative ranting against LIT.
29

,

05/12/2008 08:38:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 05/12/2008 08:46:00
less of a defeat this sounds more like democracy at work. I suppose that if the SNP do decide to put other options on the table then it's a u-turn and another Labour win against the SNP. Scotsman please get your reporting out the U-bend!!!
31

,

05/12/2008 08:46:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

,

05/12/2008 08:50:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
33

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 08:54:50
The response to any anti-SNP opinion on these boards is deeply unpleasant. Why do SNP supporters feel they have to denigrate and personally attack those who simply hold a different view from them?

It can only be a good thing that wider options than the status quo and the SNP's non-local LIT tax cut are on the table when this issue comes up for debate.
34

Fred Quimby,

05/12/2008 09:06:07
Last night on Newsnicht the new head honcho was there to defend his actions on making "redundant" (or not as he believed) his journalistic workforce and inviting them to apply for new positions in this exciting new adventure (my words but close enough).

According to G Brewer, there were 4 people who did not receive these termination notes, The representative present and 3 others.

Who are these three others?

Any suggestions?

Maybe the same turkeys who led the titles down the WC and are now trying to launch the exciting new episode.

Stanby for a USA today, superficially, surgically cloned.








35

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 05/12/2008 09:06:21
The honeymoon is now well and truly over for the Nationalists.

However, it is still a Nationalist Government that is freezing Council Tax in the coming financial year, although extending it for a further 2 years now looks very doubtful?
36

,

05/12/2008 09:09:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

Nevsky,

Moscow 05/12/2008 09:16:57
30 AM2#

And here is who is for the LIT tax:

The majority of Scots!
38

,

05/12/2008 09:24:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
39

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 09:31:32
#37 You either didn't understand what I said or are trying to divert the conversation away from it.

I made no statement about the bias of the Scotsman, which has been a Tory-leaning paper for many decades.

What I said was that the response from SNP supporters on these messageboards involves personal attacks and denigration, and that is despicable.
40

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 09:34:01
#41 A majority of Scots might support local income tax (I've yet to see proof), but there is absolutely no majority in support of the SNP's plans for a national rate of income tax, centralising fiscal control and removing a plank of democratic accountability of councils, which they laughably describe as "local income tax".
41

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 05/12/2008 09:45:51
#44 "there is absolutely no majority in support of the SNP's plans for a national rate of income tax, centralising fiscal control and removing a plank of democratic accountability of councils"
Says who? Can you provide your source please. What do COSLA say?
Councils receive the vast majority of their budget direct from central government with council tax making up just a tiny percentage.
WTF is "democratic accountability"?

42

Doh,

05/12/2008 09:51:26


I am quiet happy for the Parliament to debate other alternatives to the Council Tax - but lets face it - if it based on the ability to pay it is going to be very like Local Income Tax.

I suspect this is just wrecking any chance of any reform - the Tories at the bleeding edge again.
43

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 05/12/2008 09:59:59
#43 I don't know where people get this idea that the written press should be unbias. The written press in the UK has been unashamedly bias since anyone alive can remember, they have no legal (unlike the broadcast press) or moral obligation to be otherwise.

The only responsibilities journalists have is to obey the instructions of their editor and to sell papers.
Not to keep politicians honest, not to the UK, or Scotland, or Scotland as part of the UK or any of the other nonsense posted on here.

They are just people with opinions like everyone else, and most of them at least moderate what they're saying a bit, the majority on here just have a shouting match.
44

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 10:01:52
#45 What would COSLA's view have to do with the question of whether a majority of people in Scotland want the SNP's national income tax increase?

Anyway, the burden of proof lies with those who assert that the SNP's plans enjoy support from a majority of people. I've seen no such proof, and I think a lack of support is a very safe assumption.

Democratic accountability is not a complicated concept.
45

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 10:08:04
I don't personally have an issue with the SNP's plans being debated. If other parties have workable costed proposals let them put them forward. That's what the Parliament is for. All this ya boo politics is very Westminster, Holyrood was supposed to be different.
46

Miss H,

05/12/2008 10:09:34
I think it is fair enough that Labour and the Tories should get their chance to defend council tax and establish very clearly in the minds of the electorate that they are the parties which support the council tax.

I would further encourage Labour to do everything within their power to challenge the SNP’s council tax freeze which they keep telling us is leading to cuts in services for the most vulnerable (while Labour’s half a billion cut in the Scottish Budget is completely harmless). There is only one solution to this obviously – to lift the freeze.

Vote Labour for higher council tax.

It’s a winner isn’t it?
47

,

05/12/2008 10:11:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
48

MacGhillieBhain,

Aberdeen 05/12/2008 10:17:09
The abuse and mudslinging on some of these posts is unbelievable.How about some reasoned arguments for a change? Of course,the agenda of this paper is plain to see.It is to divide the anti- Tory vote.All this invective is grist to their mill.
49

whatsinaname2,

05/12/2008 10:17:54
Taking aside the partisan way in which this article is reported, I have to say that it sounds to me something very much like democracy in action, something that has not been seen in Scotland for many years, until the Lib/Lab pact and virtual stranglehold on Scottish politics was broken by the SNP election victory. This is something to be applauded - it leads to real politics and discussion, something New Labour isn't used to. The Conservatives would do good to remember that, if it still was the Lib/Lab pact in office, their contribution to the policital scene in Scotland would be zilch. And it will be interesting to see what the other parties come up with as a alternative to LIT.
50

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 10:24:35
#50 But actually the SNP's plan to make this into "our LIT proposals" versus "their Council Tax status quo" is exactly what has just been blown out of the water. And rightly so, because there are plenty of alternative approaches to local government finance.

I don't think people actually want the removal of fiscal responsibility from councils. I don't think they want central government sitting back and saying "you signed it, you have to make the cuts to pay for it" when the costs of education, social services and other frontline deliveries are sky-rocketing.

You'd dearly love this to be a choice between the Council Tax and the SNP's National Income Tax; but now it won't be, and that's a very good thing.
51

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 10:26:22
#53 But this "democracy in action" is against the will of the SNP as well - you need to remember that. This isn't evidence of the munificence of the SNP, as you appear to be painting it - it is evidence merely of the fact that they could not persuade the Lib Dems to join them in coalition, so are at the whim of a majority opposition.
52

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 10:27:33
There are arguments against LIT, and some of them I agree with.

''Campaigns against council tax claim it is unfair but the fairness of a tax cannot be judged in isolation. Taxing all forms of wealth makes the tax system fair. Increasing the tax on wages pushes the burden of taxes on to working people. Wealth inequality is rising in the UK. Now the top 1% hold 23% of personal wealth. Income other than wages and salaries is mainly investment incime. Top 10% of working age population receive 4% of their income from investment compared to less than 1% for the lowest 10%. This income is not liable to the new tax. There are better ways to help people on low incomes living in larger properties than abolishing the council tax.''

That's from the UNISON response to the consultation.

They also make the point that ordinary workers on PAYE will feel the full burden of the tax. When you work overtime, get a bonus, or a wage rise, you will pay more tax. There is opportunity, on the other hand, for the rich to avoid tax altogether.

These are relevant points, but LIT still seems the most reasonable option to me. Until there is a mainstream party which proposes to address the inequality of the taxation system across the board, then the criticisms of LIT are applicable to every mainstream parties policy on taxation in general.
53

TWC,

05/12/2008 10:28:28
37 Duncan in Edinburgh/AM2/Lachie/fifi.

We are not all SNP people, some of us want change without full independence, but we want rid of New Labour.
Full Fiscal Autonomy
removal of Council Tax
Remove trident
No More Nuclear waste
Public Enquiry into Iraq etc.
The problem with the poodles is they never make proposals just attack SNP, that won't fix the problems.
The Union will only be saved by positive argument.
54

Miss H,

05/12/2008 10:37:56
54 But it is their council tax Duncan. We have been debating local government taxation for years now. The Burt Review was published when - 2006? The SNP has put forward proposals. Labour and the Tories disagree with those proposals - fair enough. They must then put forward their alternative. Their alternative is the council tax.
55

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 10:40:25
#57 My criticism was of the tone of the invective, and personal attacks. I was going to quote some to illustrate it but when I scrolled up the page they had already been moderated away. This is a shame in a way because it removes the context for later posts which are now in danger of looking like whinging. Oh well.

I don't think that there is a great deal of merit in wanting "rid" of things unless one is prepared to say what would go in their place. So can I ask, who do you want in charge of the UK instead of Labour? The Tories? Old Labour? The Lib Dems?

What do you want in place of Council Tax? An income tax increase which removes property tax altogether from the tax burden making tax avoidance far easier and placing the entire burden of public funding on working people?

What do you want instead of nuclear power stations, and how will they supply the same energy/availability needs?

You ask for positive argument and yet yours is littered with negatives.
56

AJ Fife,

05/12/2008 10:46:40
Mr Salmond has already pledged to use multi-party consensus politics during his administration. He respects the will of the parliament. Scotland has never had such a fair and balanced leader.

He'll do what's best for all of Scotland, you can be sure of that.
57

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 10:48:17
#58 Except the Lib Dems disagree with the SNP's proposals too. The Lib Dems are proposing local income tax - often referred to as LIT - where the L stands for local. That's a major difference from the SNP's proposals, which strangely use the same acronym, although what the L stands for in their one I have no idea.

As UNISON says, "There are better ways to help people on low incomes living in larger properties than abolishing the council tax." But the SNP is determined to simplify the argument, to make constant reference to "the hated Council Tax" as if there was ever a form of taxation that was loved! They want to pretend they are abolishing the tax when in fact they are just moving the burden onto a smaller group of people, and allowing the richest in our society to pay nothing at all.

To call opposition to that "support for Council Tax" is to insult the intelligence of Scotland's people.
58

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 10:50:58
#60 Mr Salmond tried desperately to persuade the Lib Dems to join him in a coalition. He has also tried to turn every debate on LIT into a LIT vs Council Tax binary argument.

Consensus politics is something he has grudgingly accepted, and consistently attempts to avoid; not something he embraces.
59

brownlie,

05/12/2008 10:51:40
59 Duncan

Duncan, old chum, please don't make the same mistake as SM753 in generalising regarding SNP supporters as opposed to unionist supporters.

Looking back over this and previous threads can you say hand on heart that the only personal abuse on this and previous occasions were from SNP supporters or those who purport to be SNP supporters.

I can give you evidence to the contrary if you wish.

Do you recall two "unionists" referring to a poster as "monkey" because his skin was not whiter than white?
60

Miss H,

05/12/2008 10:52:55
59 The SNP has set out all its proposals, which you may disagree with but they have set our everything they want.

What infuriates many people is the pathetic nature of Labour in opposition.And they are pathetic.

Take this which is reported in today's Herald. 'The leader of Labour at Holyrood last night promised to double a multimillion-pound environment prize - if he becomes First Minister by 2015. Iain Gray told the Scottish Green Energy Awards - and I quote -

"I will do a deal with the marine power industry. If it is me in 2015, I promise you now - I'll double the prize money."

So theuy take an SNP initiative and simply say we'll make it bigger. They think they can 'do a deal' with that particular sector of the electorate. Bribe them into voting Labour. It's how they operate, it's how they have operated for years. They are a disgrace to their founding principles and that is why so many people hate them and are perhaps a bit OTT in expressing that.


61

brownlie,

05/12/2008 10:53:08
61 Duncan

Could the "L" that you have no idea about mean local as in local to Scotland?
62

T-bone,

05/12/2008 10:54:13
Duncan in Edinburgh is absolutely Spot On when he says that the the majority of comments posted by SNP supporters within these columns are unpleasant, insulting or intending to ridicule, and at times downright aggressive & threatening. No doubt these same people would resort to physical violence if they ever met their counterparts in the flesh.

If an independent Scotland means that informed, or even uninformed, debate cannot happen without being subjected to aggression and intimidation for holding an alternative point of view then you can keep it!

63

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 10:54:42
61, Yeah Unison did say there are better ways of helping people on low incomes in larger properties than abolishing council tax, but they didn't say how.

No one has.
64

Miss H,

05/12/2008 10:55:47
62 No he didn't. Minority government was always Alex's choice. Gives him more room to manœuvre
65

AJ Fife,

05/12/2008 10:56:10
Dunc,

I remember the speech well and Mr Salmond didn't "grudgingly" accept the situation, he embraced the challenge with great vigour. Obviously an ultra-unionist like yourself can't accept Mr Salmond's statesman-like qualities and you just come over as the usual bitter and twisted labourite.
66

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 10:56:18
#63 No question, there are idiots on all sides of every argument. But I came to this article this morning, and saw the familiar names spouting bile at the "Fifi" poster *just* because she was posting opinions different from hers. And that is an every day occurrence. I would say, whether it is a case of one or two idiots with multiple logins, or a large number of idiots, there is a preponderance on this site of such unpleasantness coming from those who appear to support the SNP. Perhaps you genuinely see it differently, but that is my honest opinion - I see far more of that offensive rubbish from SNP supporters than I do from the supporters of any other points of view.
67

whatsinaname2,

05/12/2008 11:00:15
55) That is where you and I differ in our beliefs in democracy. I wouldn't have wanted the LibDems to be in coalition with the SNP. I prefer the SNP put their own policies forward, unadulterated by the need to pander to the LibDems. I far prefer as it is now, everything is fought over and discussed, and sometimes surprising partnerships for specific policies will arise. That way, everyone, Conservative, Labour, LibDem and SNP get to contribute, something Annabel Goldie must be well aware of, and using to her best ability. Democracy doesn't mean that things will go the way you want, whether SNP, Tory, LibDem, Labour, but I am pleased it has come about through the SNP victory at the last election, though I might not be happy with what it could bring about. Unfortunately, that is democracy for you.
68

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 11:00:16
#68 Are you trying to tell me that the SNP and Lib Dems didn't engage in days of coalition discussions before the election of the current First Minister?

Because if you are, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to call that a barefaced lie. They did, you know they did, and the sticking point was the SNP's insistence on an independence referendum in this parliament.

You and AJ might want to rewrite history to pretend that Salmond the statesman always wanted the challenge of minority government, but facts are chiels that winna ding.
69

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 11:01:23
#65 My god, I hope not. What a parochial thing that would be if it were true.
70

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 11:02:14
#67 Isn't the obvious solution to increase the levels of Council Tax rebate on a means-tested basis?
71

AJ Fife,

05/12/2008 11:05:11
Not rewriting history Dunc, I'm simply underlining the fact that Mr Salmond took the hand that was dealt and has got on with it regardless!

72

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 11:05:32
#71 To be clear, I do not think that coalitions to form majority governments are always a good thing; my point is simply that the SNP vigorously pursued one. This, apparently, is being scrubbed from history by the People's Party.

I think you're right about the benefits of minority government. Remind me, who was it who brought in PR for Scottish elections? Alex Salmond, I'm sure history will eventually say...
73

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 11:07:28
#75 That statement I can completely agree with. But you and Miss H both denied that the SNP had even *pursued* a coalition - a barefaced lie. Certainly Salmond has embraced the opportunities afforded him by minority government; but he vigorously tried to establish a ruling majority in the Scottish Parliament first.
74

TWC,

05/12/2008 11:09:12
#59 Duncan asked

"What do you want in place of Council Tax? An income tax increase which removes property tax altogether from the tax burden making tax avoidance far easier and placing the entire burden of public funding on working people?"

- YES and I would be worse off but I support it

"What do you want instead of nuclear power stations, and how will they supply the same energy/availability needs?"

- Scotland has more than enough to meet it's energy requirements, England does not. I'm against Nuclear power because we do not have a full understanding of the costs and the waste disposal. Jack McConnell promised a FULL ANSWER before Labour would ever consider Nuclear Power it has not yet been forthcoming.

"who do you want in charge of the UK instead of Labour? The Tories? Old Labour? The Lib Dems?"

- As long as Holyrood has Full Fiscal Autonomy I don't mind which party is democratically elected to Westminster though I would like proportional representation.
Also I would like Independent leadership of each party at Holyrood.
We cannot continue the decline Scotland has experienced since the war; in 50 years we've rebuilt a flattened Europe and Scotland has Stagnated

75

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 11:09:47
74 yes that would be a solution. Increase the threshold at which benefit becomes payable so that pensioners who have small occupational pensions are not excluded from Council Tax benefit, which is currently a mirror of the state benefit system. If you could pay benefit to people who currently don't qualify, but suffer real hardship, then that would probably work.

However, that is completely outwith Holyrood's power, and no one in the UK government or the opposition has ever proposed that, or anything like it.

So really, you are advocating doing nothing.
76

Miss H,

05/12/2008 11:11:12
72 You didn't say that they had talks. You said 'Mr Salmond tried desperately to persuade the Lib Dems to join him in a coalition'.

No he didn't.

You are simply wrong if you believe that Alex Salmond or the SNP were desperately trying to get the Lib Dems into an administration.

They didn't want the Lib Dems to go into another administration with Labour, that's for damn sure, and you can bet they talked about that, possibly even desperately. But as soon as the Lib Dems ruled out going into an administration with Labour the pressure was off.




77

subrosa,

05/12/2008 11:11:13
# 37

Why do you tar everyone with the same brush? Lazy posting, just lazy.
78

subrosa,

05/12/2008 11:18:53
# 64

Ah yes Miss H, Ian Gray may want to do that.

But, do you think he will acquire the support of National Geographic? Not in his wildest dreams.

It was that support which made Alex Salmond's innovative prize world wide news because, and I'm sure you know this, National Geographic aren't known to just support anyone or anything.
79

brownlie,

05/12/2008 11:20:48
70 Duncan

There is a vast difference between your first sentence here than what you originally posted at #37.

73 Duncan

Of course, it's parochial. Did you expect the SNP to try and impose a local tax on the rest of the UK?

No doubt if it is a success in Scotland then the rest of the UK will clamor to be taxed in the same way.

There is also no doubt that if the Lab/Lib coalition were still in power in Scotland that the status quo would have been maintained and this discussion would not be taking place.
80

Miss H,

05/12/2008 11:21:37
83 Iain Gray doesn't give two hoots about it. He just thinks he can buy their votes.
81

AJ Fife,

05/12/2008 11:22:13
Dunc#77,

Mr Salmond explored every avenue when he set about establishing his govt.
82

TWC,

05/12/2008 11:23:59
79 Observer. 1 #74 Duncan.

I thought New Labour fundamental promise was to cut means testing when they came to power??
Further they are trying to encourage people to create provision for their retirement, meantime they Cap increases in company pensions and means test every other benefit. I think fiddling with pensions is crazy people will just withdraw from any scheme they are in.
83

whatsinaname2,

05/12/2008 11:24:10
76) I think if the SNP had wanted to form a coalition, they would have found a way of doing it that would have suited them and the LibDems, some fudging of The Referendum Issue, no doubt, that the LibDems could have lived with. Such an agreement would have been possible, had they wished it. It would appear that they didn't, and I can only applaud them for not taking this step, and actually promoting the type of politics we have in Scotland now, diverse, vibrant, where things are discussed and fought over. Big difference from Westminster politics where basically it is one-party politics, there hardly been any difference between the Conservatives and New Labour.
84

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 11:24:40
#80 Oh come off it. Salmond offered a multi-option referendum to the Lib Dems. He offered a commission to look at independence separately. He offered a 2 year coalition to precede any referendum work. He offered the Greens a ministerial post. All of this is in the public domain. You are engaging in an unedifying attempt to rewrite history. Please don't.
85

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 11:27:13
#89 No, I'm sorry, the reason there was no coalition was that the Lib Dems had a firm precondition of no referendum, and Salmond could not possibly sell that to his party. The choice was made by the Lib Dems - who were already weary of coalition junior partnership - not by the SNP.
86

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 11:30:02
88 You couldn't make all benefits universal, there has to be means testing.

Anyway, Duncan was just flying a kite - no one is talking about increasing the benefits available to offset the hardship caused by council tax, so his point was academic.
87

Miss H,

05/12/2008 11:30:58
1.The SNP is still offering a multi-option referendum to anybody who will agree to it.

2. The SNP would agree to a commission or anything else that would look at independence.

3. The referendum was always going to be in 2010 and still is.

4. I'm sure they did offer a ministerial post to the Greens - just as the SNP gave up committee convenerships to the Greens in previous parliaments. The Greens are on our side in case you have not noticed.

So what you see as 'desperation' is the SNP doing what it believes in anyway.

Understandable perhaps that you can't understand that if you take Labour's standards as the norm.
88

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 11:31:17
#88 I'm nothing to do with New Labour! Why would I be constrained by what they have said?
89

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 11:35:46
#93 Over the weekend of 6/7 May 2007 there were fevered attempts by the SNP to persuade the Lib Dems to join them in coalition. You know this, I know this, everyone who read the news at the time knows this. What is the point of you denying it now, and pretending that Salmond always wanted minority government? Why, if he always wanted minority government, would he have made a statement on 8th May saying that his plans for the first 100 days of his government would have to be watered down if he didn't achieve the coalition he needed?

There isn't even a question mark over any of this - it's in the public domain. Please stop your revisionism.
90

whatsinaname2,

05/12/2008 11:37:19
91) My how the Lib Dem position has changed then since Tavish Scott became leader, and said that a multi-option referendum on Scottish independence could be supported by the Scottish Liberal Democrats if it included a question giving the devolved parliament greater powers. Mind you, that seems to be the LibDem policy, twist and turn to suit, and it's why they are haemmorhaging votes. Nobody actually knows what their policies are from one day to the next. So, according to you, Nicol Stephens turns down the opportunity to be part of an SNP/LibDem coalition government because they can't support a referendum, and along comes Tavish Scott and says "Oh, yes, we can..." You have to laugh at them... really.
91

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 11:40:26
#96 Lib Dem policy has always been "adapt to suit". Most laughably on congestion charging, which their national policy has supported for years, but whenever a specific proposal comes up their local party opposes it. They are political opportunists.
92

Elephant,

Linlithgow 05/12/2008 11:40:38
The LIT plans still befuddle me. Can anyone confirm if you will pay less than now if you live in a big expensive house but don't earn very much?

And will low earners still get those working tax credits from Westminster even if they live in a big expensive house and have lots of savings?

Basically, will soon to retire babyboomers and downshifters who play the system be better off?
93

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 11:43:59
#41 Nevsky

You claimed that “the majority of Scots” support the SNP’s local income tax plan.

LIT is a superficially attractive proposal and a year ago your statement would have been true. But a recent YouGov poll found that support had fallen to 46% as the public started becoming more aware of the various deficiencies highlighted by organisations such as those listed in post #30 above.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4692781.ece
94

TWC,

05/12/2008 11:50:51
#59 Duncan
How about reciprocating and giving your answers to the same questions
95

Miss H,

05/12/2008 11:51:09
95 B@ll@x.

Over the weekend of the 6/7 May there were fevered attempts by Labour to get the Lib Dems to join an administration with them - at the same time as there were fevered sessions with lawyers to see if they had any chance of mounting a legal challenge to the result in Cunningham North. They - at least Allan Wilson - thought they had a chance of doing that which could have resulted in the SNP having one less MSP and Labour having one more. In case you have forgotten Duncan the SNP majority is one.

Once the Lib Dems had ruled out propping up a Labour administration reality sank in, no legal challenge was mounted and Alex Salmond was elected First Minister on 16 May by 49 votes to 46 with the support of the Greens. The Lib Dems and Tories abstained. Labour voted against.
96

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 11:51:44
#98 I'm sure you will get several conflicting responses. My take is as follows:

The SNP plan is for a massive tax cut, so most people will pay less. This has nothing to do with the shift to income tax, it is simply that they are removing £750 million a year from the local authority funding budget.

The plan is for a 3% flat rate on all earnings, and the only property ownership that will be taxed is second and subsequent homes. So most likely those in expensive houses who don't earn much will be significantly better off.

We will shift from a three-way tax system - on purchases (VAT and duties), on income (PAYE/NI and investment taxation) and on property (CT) to a two-way tax system, with all of the current property tax burden placed onto income taxes. The very rich, who have tax efficient income schemes set up already, will effectively be excuses from paying for local services. Of course, so will the very poor. The middle earners will pay for both.
97

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 11:55:38
#101 Hmm, so you're avoiding the issue and throwing different mud. Do you seriously, seriously deny that the SNP pursued a coalition deal with the Lib Dems? Seriously?
98

Nevsky,

Moscow 05/12/2008 11:57:57
99 AM2#

Completely agree but conveniently you fail to mention the other figures so here they are for you:

Support: 46%

Oppose: 22%

That is over twice the ammount of Scots who support as oppose it, fairly clear i would have thought.

As for the 10 or so bodies that you list, needless to say they do not represent the view of every member which if taken as the Scottish average 46% will support with 22% (that is 22%) opposed.


99

Miss H,

05/12/2008 11:57:58
In case anyone can't remember what happened in May 2007 I will post this story from the Independent of 7 May which I think gives a fair account of what happened and is an impartial source.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snp-prepares-for-minority-government-after-lib-dems-rule-out-coalition-deals-447826.html

Where Duncan is mistaken is in believing that the SNP was desperate to have a coalition partner. They weren't. It would be fair to say that they were desperate to stop the Lib Dems going into an administration with Labour and denying the SNP an opportunity to govern. It would also be fair to say that they were desperate to get Alex Salmond elected First Minister in order that he could form a government. So they certainly had talks with the Lib Dems, Tories, Greens and Margo to allow that to happen. As happen it did.

That Duncan remembers this as the SNP being desperate to get into a coalition with the Lib Dems just shows the vagaries of memory.
100

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 11:59:22
#100 With pleasure.

I want the Labour Party in charge of the UK, because the alternative of a David Cameron Tory government is too awful to contemplate. But I want some significant changes in Labour policy, especially foreign policy, anti-terrorism approaches and ID cards. I vastly prefer the idea of Brown and Darling in charge of the economy compared to Cameron and Osborne.

I want to retain property or land taxes in the tax system, and I want local taxes to be set, collected and spent locally giving councils full fiscal accountability.

I would prefer us to move away from nuclear power that means investing in long term development of alternatives in terms of both generation and storage, and I think new nuclear is probably the only option as a stop-gap for the next few decades.
101

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 12:02:05
#106 Your impartial source confirms that the SNP pursued a coalition deal with the Lib Dems. I trust this is an end to your revisionism, comrade.
102

vorlic,

lanark 05/12/2008 12:08:47
the mp and government ministers that run this country are like kids in kindergarten.arguing over minor details and letting the major issues disappear into the background.as for LIT, i think it should be discussed in an open manor,the poor of this country already pay too much tax,bringing in a LIT which is based on ability to pay is a reasonable idea. if you are paying LIT you are not paying council tax at the moment i am still paying council tax alon with income tax on a small pension
103

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 12:09:04
#105 Nevsky

The same survey found 31% support for council tax. How exactly can only 22% be opposed to LIT when 31% support council tax?

Had you said that in September more people favoured a LIT than council tax (hence Salmond's attempt to polarise the debate, I imagine) that would have been truthful. But anyway, at least now with the SNP amendment having been defeated we'll get a proper debate.
104

TWC,

05/12/2008 12:11:34
107 Duncan in Edinburgh
Thanks, I have drifted away from New Labour and Can no longer support them, even their economics are a disaster(in my opinion)certainly for Scotland.
I am uncomfotable with Tories in Westminster but would suffer it to force a GE.
Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland and removal of Council tax are fundamental to Scotlands future for me.
Not ready to risk Nuclear power yet.
I will vote SNP if necessary to achieve these goals.
105

Miss H,

05/12/2008 12:12:14
108 If that you get out of that story is that Alex Salmond was as you claimed 'desperate' to form an administration with the Lib Dems then I leave it to other readers to reach their own conclusions about that.

As others have pointed out had the SNP been 'desperate' they could have formed an administration by compromising on the referendum policy.

But they weren't 'desperate' at all Duncan. It was Labour that was desperate at losing power and they still are.
106

brownlie,

05/12/2008 12:16:15
107 Duncan

All very laudable. However, the reality is that if Labour are to be in charge of the Uk there will be no change in foreign policy, anti-terrorism approach and ID cards, and, indeed, they would see an election victory as condoning their actions.

There will also be a continuation of the approach that has left the country deeply in debt.

In your brave new Labour world there will be no move away from nuclear power as the UK Government have made their committment to that very clear.

Remind me again why you want the Labour party in charge - of the UK?
107

Duncan in Edinburgh,

Edinburgh 05/12/2008 12:19:10
#112 Miss H, in #68 you said

"Minority government was always Alex's choice."

That revisionism is what started this conversation. Do you stand by that statement in the light of your own posting of evidence to the contrary?
108

Elephant,

05/12/2008 12:19:45
Thank you # 102
Strikes me it would be a darn good idea to put all your assets into one property if you want to avoid paying for anything, work half a day a week for the council, then stack up on benefits for the day to day expenses. A sort of tory-commie combo life... perfect!
109

Nevsky,

Moscow 05/12/2008 12:19:49
AM2#

Not quite sure what point you are trying to make? You chose to (as usual) be selective with your figures and now introduce a completely different question into the equation?

The figures are quite clear aren't they?

The poll states that 46% are in favour of LIT with 22% opposed, that is less than half so that is that.

Personally i think LIT is fairer than the council tax and the SNP were never going to get LIT through without concessions, they were always fully aware of this.

So long as a better and more equitable solution is found i counldn't care less.
110

Miss H,

05/12/2008 12:23:01
114 Absolutely. Alex never made any secret of that.

But you have to be in government before you can be any kind of government.

Your memory lapse - because I don't suggest that you are trying to revise history - is that you have forgotten than an SNP Government was by no means a done deal.

Had Labour managed to persuade the Lib Dems to support them and the Tories to abstain we would have had a Labour/Lib Dem administration for the past 19 months not an SNP one.
111

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 12:26:12
#113 I believe Labour's foreign policy is changing - the election of Obama will change it. This will have a knock-on effect on anti-terrorist approaches.

The New Labour creed of being tougher than the Tories on crime is what has led to the disproportionate powers given to the police, and to the ID cards nonsense. I believe that Labour needs to change on this.

But I passionately believe in the importance of the redistribution of wealth that has occurred under this government. The minimum wage, the new deal, working families tax credits, have all combined to lift people out of poverty, and I passionately believe that the answer to those critics that say not enough has been achieved is to press on and do more of the same - not to retreat into Toryism and market forces and abandon the poor again in the way they were abandoned by the last Conservative government.

For me the issue of poverty is the defining one. Labour is working to reduce it. The Tories would not. QED for me.
112

salmondella,

UK 05/12/2008 12:28:35
So the SNP are in trouble over their ill thought out LIT. No surprise when looking at their record of
" achievement" since last year. This is another example of incompetent leadership from Salmond and the serious opposition to the LIT spells the end for the LIT. Along with Labours present come back these could spell the end of the SNP whose future now looks even bleaker since Glenrothes. Can the SNP themselves come back? - I doubt it.










113

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 12:28:46
#118 Good grief. That's truly bizarre. You post evidence that Salmond pursued a coalition with the Lib Dems, and then say that minority government was always his choice.

I'm at a loss to understand how those things can stand together.
114

Nevsky,

Moscow 05/12/2008 12:33:27
119 Duncan#

Labour have done some decent things (no more than that) but unemployment is heading into larger figures than labour inherited which by any strech of the imagination is a complete failure!

They have invested nothing in the economy other than loosining financial regulations and accumulating a society of 'perceived' wealth on inflating debt.

Labour have been fiddling the figures for years and if you take into account those not claiming benefit and the sick the figures are astonishing.

Labour have also created an inner city underclass with the worst living conditions, the worst education and the worst life expectancy in Europe!

These are Labour folk after all and have been thrown onto the scrap heap by the party they trusted!

Take off the glasses!
115

brownlie,

05/12/2008 12:33:43
119 Duncan

"Have all combined to lift people out of poverty"?

If that is the case why are so many people living in poverty in Scotland after a decade of Labour party "redistribution of wealth"?

There has been a redistribution of wealth but not to the poor. Would you not agree that, today, under Labour the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer?

Has this Labour policy enriched the lives, those that are left, of the poor in Iraq and can we rely in Obama to tell us how to run the country?
116

brownlie,

05/12/2008 12:37:20
120 salmond

Yes, we unionists have to cling desperately to the Glenrothes result but, as Linda Lovelace said "One swallow does not make a summer".
117

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 12:39:45
#122 If you are going to argue that the global recession is the fault of Gordon Brown then I'm not going to bother engaging with you because it is a ludicrous position.

#122 and #123 Redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor has happened on a major scale in the last 10 years. Yes, there are still poor people. There is still work to do. But the poor have not got poorer under Labour. That is an unsubstantiatable allegation.

Look at www.poverty.org.uk, or your favourite statistics aggregator, and looks at the trends before and after 1997. That is the difference Labour made, and for me it is worth all the rest of the stuff. I'm not a Labour apologist, I wouldn't defend them if I didn't know they were making a real difference. They are. I don't want to go back to Tory rule; I remember it too well.
118

Miss H,

05/12/2008 12:44:04
121 Take a deep breath Duncan and read what I have said again.

The SNP wanted to be in government. Alex Salmond was desperate to be in government – if you had said that I would have agreed. Where you went wrong is in saying he was desperate to be in a coalition with the Lib Dems. No he wasn’t.

The fact that there were talks with the Lib Dems does not mean that they were desperate, or even about a coalition.

The SNP’s first priority would have been to stop the Lib Dems agreeing to go back into coalition with Labour. Their second priority would have been to get the Lib Dems to agree to an SNP Government. That could have taken the form of a coalition or not. Even without being in any kind of coalition they needed to get either the support of other parties or at the very least a commitment not to vote against them. They got that from everyone but Labour.
119

Nevsky,

Moscow 05/12/2008 12:45:29
125 Duncan#

Ahh i see you are repeating Gordon's line in the hope that people will buy it. Sorry Duncan it doesn't wash!

Brown opened up the banks and he knew where the money was coming from and the riske, either that or he is an incompetant fool who should never have been in charge in the first place.

Brown is not responsible for the global recession but he IS responsible for the UK suffering the deepest and the most severe of ANY of the developed countries.

That is why the £ is sinking like a stone!



120

alanh,

ek 05/12/2008 12:45:30
#20
"Slag all ye want, but here is the 'Bet' of realism!

Walk down Princes Street in Edinburgh or any busy shopping centre in Scotland, and ask 100 people at random this Question!

"Do you think if Salmond was in Power, He would help your Life Style and 'Purse Stings'?

The Answer would be from a 98%,..'A BIG FATS NO !!!!"

would this be the people that have NOT had their hated council tax frozen, their bridge tolls abolished, help with their uni fees and lower prescription charges from OUR govt?

rather than we can have cake today Gordon and pay 10 times for it tomorrow?



121

Ewan Oosami,

05/12/2008 12:46:36
#124 I have a badge which says I choked that woman
122

Miss H,

05/12/2008 12:48:15
Brown is not responsible for the global recession, however he is responsible for the housing bubble in the UK which is what has made the recession so much worse here than elsewhere.

123

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 12:50:44
#126 Sorry Miss H, I don't think your argument has any steam left at all. We know that offers of coalition deals were made to the Lib Dems because SNP and Lib Dem figures have spoken openly about them. There is simply no way to revise that history and suggest that Salmond always wanted minority government, which is what you did in #68. He didn't. He wanted a coalition. It's a fact, supported by evidence, widely acknowledged, and I have never even heard anyone try to deny it until you today.
124

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 12:51:54
#116 Nevsky

You seem to be accusing me of being “selective” to mask your own lack of truthfulness. Best form of defence, is it?

Here is the poll, direct from YouGov’s website. Last question on page 3.
http://www.yougov.com/uk/archives/pdf/Scottish%20ST%20toplines.pdf

31% were opposed, not 22%. So you have made two false statements: that a majority support LIT and that only 22% actively oppose it. Would you care to admit that or are you going to continue to fly in the face of demonstrable facts?
125

brownlie,

05/12/2008 12:53:17
125 Duncan

"The poor have not got poorer under Labour". Does that mean that the poor did not get poorer as a result of the 10p tax debacle?

So what you're saying is that Labour are the lesser of two evils? Have you considered the alternatives who really want to make a difference to people's lives?
126

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 12:54:31
#127 I agree with you on one point - some aspects of regulation of some financial services businesses were handled badly. That's hardly the same thing as "Labour caused the recession" though. And that doesn't change my mind about who I want running the country because the Tories were calling for further deregulation of financial services until April *this year*, when suddenly they became the party of prudence after the horse had bolted.
127

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 12:56:02
#133 You imply that neither the Tories nor Labour want to make a difference to people's lives? How silly. Of course they do.

Who do you suggest to run the UK then?
128

Miss H,

05/12/2008 12:57:14
133 That is the line.

Vote Labour cause they are better than the Tories.

Fine. As long as you accept that you are trapped in a dimension where the only choice is between Labour and Tory.
129

Nevsky,

Moscow 05/12/2008 13:02:21
132 AM2#

I rather take offence at being accused of a 'lack of truthfulness' so i would appreciate you taking that statement back!

I did one quick google search and lifted the figures from there based on your figure of 46% in favour.

You are the one who choses not to include other figures so if anyone can be accused of 'masking the truth' it is you i am afraid.

I have made not 'false' statement. A majority does support LIT doestn't it?

46% in favour and 31% against gives i believe a majority in favour doesn't it? Perhaps i am missing something?

Back to the parking lot AM and polish a few cars!
130

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 13:08:16
#137 Nevsky

The Times article to which I linked above said 31% - plain as day.

Feel free to the URL of the page which said 22% so that we can see that you were mislead rather than untruthful.

I posted links to all the available figures.

46% in favour even if 45% declared themselves opposed isn't a majority.
131

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 13:08:40
125 Labour are the party who have promised to cut benefits from people who don't work, despite the looming recession. How can they be construed as a party who favours the poor ?

Nonsense.
132

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 13:08:44
Feel free to *post* the URL...
133

Nevsky,

Moscow 05/12/2008 13:09:11
132 AM#

Oh bye the way how is you slightly disturbing, amusing and trabal blog coming on?

Any more than 6 unionist subscribers yet or are you still taking time to 'ponder the deeper implications of your political philosophy'

Ready to unleash your world changing ideas yet or still mulling it over with a cup of coffee in a parking lot?
134

brownlie,

05/12/2008 13:10:45
135 Duncan

I see that you make no comment on the 10p debacle or that thousands of Iraqis are poorer, physcially, financially and in spirit because of Labour's policies.

Labour and Tory policies are so identical that it matters little, therefore, who runs the lost cause that the UK has descended into over the last few decades.

There is an alternative for Scotland though which must be better than having to decide to support a party whose policies you are directly opposed to, solely, on the basis that they are the lesser of two evils. Lesser or not, evil is still evil.
135

TWC,

05/12/2008 13:11:50
120 salmondella,

Labour are finished , even the Tories have more credibility than New Labour. Certainly they have policies to push in Scotland, Labour have nothing; not even Calman's excuse for a report. It has disappeared over the hill with it's ER$E on fire.
136

Alan B,

05/12/2008 13:12:02
#Duncan

"If you are going to argue that the global recession is the fault of Gordon Brown"

Brown is largely responsible for the mess the uk is in. Being so overwhelming responsible for the uk economic policy then he has to take responsibility for the errors.

While the global recession is due to US lending practices that the uk has also followed. The Germans interestingly were blaming the global recession on anglo saxon economic policy and lets face it that is true.

It is difficult to come to any other conclusion that Browns was completely economically incompetent. With the exception of making the BOE indepdendent there is nothing that brown did that was not a disaster in relation to the main tenants of economic mgt.

He said he would control government expenditure and not do as pervious labour governments and as such announce his golden rule. Problem is after the first couple of yrs he decided to break and fudge it. It is for this reason public finances are in a mess and we have deficits of ridiculous proportions.

In opposition he said he would control house prices. Controlling inflation as you know is the key to economic management. In power he did not even try. He changed the inflation target to cpi which did not include housing cost and did not get the BOE to target the money supply (growth of credit) like the EU bank. Neither did he use quanitive control measures.

As such we ended up with record personal debt which was always going to end up in tears. And a banking system that borrowed to finance that profitable lending which is the main reason for the collapse in the uk banking system. Most other countries do not have our degree of problems.

Brown is even responsible for the new FSA regulation of the banks that lead to the failure. Do you honestly think it is ok that brown allowed banks like NR to offshore mortgage debt to charities that never saw the money to avoid capital requirements, fsa regulation and tax. Brown should have resigned
137

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 13:12:29
#141 Nevsky

You wouldn't by any chance be trying to change the subject, would you?
138

Alan B,

05/12/2008 13:12:31
...for that issue alone.

And finally when you look at how the imf sees the performance of the uk related to other european countries you can see our recession will be deeper with more debt incurred as a result.

As for saying you back this incredbily inept government just becuase they are not the tories. Could the tories have made a worse mess. Also as for your memory on previous governments. If we are not going to vote in a previously poor government then labour would never get elected again after the 70s where inflation was 25%, the country was bankrupt having to go to the imf for bannana republic like loans, the labour party were the only party ever to cut the nhs expenditure in real terms despite all the labour lies about thatcher, industry was a shambles and completely inefficient and unions decimated the economy.

The other conclusion of what you say that you support labour becuase you hate the tories is it shows the mess of the uk. Vote for an incompetent governemtn over and over again because you do not like the alternative. With economic devolution then we would have a choice of parties much closer in ideological view point and not anti scottish like the thatcher tories. And we could vote for a party on competence.
139

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 13:14:42
142 - I would say that the Tories are better on civil liberties.

Labour HAVE made a difference to some people through pension credits and working tax credits, but this is offset by the increased poverty that single people are experiencing, the forthcoming attack on single parents on those on incapaicty benefit, and the hyper house price inflation which has left many people living a fur coat and nae knickers lifestyle because their mortgages are so expensive. That's the ones who aren't up to their eyeballs in personal debt, the real legacy of Labour.
140

Miss H,

05/12/2008 13:14:52
131 Mm, hmm.

An alternative reading would be that you wrote that Alex Salmond was ‘desperate’ to get into coalition with the Lib Dems just as a throw away comment because you like to think of Alex Salmond being desperate about anything at all. Having done so, you are so stubborn that it is literally impossible for you to say OK maybe he wasn’t actually desperate, perhaps I exaggerated a tad. Maybe he was just looking at all the options.

That’s OK, we who read your comments are used to that by now.

141

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/12/2008 13:18:01
#21 Charles

You are an ill-informed idiot !
142

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 13:18:54
I've had a look, Nevsky, but I can't find the page which proves that you were mislead rather than lying about the 22%. What did you type into Google?

(Wouldn't it be convenient if you couldn't remember?)
143

brownlie,

05/12/2008 13:20:16
AM2

If 46% are for and only 31% opposed and presumably 23% don't know or are indifferent than logically the majority are for LIT.
144

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/12/2008 13:24:05
#30 AM2

Interesting list. A bit meaningless however. For example, an accountant friend and many of his fellow accountants are angry that they were not consulted by the ICA on the LIT proposal. To say that an organisation opposes LIT is NOT the same as saying that their members agree. I would suggest that there is a political motive at play.
145

Nevsky,

Moscow 05/12/2008 13:24:17
145 AM2#

Not in the slightest, just don't feel the need to 'prove' anything to someone who is happy to accuse a poster of being a liar with no basis whatsoever.


146

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 13:24:56
#137/151 46% cannot be a majority. It is in fact a minority. Happy to help.
147

Alan B,

05/12/2008 13:25:09
#134 Duncan

That does not really make sense. I think you do not understand the way the economy works.

You do not necessarily need more regulation. What you need is good economic management, good enforsement of current regualation.

The current problems are not a result of lack of regulation per se. They are a result of poor economic management. Like many things there are many ways to skin and cat and to some extend different people will take different approaches. It is the result that counts.

For instance early thatcher economic policy was based on an economic philosophy called monetarism (friedman). The basis tenant of it was to target the money supply ie the growth of credit to control inflation. (Labuor in the 70s used incomes policies.) Teh european central bank targets money supply today. By doing this it is one way to control the growth of credit (ie altering the cost of credit to that end) and as such you would have averted much of the uk economic problems. ie the economic fundamantals would have been better. And as such banks would not have been exposed. There exposure was the failure to control the growth of credit.

In economic terms there is little doubt brown was completely clueless. I would say the previous tory chancellors made many mistakes but in general were alot more competent (yes the tories were anti scottish and we did not get a good deal but that is another issue). Lawson for instance over reacted to the stock market collapse in 88 and that created the inflation and then the associated recession as the inflation was dealt with. The other problem was with lawson wanting one strategy and thatcher another and we did neither. Howe was much more difficult to judge as he truely inheritted a shambles and at a time of deep recession. Arguably he was too anti inflation and that cause interest rates to be too high and hence damaged industry.

So while the tory chancellors did make mistakes there were not as down right clueless about econo
148

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 13:25:12
#151 brownlie

Gosh. That's quite an argument. So if 25% favoured independence, 24% favoured each of greater fiscal powers, the status quo and reduced powers and the remaining 3% were undecided that would be a majority mandate for independence, would it?

Wow, democracy in action! Roll on November 2010. :-)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=majority
"Majority" means more than half the total number.
149

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 13:26:12
#148 Miraculous lack of self-awareness in that personal attack. I thought better of you than that.
150

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 13:26:44
If only 31% oppose, then the remainder don't oppose or don't have an opinion. I would say they constitute the majority. The same poll had the SNP increasing it's seats in Holyrood from 1 to 23.
151

Observer. 1,

05/12/2008 13:27:28
oops meant lead in Holyrood seats from 1 to 23
152

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 13:28:17
I'd forgotten how much fun this site could be!

Nevsky, do you agree with Brownlie that 2% can be a "majority" if the other 98% are split equally between 98 other options?
153

Alan B,

05/12/2008 13:28:38
cont .. clueless about economics as Brown. The worst ideological economic decision of those yrs was thatchers insistence on mortage interest tax relief which undermined her chancellors monetary policy.
154

Observer. 1,

05/12/2008 13:29:53
157 Majority means more than hald the total number ? Since when - this is politics. If a political party needed more than half the available vote to implement policy we would not have any laws.

If only 31 % oppose, and 46% approve, that is a majority in political terms.
155

Alan B,

05/12/2008 13:30:40
You guys are arguing about semantics.

It is not an overall majority but it is a majority of those that express an opinion.

If people are not bothered or not interested they cannot be view as supporting one side or the other.
156

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 13:30:51
#144/147 I think both your arguments are simply against the current government because they are the current government. The actions of banks precipitated the problems faced by banks. Regulation does not define behaviour, it merely limits it. The banks decided what to do. Similarly, the rate of personal debt is down to the decisions made by those individuals. Brown is as much responsible for my level of debt as the head of the local education board where I grew is responsible for my school results.
157

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 13:30:55
Hey, where has Nevsky gone anyway?

Nevsky: the page you claim exists is in your browser history. Just post the URL.
158

English flag,

05/12/2008 13:31:20
151.the great unwashed out there aren't qualified to express an opinion until poll tax 2 actually happens. How many of those 46% who are for it are aware that a CT like charge will remain for water and sewerage or that the Nats' quoted rate of 3p is totally unrealistic?

Just watch opinion swing against poll tax 2 as fast as it did against its predecessor (if it ever sees the light of day, that is!) Is the flag right or is she right!
159

Doh,

05/12/2008 13:32:22
#97 Duncan

Are you sure you arent a member of the Labour party, why not?

The LibDems did *not* enter a coalition with the SNP at any cost - thus rather negating your cheap accusation of opportunism.

In fact the LibDem view was that there was not a majority to form a stable coalition and agree on issues such as the budget and referendum. That should have been debated before, or during, the election not after.

Maybe some people can remember Gordon Brown's offer of cabinet places to the LibDems - that too was turned down as being insincere and based on a common policies.

Labour opportunism has however been rife -
War in Iraq
ID cards and 42-day detention
10p tax rise on the poor

All playing to the Daily Mail readership in the hope of re-election. Labour are sickening.





160

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 13:32:29
#164/5 Oh dear. We have gone through the looking glass I fear. That means that the SNP is a majority government. So why are they having all this trouble?

Hahaha.
161

brownlie,

05/12/2008 13:33:01
157 AM2

Don't you "gosh" and "wow" me, you patronising pedant.

I am not one of your simple sycophantic acolytes.

We are not talking about anything other than the simple fact that at least 15% MORE people are for LIT then there are against. Is that simple enough for you to understand?
162

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 13:33:06
#165 AlanB

Refer back to Nevsky's actual claim. It's in post #41. He claimed that "the majority of Scots" support the SNP's local income tax proposal.

That is clearly false.
163

Alan B,

05/12/2008 13:33:16
#AM2

"So if 25% favoured independence, 24% favoured each of greater fiscal powers, the status quo and reduced powers and the remaining 3% were undecided that would be a majority mandate for independence, would it?"

On that basis independence would win on a first past the post system :) (depending on how you split the rest obviously)
164

Observer. 1,

05/12/2008 13:33:48
167 don't be so smart - you're the one who's made a boo boo talking about absolute majorities in a political context.
165

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 13:34:16
#172 Brownlie

"Gosh" and "wow" are simply expressions of surprise.

If you feel patronised then that's your issue.
166

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/12/2008 13:34:57
#59 Duncan

Coal-fired power stations.
167

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 13:35:46
#175 Observer

Read Nevsky's post #41. It's not true, is it?

Then read Nevsky's #105. It's also false, isn't it?
168

Tris,

05/12/2008 13:36:25

Thank goodness the council tax will be saved.

As a very rich person, I'm MUCH better off under it.

Obviously I don't give a flying whatsit about you poor people. If you can't afford your heating bills goto the South of France for the winter; if you can't afford that then burn your possessions; if you don't have any possessions... well... I don't know, and I don't care either.

I'm fine. The lovely Labour and Tory Parties are looking after the likes of me on £200,000 a year.
169

Alan B,

05/12/2008 13:37:23
#173 AM2

I think it is a silly semantical argument. As i say from the polls you guys follow (not that interest in it myself) there is no absolute majority but a majority of those who express an opinion.

I can understand the validity of not including those that do not express an opinion.

Abit like a referendum on an issue say EU. There is little point in looking at those that do not vote.

As you know i do not support LIT but the right of the scottish parliament to implement it if it can get support in the scottish parliament. Although i would probably support a referendum on it. As i like the idea of referendum questions attached to elections US style.

170

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 13:37:35
#175 Don't be ridiculous. Majority means the same thing in whatever context. There isn't a majority of people in favour of the SNP's LIT proposal, just as there isn't a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament held by the government.
171

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 13:38:10
Later folks. I'll pop back later to see if Nevsky's been man enough to admit his, erm, "errors".
172

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 13:38:56
#179 When on earth did Labour claim to have a majority of the popular vote? No party has had for decades. I very much doubt Labour ever made such a claim.
173

Nevsky,

Moscow 05/12/2008 13:39:03
167 Am2#

Think i have already responded haven't i? I found the figure 22% opposed and 46% against from March 2008 and here is another one for you from the herald a few days ago:

'Out of 430 people who responded to its [snp] consultation paper on a 3p local income tax, 55% thought it was the fairest form of taxation'

mmmm..55% and a majority so again that is that unless you can show a majority of Scots against?
174

Shredder,

05/12/2008 13:39:28
I'm of the opinion that the rot has already set in for the Nationalists: the CT freeze policy is now being copied by Cameron (funny that!), but it'll go down better in England than Scotland, where Scots' sense of social justice will induce such a backlash against resultant Tartan Tory cuts that the case for poll tax 2 (such as it is!) won't get much of a hearing.
175

brownlie,

05/12/2008 13:40:36
180 AM2

I would suggest to you that you would gain a modicum of respect on these pages if you were less transparently patronising and arrogant both on here, under your multiple monikers, and, indeed, on your web-site.
176

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 13:41:07
178, post number 41 is imperfectly phrased. It should have read the majority of Scots (who expressed an opinion).

But they are the ones who count.

On post 105 I agree with Nevsky - the opinions expressed by bodies such as the STUC and UNISON are not necessarily reflective of their membership.

Eg UNISON - I wasn't asked and I'm an active member, and the beriefing was written by Dave Watson, who is a senior Labour Party activist.

So I would take assertion that your ''list'' is representative of Scottish public opinion with a pillar of salt.

177

Nevsky,

Moscow 05/12/2008 13:42:17
183 AM2#

No errors and no apology from me i am afraid and certainly not to the likes of you.

178

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/12/2008 13:43:27
#173 AM2

"Refer back to Nevsky's actual claim. It's in post #41. He claimed that "the majority of Scots" support the SNP's local income tax proposal.

That is clearly false."

I'm surprised at you AM2. This is a poll. It is perfectly possible that a majority of Scots support LIT. I would go as far as saying it is perfectly likely, given that the majority will benefit from LIT.
179

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 13:45:11
182 the majority of people voted for the SNP in comparison with any other party. The majority of people would vote for LIT if we beleive AM2's poll, not an absolute majority, but a majority of those who voted. Politics does not need absolute majorities, it couldn't function if that was a requirement.
180

brownlie,

05/12/2008 13:45:29
180 Tris

Sorry, Tris, that was for AM2/an other at #176.

PS Can I come to your Xmas party, please?
181

Alan B,

05/12/2008 13:45:56
#Shredder

I think you are peddling the myth that higher taxes equates to social justice.
182

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 13:46:49
Quite a display here today. An assertion that Alex Salmond always wanted a minority government, despite unimpeachable evidence that he pursued coalition, and an assertion that 46% is a majority. And then the now traditional complaints that we end up arguing "semantics" as if we could have discussions without shared meanings.

Yes, all in all a classic Scotsman comment thread.
183

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 13:50:23
#192 I have been arguing in favour of PR for Westminster elections for many years. If that was your point, you failed to put it across, since I would have jumped at the chance to agree with you.

The FPTP system in Westminster needs to be reformed. But that doesn't mean that Labour have claimed that 30-odd percent is a majority!
184

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 13:52:38
#200 Actually 55% thought that local income tax was the fairest form. 55% did not think that the SNP's proposal was the fairest form, what with the SNP's proposal being a national income tax.
185

Scunnert,

05/12/2008 13:53:33
"SNP suffers its first defeat over tax plans"

Oh my god - a minority government lost a vote. How can this be possible? Will Murphy agree to prorogue parliament?
186

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 13:53:47
#185 #190 Nevsky

March 2008, eh? Go on... post the URL. Let us see it exists. ;-)

Why cite an imagined March 2008 poll when in post #99 I had already posted a link to a September poll?

Respondents to a consultation paper are in no way a representative sample.

"The likes of you" - charming! Please explain.
187

Nevsky,

Moscow 05/12/2008 13:54:54
197 Duncan#

I just fail to see what the problem is here? The outcome of the question was that 46% are in favour and that 22% to 31% are against!

That is a majority in favour isn't it or if it isn't a majority in favour then what is it?



188

Alan B,

05/12/2008 13:55:54
#203 Duncan

And you say your are not arguing about semanitics. You are the worst for trying to interpret something in a way that was not intended by the poster.

"Actually 55% thought that local income tax was the fairest form. 55% did not think that the SNP's proposal was the fairest form, what with the SNP's proposal being a national income tax."

The herald link clearly said the poll was on the snp's LIT proposals.
189

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 13:56:29
#206 It's a minority in favour! How hard is that to grasp!?
190

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/12/2008 13:56:45
#95 duncan

Words like "fevered" and "desperate" are immotive. This is why you are losing the argument !
191

Tris,

05/12/2008 13:57:51
#194....

Well, I was being a tad of the sarcastic side, as you might have guessed.... Actually sitting here with 4 layers of clothing on and tapping my feet to try to get some circulation back.... but you're vey welcome to come to my Christmas party.... can you bring stuff?

Actually, maybe we can get an invite to Spook's mum and dad's place?

Whatcha think Spook?
192

Observer. 1,

05/12/2008 13:58:05
208 now you are talking semantics. It's a majority of those who care.
193

Alan B,

05/12/2008 13:58:44
#206 Nevsky

That is a majority of people that expressed an opinion. An overall majority would be more than 50% of all those asked.

As i say those picking you up are just being pedantic by trying to interpret your statement as an over all majority and not a majority of those that expressed an opinion.

As such the whole argument detracts from what your point was. I more people apparently support lit ie a majority of those that have an opinion.
194

Hugh Roscombe,

05/12/2008 13:59:49
The BNP is against the poll tax. It therefore must be a good idea.
195

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 13:59:59
#207 Oh Alan. I don't say that at all. I say that all argument is about semantics. Without shared meanings we cannot discuss anything. It would be like trying to talk about voting with two different definitions of the word "majority". Ludicrous.

You need to read the Herald article again. Or go to the Scottish Government website where the original data is shown. The 55% figure was for "local income tax" NOT the version proposed in the consultation paper, since the SNP maintain to this day that that is not a proposal, merely an option for discussion.

trust me, I'm right on this one. I participated in that consultation and followed it through.
196

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 14:00:52
#210 You haven't addressed the point. Stop yanking my chain.
197

The Master,

05/12/2008 14:01:18
#93 Mr H: " The Greens are on our side in case you have not noticed."

It's funny, then, that the Greens weren't willing to enter into a full coalition with the Nats (mainly because of their Tartan Tory desire to creat a pro business, growth driven Scottish economy).
198

Alan B,

05/12/2008 14:02:31
#Spook

"if an independence referendum had 45% saying yes, 40% saying no and 5% did not know then i take it we could follow the same rule as Westminster and go with the option with the largest amount of votes."

Not if labour run the referendum. Labours referendum in 79 meant the with a 50% turnout you needed 80% of the vote to win.

As such the scottish assembly of 79 which produced a majority of people who voted in support of that assembly were denied it.
199

The Master,

05/12/2008 14:02:51
#217: what a coincidence! I've just completed my usual trick of suddenly appearing after you name check me.
200

brownlie,

05/12/2008 14:02:59
197 Duncan

Quite a display here today.

An admission that voting Labour is the lesser of two evil.

An inability to work out that 46 is higher than 31.

An inability to recognise that British and Iraqis are "poorer" due to Labour's policies.

201

Hugh Roscombe,

05/12/2008 14:04:56
TNS System 3 poll 23 - 29 April 2008

Do you support Salmond's plans to scrap council tax and raise income tax to 23p:

Support: 46%

Oppose: 31%

Don't know: 23%

Looks like a majority of those polled.
202

Alan B,

05/12/2008 14:05:18
#The Master

Labour proably rejected a coalition wiht the snp for the same reason. As we can see from their time in power labour had no "desire to creat a pro business, growth driven Scottish economy".

Instead labour persued a slow growing economy in relative decline for scotland with a whole shed of debt.

203

alanh,

ek 05/12/2008 14:06:44
are the unionist back to using the old if you dont express an option/opinion/vote then it counts as a No.

will this be how they try to fix the 2010 referundum ?
204

Hugh Roscombe,

05/12/2008 14:11:19
Scotsman 25 Nov 2008
"Help the Aged has "laid into" the Scottish Government's local income tax plan."

Scotsman 29 Nov 2008
"It was quite a surprise to discover that Help the Aged has "laid into" the Scottish Government's local income tax plan (your report, 25 November), since the charity has categorically done no such thing."
ELIZABETH DUNCAN
Director
Help the Aged in Scotland

I believe nothing. Nothing ah tells ye.
205

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 14:11:27
#210 Spook

"...now AM2 has been booted off."

Hmm. If you say so.

#222 Brownlie

Of course 46 is higher than 22. But it's not higher than 50.
206

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

05/12/2008 14:11:49
Considering all the possible proposals, including retaining Council Tax, is something I have been calling on for ages.

I should add that I don't particularly support the retention of Council tax but if we are going to replace it we should recognise explicitly why it needs replaced. Moreover, the argument thus far has been about the existing Council Tax and has completely ignored reforming the Council Tax.

Certainly an argument could be made to bring in more directed assistance for groups such as pensioners who have been worst affected by Council Tax. A case could also be made for more frequent, independent revaluations. It would be far better than the nonsense of basing bands on notional 1991 values.

Personally though I would rather have a complete overhaul of local taxation and there are definitely more radical alternatives out there than a reformed Council Tax.

(to be continued)
207

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 14:11:53
#222 This majority thing is just silly. The fact that 46% is higher than 31% does not make it a majority, and never will.

#223 No it doesn't! A majority has to be more than half! When did this become such an ill-understood term? 100% were polled, 46% stated support, that is a *minority*. It is the largest minority, just as the SNP's seat in the parliament are the largest minority, but it is implacably a *minority*.
208

,

05/12/2008 14:12:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
209

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 14:13:08
#226 alanh

Not voting doesn't count as a yes or no. Why would it?

210

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

05/12/2008 14:13:23
(#230 continued)

Whatever system is put in place must, in my opinion, strengthen not lessen the accountability role of local taxation. However it is because the financial and functional relationship between central, Scottish and local government is so intertwined that accountability is a real problem.

In truth, since and before devolution, Scottish and central government has habitually managed its own expenditure by forcing local government to take on Scottish and central government responsibilities. Consequently, many Scottish Councils have had to raise Council tax year after year to cope with these increased financial pressures.

It is this deep-seated dilemma that must be dealt with if any logical system for local government finances is to be created. The functions and finances of local government must be divorced from those of the Scottish and central Governments.

One could argue that the problem is not Council Tax per se but much more fundamental and deep-rooted problems. Any new tax must not only deal with the flaws of the Council tax but also the deep-seated issue of local accountability.

211

Nevsky,

Moscow 05/12/2008 14:13:37
231 Duncan#

If a motion before parliament gains a ve of 46% in favour and 31% against is that motion carried or not?
212

TWC,

05/12/2008 14:14:13
187 Shredder,
The Rot has indeed set in.

In the general election Labour will have to come up with alternative proposals not just local lies; they can't hide behind Calman on costitutional matters; their Economic Blunders will be obvious to all; Iraq will be a thorn in their side; They need a Council Tax replacement,in fact they are really pathetic now.

M-M-M-M- Mr Speaker Global Global Global (Chritmas Turkey) then the mantra list like Germany in the 30s

Brown is a liability none of us can afford - my pension and my savings are at risk and remember he also capped Company pension increases at 2.5%

Labour have to go.
213

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 14:17:59
#236 You don't seem to grasp the problem here. You claimed a majority. It isn't a majority. All you have to do is say "more people voted for that option than any other" and you would be home and dry. Instead you want to squirm your way through a series of embarrassments as you try to prove 46 = 51. It never will.

Majority is an extremely well-defined term, and semantics are important. Can we just agree to use the accepted definitions of words in future?
214

Hugh Roscombe,

05/12/2008 14:18:31
BBC

"Former cabinet minister Peter Hain will not face charges for the late declaration of £103,000 of donations to his Labour deputy leadership bid."

Quelle surprise!
215

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 14:18:46
#232 Nevsky

No, I haven't found it. Much was made in September of the support for the SNP's LIT having slid to 46%. It was a startling figure because at one point last year, before the LIT's flaws started being widely discussed, support was at 88%. The fall to 46% was rightly characterised as a collapse in popular support. And that news broke in September, not March.

So I repeat my simple challenge to you. If a March poll showing 46% support and 22% against exists, just post the URL. Can't you find it on YouGov, ICM or whoever's website? After all, you cited it! Just post the URL and then we'll know you didn't just invent the 22% figure.
216

Hugh Roscombe,

05/12/2008 14:19:33
238 Duncan

Semantics. We all knew what the poster meant. You have a habit of twisting posts (Oooh matron).
217

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/12/2008 14:20:24
#155 duncan & 157 AM2

"http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=majority
"Majority" means more than half the total number."

I invite you to explain the common political usage of the word "majority" when saying that Candidate X had 8% more votes than Candidate Y, which is a majority of Z Thousand.

That kind of holes your agrument below the waterline !
218

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 14:20:48
#236 Nevsky

I'll answer that. It's carried. But it's not a majority of parliamentarians.

You claimed that a majority of Scots support LIT. That's not true.
219

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 14:21:58
#242 Connaughyboy

You're late to the thread. Read post #41. It isn't true.
220

salmondella,

UK 05/12/2008 14:23:50
#143TWC - "Labour are finished" - A poor analysis of the present political position and more like wishful thinking than facing the facts that whatever the wrongs of the past, Brown and Labour have made a remarkable recovery from there standing within the electorate from the position that they were in before the collapse of the banking system. Latest polls ( Times) have them neck and neck with the Tories nationally, hardly a party that is finished. Why don't you ask Salmond if he thinks Labour is finished and he will put you right - as a leader it is his job to know the facts, however unpalatable they may be to him or you.
221

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 14:24:56
I'll say one thing for you, Nevsky. You're not alone in your false claims. Alex Salmond has twice mislead the Scottish Parliament about this, at one point even making the outrageous claim that his LIT plan “carries a consensus support of the Scottish people”.
222

alanh,

ek 05/12/2008 14:25:00
#233 AM2
"#226 alanh

Not voting doesn't count as a yes or no. Why would it?"

it counted as a NO when it suited Labour in '79

223

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

05/12/2008 14:25:20
"#9 Dougie Douglas,Brisbane 05/12/2008 01:14:12
Can someone explain to me how a motion to consider other tax forms is a defeat for the SNP's plans?"

Unless this is a different article from that earlie, it does make quite clear that the SNP tabled an amendment and were defeated:

"An SNP amendment declaring the council tax to be discredited, claiming it should be abolished and saying that an LIT based on ability to pay is a fairer system of local taxation, was defeated."
224

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 14:26:05
Misled. Ouch!
225

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 14:26:39
#242 What a pointless attempt to reignite a pointless argument. The original statement was that 46% represented a majority of people in favour of the LIT proposals. That will never be true, no matter how much obfuscation you attempt. 46% was, is and will always be a minority.
226

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 14:26:49
#247 alanh

No it didn't. It just didn't count as a yes.
227

Alan B,

05/12/2008 14:27:13
#AM2

"Not voting doesn't count as a yes or no. Why would it?"

Because that is effectively the way labour ran the 79 referendum.
228

The Sprucer,

05/12/2008 14:27:48
#243

NB If the majority of people living in this country thought seriously about the benefits of LIT as opposed to their beloved Council Tax they certainly would not having any qualms in ditching the latter. But such is the negativity surrounding the LIT because the more affluent in our society (a joint salary of over £46,000 per annum in each household according to John Swinney) will have to pay more. I do not earn anywhere near that so therefore I would be paying less through an LIT set up.

And I happen to be in the majority.
229

Alan B,

05/12/2008 14:28:11
#247 alanh

Sorry did not see you had already made that point.
230

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 14:28:31
#250 Duncan

I'm enjoying keeping it going. But enough self-indulgence. Cheers!
231

The Sprucer,

05/12/2008 14:29:53

The negativity I was referring to in my previous email was not in any way a negativity on the part of the public but on the part of the media. Any old snipe at the SNP will do.

AM2 - would you lose out of this financially? Be honest.
232

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/12/2008 14:29:57
From the BBC, results for Aberdeen Central in May 2007:

"Lewis MacDonald LAB 7,232 34.2 +1.6
Karen Shirron SNP 6,850 32.4 +5.7
John Stewart LD 4,693 22.2 -0.4
Andrew Jones CON 2,345 11.1 -1.4
MAJORITY 382 1.8
Turnout 21,120 45.3 +3.0" [my capitals]

This is how it works in the real world guys. I suspect you have both used the word in this context yourselves (duncan and AM2). Just accept defeat graciously for once !
233

alanh,

05/12/2008 14:29:59
# your wrong AM2 it counted as a NO

The MAJORITY of people who voted in the referendum voted for an Assembly and we never got one then because of the fixed system that labour gave us. In this case not botherring to get off yer butt to vote counted as a NO

234

Alan B,

05/12/2008 14:30:57
#Duncan

Do you support in principle a property tax for local government or LIT (i know you would want it locally set)?
235

Nevsky,

Moscow 05/12/2008 14:31:15
243 AM2#

A majority of those Scots questioned supported LIT as opposed to those who do not support it, therefore the majority support it as far as i am concerned.

Regarding your challenge as far as i am aware it is up to you to prove that no poll exists and in those circustances you could say that i lied (which i never have on this site).

Otherwise it's slighty more dignified for you to aplologise isn't it?

But from someone as arrogant as you i won't hold me breath!
236

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 14:33:23
#256 Sprucer

No. I'd be sitting pretty with a LIT unless dividend income was included - which could never happen without it being seen as a pension grab.
237

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/12/2008 14:33:56
#182 duncan

"Don't be ridiculous. Majority means the same thing in whatever context."

Hee hee hee (duncan making himself sound ridiculous, again)
238

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 14:34:24
#253 I think there are quite different qualms afoot about the SNP's proposals for a national income tax increase to cover the local government funding currently supplied by council tax. That it represents a removal of £750 million or so from local authority budgets each year. That it lets the very richest off scot-free. That it means local authorities will not be able to be held to account for their spending, since their entire budget will come from central funds. That either lower income areas will suffer or higher income areas will suffer, since funds will either be redistributed across authority areas taking money away fro the richer ones, or won't be, leaving the poorer ones with far less income to play with. Plenty of problems other than the self-interest of the rich.
239

Hugh Roscombe,

05/12/2008 14:34:56
AM2

"If a March poll showing 46% support and 22% against exists, just post the URL."

Go to the following and download the pdf.

http://www.tns-global.com/corporate/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[1AB865229E3CCF4F9730002B3215A0DF]]

240

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 14:35:03
#260 Nevsky

46% of Scots isn't a majority of Scots.

I can't make it any simpler. Bye.
241

Alan B,

05/12/2008 14:35:44
The argument for LIT is much stronger if Brown is running the uk.

With mass unemployment as a result of his economic policies it is better to pay a percentage of your income which will be nothing when you lose your job than a fixed cost which you pay no matter whether you are lucky enough to keep your job or not.

There is something silly in giving someone a payment holiday to try to stop the losing their house and then using the council tax to forse someone into a financial position they would lose their house anyway.

On the other hand with council tax it means that councils can go merrily on spending our money and the public are the only ones having to tighten their belts.

242

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 14:36:01
#259 On balance I support a property or land tax because it maintains a heterogeneous tax base which reduces risk or default and avoidance.
243

Steve 'The Nugget' Davis,

Edinburgh 05/12/2008 14:36:05
Instead of following the LIT principle of basing tax upon ability to pay, how about basing it upon services used? Then, if you send your children to private school you don't have to pay an element of tax for the state education system. If you have private medical insurance you get a rebate from paying tax for the NHS. The same for private dental care, etc.

That seems fairer than basing it on the ability to pay.
244

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/12/2008 14:37:11
Oxford English Dictionary definition of "Majority"

1 the greatest part of a group or class.

2 the number by which votes for one party etc exceed those for the next OR for all combined.

There you have it. Was AM2 being selective with his narrow definition? It appears so. Trust Dunce to jump on the bandwagon !!
245

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 14:37:28
#266 Erm, and how does the local authority function in that circumstance, where no income is coming in?
246

Hugh Roscombe,

05/12/2008 14:37:36
The poll as a tiny.

tinyurl.com/5dsx8y
247

Hugh Roscombe,

05/12/2008 14:38:32
It's a majority of those expressing an interest.
Thick or what?
248

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 14:40:44
#269 Excellent. Then Alex Salmond has a majority government and he has not been defeated in his plan to bring forward the LIT.
249

Hugh Roscombe,

05/12/2008 14:41:29
"A TNS system Three poll between 23-29 April 2008 asked whether people supported or opposed the introduction of a local income tax to replace the Council Tax, and also found 46% in favour, with 22% opposed, and 32% Don't know. "
250

Hugh Roscombe,

05/12/2008 14:42:00
273

Jejune.
251

Miss H,

05/12/2008 14:42:59
The most amusing thing about this story is the headline ‘SNP suffers its first SERIOUS defeat over tax plans.

After months, nay years, of the Scotsman starting stories with ‘The SNP’s plans for a local income tax suffered another crushing blow yesterday when …..’ it’s a bit like them admitting yeah OK, we were only kidding on.

They weren’t really crushing blows, certainly compared to this SERIOUS defeat. In fact what we described as crushing blows were in reality more like comical interludes. Totally non-serious. You didn’t actually believe us, did you? We were just having a laugh.


252

Alan B,

05/12/2008 14:44:10
#Duncan

"Erm, and how does the local authority function in that circumstance, where no income is coming in?"

Conversely how does the person who lost his job afford the payment. Or the person whose income was reduced vastly.

It is either the council or the individual. You have to make the choice who cuts back.

This also illustrates the silliness of browns economic management by spending so much in the good times and not using it to save up for a rainy day.

Also turn your question round abit. Income tax, vat are already big taxes and the government have to cope with that lose of revenue. Why should the individual be hit with a charge and not a percentage of his income. Council tax takes no account of a changes in an individuals circumstances.

It is almost protect the government revenues more that taking account of individual circumstances.

I think it is a genuine serious issue. I support council/property tax in principle but this is one major draw back.
253

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 14:45:26
#276 A bit like "New Persil means you no longer need stain removers in your detergent". News as advertising. Sad.
254

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 14:47:13
#277 You seem to have an odd understanding of what government is - it is the servant of the people. Its money and power comes from us. We cannot make the choice between the government or the individual - both rely on the other.
255

Alan B,

05/12/2008 14:47:19
#Duncan

As a point of accuracy as you are so wanting to point to ambiguous statements of others and desire for i to be dotted and t crossed.

"where no income is coming in?"

is obviously inaccurate. It was reduce income in line with reduction with income earned by the people. It is not no income coming in. Personally i know what you meant and i am not into being pedantic. But it would help if you did not jump down others for the same thing as you have just done.
256

The Sprucer,

05/12/2008 14:48:35

#263

"That it lets the very richest off scot-free."

And how many people are in that category? And how much exactly do they pay at the moment? If a subsequent land tax is introduced does that not cover it in some way?

And wasn't there supposed to be some sort of funding gap which was essentially money at Westminster which was ours. If anyone can give me a serious answer on this I'd like to know.

Still, the council tax is horrendous. And this is a Labour/Tory ride because it's theirs. That simple.
257

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 14:51:33
#280 Fair point. I was responding to your post #266 which referred to "a percentage of your income which will be nothing when you lose your job". I should have added "from that individual" in #270. #270 would then have read

Erm, and how does the local authority function in that circumstance, where no income is coming in from that individual?
258

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/12/2008 14:51:56
#244 AM2

Neith is your assertion that majority always means more than half or 50%
259

Alan B,

05/12/2008 14:52:15
#279 Duncan

Care to ever deal with the point made rather than trying to avoid it with abscure reteric.

I said that lit would mean if you lost your job then you would not have to pay unlike council tax which is a more fixed charge and not reflective of changes in circumstances. ditto for reduction in in income due to the financial situation.

With council tax it means that only the individual has to cut back and not the council.

Your correct government should serve the poeple and that is my point.

You also ignored my other 2 issues:

1)government in general have to deal with income tax and vat varying with the economic times as such lit would mean councils would do the same thing.
2)council tax protects councils and to an extend central governemtn from having to provide for the economic cycle.

260

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 05/12/2008 14:52:59
Taxes should be fair, reasonable, and not burdomsome to collect. Can the Liberals explain how people that use services are paying for them by their version of LIT in this motorised age. The Tories like Council Tax and propose to cut it. What services are they cutting? Schools, hospitals, refuse collection?

Greens are more radical with their land value tax. "To hit developers sitting on land banks." Will they bill the NON DEVELOPERS who own most of Scotland? We need educate ourselves on this.
261

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 14:53:23
#281 These are important questions. I imagine, since the SNP are proposing this "LIT", that they would publish the answers to those questions. Sadly they don't seem to have done so. The last I heard, that was because their proposal is not really a proposal, more of an option. So that's okay then.

There is no plan from the SNP to introduce a land tax. None whatsoever.
262

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/12/2008 14:54:16
#250 I am simply responding to you digging yourself into a hole by saying that we should stick to common useage of words, when you are clearly unable to do so yourself.
263

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 14:55:38
Well, I stand corrected on the existence of a poll from May (not March) showing 46% support and 22% outright opposition to LIT. However, why that one was cited as more significant than a later poll which showed the same support but much firmer opposition, at 31%, defeats me. And why either is being represented as a "majority of Scots" in favour simply beggars belief!
264

Alan B,

05/12/2008 14:55:50
#282 Duncan

I do not have a problem with what you said as i knew what you meant.
265

Steve 'The Nugget' Davis,

Edinburgh 05/12/2008 14:56:30
#384 "With council tax it means that only the individual has to cut back and not the council"

Is there not something called Council Tax Benefit for those on low incomes?
266

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 14:56:50
#283 connaughtboy

Don't you realise that you're beating a straw man.

I made no such claim. Read post #41. That's what I have been contradicting.
267

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/12/2008 14:57:11
#273 Purile argument !
268

Steve 'The Nugget' Davis,

Edinburgh 05/12/2008 14:57:14
Sorry, should have said #284 - Alan B
269

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 14:58:00
#287 Can 46% ever be a majority in your view? Can you find a definition which supports the notion that 46% is a majority? Can you point me to an instance of common usage in which 46% is referred to as a majority?

The only answer is no.
270

Hugh Roscombe,

05/12/2008 14:58:11
Unionist trick works again. Pick a minor point by a poster and blow it up out of all proportion. Everyone then posts off-thread. Sheesh. Duncan, sm753 and now AM2 all at it.

AM2 - Did you get the link regarding LIT? It does appear you're mightily wrong.
271

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 14:59:00
#292 And what, my dear boy, do you mean by "purile"?
272

Hugh Roscombe,

05/12/2008 15:00:08
294

There he goes again.

IT'S A MAJORITY OF THOSE EXPRESSING AN INTEREST.

(ps How's yer Rachman enterprise going?)
273

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 15:00:26
#295 Claiming that a majority of people support something which in fact a minority support is not a minor point. It could change the whole basis of government. No tricks here from me, merely a refusal to accept that 46% can ever be regarded as a majority of anything.
274

Alan B,

05/12/2008 15:00:37
#290 Steve

My point was if you lose your job in an economic downturn like this. Or if it significantly lowers your income.

I support a property tax but because of this recession do think it adds a good reason for lit. As it reflects much more accurately a change in your circumstances.

275

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/12/2008 15:02:01
#291 AM2

quoting you from #157:

"http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=majority
"Majority" means more than half the total number."

No straw man there at all, just your dishonesty.
276

Alan B,

05/12/2008 15:02:03
#298 Duncan

Do you accept it is a majority of those that expressed an opinion?
277

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 15:02:21
#297 No it isn't, and there's no need to shout. 32% said they did not know. Not that they did not care.
278

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

05/12/2008 15:03:37
Never thought I would find myself agreeing with a Tory but Derek Brownlee got it spot on:

"Polarising the debate between the government's preferred option and the status quo might give the government a slightly better chance of winning a vote, but it doesn't give Scotland a better system of local government finance."

If we are going to bring an alternative to the existing local taxation system then for god's sake let's do it right. The reason we have the Council Tax is because it was a rushed-in replacement for the Poll Tax.

Rushed legislation is bad legislation.

Do we really want to make the same mistake again?
279

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 15:04:05
#301 No. The poll only counted those who expressed an opinion. It effectively appears to have allowed three opinions to be expressed: yes, no and don't know. Don't know is not a lack of an opinion.
280

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 15:06:25
#297 Hugh

Have you not read post #41? Nevsky claimed that "the majority of Scots" are "for the LIT tax".

I pointed out that it was, in fact, 46%. You have now strengthened that point by finding another poll which also shows only 46% support.

Various of you then started generating ridiculous arguments that 46% isn't a minority, as the dictionary makes plain, but is actually a majority!

I then pointed out that Alex Salmond claimed to the Scottish Parliament that “the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland support it” (LIT).

That was on 30 October 2008. Here's the link:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-08/sor1030-02.htm#Col11913

So tell me: do you think 46% is also a “consensus”?

Or could it be *gasp* that SNP HQ has again spun out of control?!
281

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/12/2008 15:06:26
#294 duncan

I never once claimed that 46% was a majority. I was simply pointing out that, in a political context majority, can refer to a proportion which is less than 50% (see my post #257) ie the margin between first and second. You clearly were either unaware of that or you didn't engage brain before insisting that people use words in their common useage.
282

Alan B,

05/12/2008 15:06:29
#304 Duncan

"Don't know is not a lack of an opinion."

I think that says it all.



283

Alan B,

05/12/2008 15:07:07
#AM2

Do you accept it is a majority of those that expressed an opinion?
284

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 15:09:51
#300 connaughtboy

I'll ignore your unjustifiable allegation.

More than half the total number of who, exactly, in post #41? Those who expressed an opinion, or all Scots?
285

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 15:10:41
#308 Alan B

No, I do not accept that post #41 refers to a majority of those Scots who expressed an opinion.
286

Alan B,

05/12/2008 15:10:50
#Duncan

I think in all seriousness most people would accept people saying given 2 option that they do not know as not expressing an opinion.

As such this silly discussion is based on your view that those that state they do not know should be included as an opinion.
287

TWC,

05/12/2008 15:11:09
245 salmondella,

Like I said previously as soon as they are called upon to put forward Polices in Scotland we'll get Gobal Global Global M-M-M-Mr Speaker and then absolutely nothing.

The swing to SNP will continue because we were not big enough to offer Scotland a Fiscal Alternative that would compete.
The polls in England are selective some are still very pro Tory and the Financial situation is disintegrating with each NEW(straw) proposal grasped by Labour, all of them impacting those with Savings or shares ie pensioners & middle England.

And after that will come mega inflation as we always get because of Labour government mismanagement.

When I was young Europe was flattened and Scotland was sick and poor, now I'm retired and Europe has been rebuilt with a wonderful infrastructure and Scotland is still Sick and Poor.
I will even vote for the SNP before I'll sit back and let it happen.
288

Alan B,

05/12/2008 15:12:01
#310 AM2

I never asked you that.

I asked you

"Do you accept it is a majority of those that expressed an opinion?"

289

57vintage,

Keith 05/12/2008 15:12:49
#220

"Labours referendum in 79 meant the with a 50% turnout you needed 80% of the vote to win"

Sorry to correct you again on this, but I was there and had fiery correspondence with the author of the 40% clause through the letters page of this very organ until he began losing the argument and the correspondence started coming through my letterbox.

It was worse than you state.

The Yes vote had to be 40% of those entitled to vote, not just those who turned out on the day (51.6% said Yes, incidentally), therefore with a 50% turnout you needed 80% of the NUMBERS ENTITLED TO vote to win, a substantially higher number than the turnout on the day. As 1 March 1979 saw it drizzling over most of the country, the turnout wasn't great either.

It was gerrymandering of the worst kind and it still rankles, even after the success of the 1997 vote.
290

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/12/2008 15:13:33
#304 Duncan

"Don't know is not a lack of an opinion."

Foot in mouth desease again Duncan?

Q: This is an opinion poll. What do you think about X?

A: I don't know

In duncan's world that is an opinion !

(hee hee)
291

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 15:13:41
#311 This silly discussion is based solely on the outrageous claim that 46% support for something is a majority.

Nonetheless, I can see how my #304 might be a little unhelpful in its brevity. What I mean is that in a poll with a yes/no/don't know question the "don't know"s quite often represent other options not given, as opposed to simple lack of opinion.

For example, if a Green supporter was asked to tick a box for LIT, CT or don't know, she might tick don't know because she actually wants a land tax.
292

The Sprucer,

05/12/2008 15:14:43

46% of this and that, this and that with 23% interested in this and that and 31% opposed to this and that. This and that indeed. Listen to yourselves, the master statisticians of the universe. My a***. You are arguing about air as far as I'm concerned. 55% of the 87% surveyed said. And what did they say? Exactly what did they understand? That they are being ripped off at the moment? Are there solutions better than the one we have at the moment. Yes but it comes with string attached. But I support Alan B when he says is this for the people or for the councils? North Lanarkshire council has more Carbuncle trophies in its cabinet that any other council in Scotland. My question is this: What has it been doing with our money?

No answers and no postcards required.
293

go boil ur heid,

05/12/2008 15:14:48
an idea opposed by business groups, trade unions and many other organisations. opposed by the labour,tories and the greens. anyone who says labour cares about the poor are hypocrites.
294

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 15:15:28
Sorry, wrong Salmond quote in #305. I'm a bit rusty at this speed chess!

He did say that, but at a different time. He actually said on 30 October that LIT “carries a consensus support of the Scottish people”. Totally untrue, of course.
295

,

05/12/2008 15:16:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
296

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 15:16:59
#313 Alan B

You've used an unassigned pronoun: "it".

This discussion is about post #41. If that post is your "it", then my previous answer stands.
297

Alan B,

05/12/2008 15:17:20
#57vintage

You forgot some of the dead were ENTITLED TO vote. :)

298

go boil ur heid,

05/12/2008 15:18:39
there seems to a lot of stupid people reading the news .they go on about yet another tax, i assume they believe that they will pay the lit as well as the council tax. someone should wipe the saliva off their mouths and explain slowly what it's about.
299

Alan B,

05/12/2008 15:21:23
#321 AM2

Please do not be pedantic. I am not talking about the previous poster at all.

My "it" does not refer to any other poster.

I thought it was straight forward question. ("it" being my question).

So

"Do you accept it is a majority of those that expressed an opinion?"

("it" referring to this opinion poll you guys are on about)


300

Alan B,

05/12/2008 15:23:26
#AM2

Let me put it this way.

You have 100 people. You ask them if the prefer apples or pears.

45 say apples
40 say pears
15 say they do not know

Would you say a majority of people that expressed an opion prefer apples.

Yes/No
301

57vintage,

Keith 05/12/2008 15:25:25
#322

Correct, since the electoral roll was 4 months out of date.

Students registered in their 'home' constituency and also where they were domiciled as students would also have boosted the "electorate" numbers, meaning the 40% threshhold was even higher. Some of us got around this by voting twice, by post at home and in person at the ballot box. Go on, arrest me....

Of course, given that there was an election later that year, it seemed a little ungrateful not to use bith votes again, so the Nationalists in Moray (BANFFSHIRE!!!!!!) and in Aberdeen North benefited, although it did them no good.

On the statistical debate, if the numbers are weighted to show those who expressed an opinion:

46% + 22% = 68%

Therefore 46% of 68% weighted = 67.6%.

There's an awful lot of "don't knows" (including me) though, which would make it dangerous to make a claim one way or the other.
302

Alan B,

05/12/2008 15:25:46
#AM2

In fact i will reword the orginal question so that might make it clearer.

With regard to the opinion poll you guys are talking about, would you say the majority that expressed an opinion favoured LIT?

Yes/No
303

The Sprucer,

05/12/2008 15:26:02

I say bananas!
304

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 15:26:25
#324 Alan

You're asking a different question. Why seek to deflect?

The real questions are:

1. Is 46% the “majority of Scots” (Nevsky, post #41)?
2. Is 46% the “consensus support of the Scottish people”? (Alex Salmond)
3. Given that the previous two answers are clearly “no”, why the dishonesty?
305

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 15:28:31
#325 AlanB

If "expressed an opinion" is taken to exclude "do not know", then yes.

If you treat "I don't know" and "get lost, I don't want to tell you anything" as two different answers, then perhaps not.

But under no circumstances is 45 a majority of the 100.
306

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 15:29:21
#331 Winged Messenger

Perhaps so. But do you think that 46% is a consensus?
307

Alan B,

05/12/2008 15:30:54
#57vintage

The other thing with don't knows is: for the only time i have been asked to complete an opinion poll survey the questions were so badly designed that they were meaning less. And if you pointed out that you were put down as a don't know.

Select A, B or C with C being don't know. But the question were so vague so that sematically they could mean different things with no clarificaion or both A and B could both be true.

After that opinion poll i would have to say i would take opinion polls about attitude surveys with a big pinch of salt.
308

Alan B,

05/12/2008 15:33:09
#330 AM2

Please do not be so stupid.

The real question is not one AM2 wants to answer.

After asking you a simple question it is clear you just do not want to answer. Why? I will take it that you feel your answer would embarrass you and your argument.



309

Gdgy,

05/12/2008 15:35:55
The SNPites should be cheering!!!!!

If LIT is so great then they should welcome the chance to debate it alongside the other ideas!!
It will obviously outshine all other options and by then Swinney might have worked out what he wants to say, means to say and what he might actually say....
310

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 15:37:17
#336 Winged Messenger

"Why do you deny that LIT is favoured by more Scottish people than those who oppose?"

I don't. Why do you beat straw men?
311

Alan B,

05/12/2008 15:39:04
#AM2

"1. Is 46% the “majority of Scots” (Nevsky, post #41)?"
A majory of those that expressed an opinion Yes.

2. Is 46% the “consensus support of the Scottish people”? (Alex Salmond)

While i do not support it opinion polls suggest Salmond is correct. ("it" being lit)

3. Given that the previous two answers are clearly “no”, why the dishonesty?

The previous answer are not no. One if only no if taken for the perpective of counting don't knows.

312

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 15:39:38
#335 AlanB

You would appear to have become less moderate since we last spoke.

Your question doesn't address the issue. I'll set it out again...

Two polls – TNS in May and then YouGov in September – found just 46% support for a local income tax. Yet in October, Alex Salmond claimed to the Scottish Parliament that it had “consensus support of the Scottish people”.

Is 46% a “consensus” or was Salmond misleading Parliament?
313

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

05/12/2008 15:41:18
Actually using the word majority is a somewhat semantic debate.

Duncan is correct if he uses the definition of an ABSOLUTE majority. The rest of you are correct if you use the definition of a SIMPLE majority.
314

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 15:42:43
#340 Winged Messenger

Your quote is from Andrew Rosindell, who naively believed Pete Wishart.

I dealt with that here:
http://www.scottishunionist.com/2008/11/pete-wishart-misleads-parliament.html
315

Alan B,

05/12/2008 15:43:26
#"Messenger"

AM2 knows if he answers the question it will be thrown at him in the future. Better deny and deny not matter the logic. A labour politician in the making.

AM2 prefers to try to find flaws wholes in others arguements but not offer any opinion in return. Largely due to the fact that when he has done so it normally turns round and bites him.

ie scotland would be better of controlling corporation tax and then we could match irelands growth.

He quickly changed that opinion as it was an admission that ireland had done so much better than scotland. It also condemned his arguments regarding the barnett formula.
316

57vintage,

Keith 05/12/2008 15:44:13
#336

LIT is favoured by more Scottish people than those who oppose OF THOSE WHO EXPRESSED AN OPINION
317

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 15:44:27
But anyway, the heat to light ratio has increased beyond all reason since Winged Messenger piled in, so I'll leave you to it.
318

Hugh Roscombe,

05/12/2008 15:46:42
AM2

"So tell me: do you think 46% is also a “consensus”?"

Of course not. It's simply a poll where the MAJORITY vote preferred LIT.
319

Alan B,

05/12/2008 15:47:19
#AM2

"You would appear to have become less moderate since we last spoke."

I asked you a basic question and you have just acted like a goat.

If you act like an goat expected to be treated as one.

I still see you will not answer the question asked.

How can anyone have a sensible discussion on a forum when it is I will only answer questions I like? I will not answer anything that may make my position less tenible?

You used to be a bit more mature in your approach and much more suttle in avoiding answering any questions.
320

Hugh Roscombe,

05/12/2008 15:47:32
That's the majority of those expressing an interest.
Nothing more - nothing less.
321

Alan B,

05/12/2008 15:50:29
#The Federalist

"Duncan is correct if he uses the definition of an ABSOLUTE majority. The rest of you are correct if you use the definition of a SIMPLE majority."

Duncan is not talking about abolute majority. He has said there is no simply majority ie majority of those that express an opinion as he is taking those that "Don't know" as having expressed an opinion.

322

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 05/12/2008 15:56:57
This is a sensible way forward. The press have made it a polarised debate by giving too much space to those wishing to rubbish the LIT proposal whilst not putting anything forward themselves.
Hopefully we'll now get a solution where non earned income is taken into account.
323

Alan B,

05/12/2008 16:02:21
#TheDisplacedGlaswegian

Do you think LIT should therefore tax savings within a bank accout?

324

A True Scot.,

Scotland 05/12/2008 16:17:44
AM2 or Duncan

Can either you please tell me if you think 46% is enough for a mandate on anything?
The way I see it is the council tax was introduced under a mandate consensus and minority of 35% or was it 40% it may even have been 28% certainly less than 46% so is there any reason why the council tax couldnt be abolished with a mandate consensus or minority of 46%?
325

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 16:21:36
352

I would have thought that using the option of dont know is letting folk know you have no opinions of the other options. Ergo no opinions means youre not expressing an opinion just letting folk know you dont have one on the particular topic under option.
326

brownlie,

05/12/2008 16:26:09
41 Nevsky

Your meaning was perfectly clear to 99.999% of those reading your post - that is a massive majority whichever way you look at it.

One would need to be particularly obtuse, or a unionist blindly and loyally opposing any SNP Policy, not to understand what you meant.
327

subrosa,

05/12/2008 16:32:53
# 337 'if LIT is so great then they should welcome the chance to debate it alongside the other ideas!!'

I do welcome the chance to debate it. The other ideas have been debated previously but perhaps you missed it. The debate was instigated by the Greens and the Tories idea of just reducing the level for pensioners was voted down by a big majority.

The labour party have come up with nothing, so, at the last debate they had nothing to contribute but negativity about LIT and how all their pals in the CBI, unions et al didn't like it.

Maybe you'll actually watch/listen to the next debate.
328

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 16:35:40
30 AM2

Totally untrue.
None of these "INSTITUTES" have expressed opinions as institutues with regards to local taxation. What you are obviously referring to is polical supporters of the opposition parties expressing their own personal views who just coincidentially happen to work for these institutes. Their views do not represent the veiws of the institutes themselves. I dont believe any of them held referendums in order to establish a institutional wide opinion on the matter.

Your statement is false and pure political propaganda.
Are you a political party activist? member of a political party? or simply a compulsive fantasist?
BTW why do you have a web site called Scottish unionist when you claim to be and Irish unionist?
329

subrosa,

05/12/2008 16:36:01
# 343

AM2, we've had the debate about Scottish or British over and over so please let's stick to the subject of this article.

Why won't you accept that more than 50% of Scots like to call themselves Scottish? It must stick in your craw so much.
330

Alan B,

05/12/2008 16:37:41
#A True Scot

I agree. Duncan was just getting silly and including those who said they do not know as havng expressed an opinion. AM2 for his part just would not answer the question as he is not as willing to say something as foolish as Duncan and would rather to anything to avoid answering.

Having said that much can depend on what the question says and how people interprete it. The only opinion poll i did was so bad that answering the questions was very difficult as they were unqualified.

For instance if this poll (and i have not idea the quesiton) asks would you prefer LIT to council tax it can be read different ways. For instance a majority for LIT does not necessarily mean people would not prefer say a land tax, or reformed property tax or LIT locally set and not nationally.
331

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 16:42:35
#355 I have set out my views on alternatives to the LIT. Sometimes you want your opposition to be the bad guys so you make it so.

I'll add another observation: the SNP's LIT policy, as I have said for many months as Miss H will know, is, I believe, a sacrificial one. They want the opposition, particularly Labour, to kill it, so that they can blame Labour for the CT continuing.

So this vote is another kind of blow for the SNP - they are denied the opportunity to paint this as "LIT versus CT", so they are denied the opportunity to blame Labour for its demise.
332

TWC,

05/12/2008 16:42:42
£ is rock bottom again, why don't these foreigners see how well placed we are financially?
333

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 16:44:31
#363 Odd that you call me silly and then repeat the exact same argument that I made! You're right that without seeing the questions it is impossible to interpret the numbers.
334

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 16:46:50
364 Labour will try and kill it - and in fact they could succeed - by witholding the money paid in council tax benefit (which is rightfully ours).

If Labour choose to attempt to kill off LIT by this method, then we will know they are feart of the argument.

Your own alternative to LIT is some theoretical increase in subsidy for those to whom the council tax causes hardship. How would you fund that and administer it from Holyrood ?
335

TWC,

05/12/2008 16:48:54
364 Duncan in Edinburgh,
I see it the other way Labour and the Tories are scared to vote against it.
Labour couldn't even bring themselves to vote for their own amendment in the Finance bill.
As for actually proposing something See Ian Grays position on the Energy prize.

I don't support Salmonds proposal but I'll double it.

He had an idea once but it got lonely
336

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 16:49:03
363

If you held a referendum with 2 options you would get relatively large numbers for the 2 options if you held a referendum with 1000 options you would get relatively small numbers for any of the options which would even result in zero for some of the options.
Give people more choices and they will make more choices.
Who controls the question and number of options controls can influence the result which is why all of the political parties make such a fuss about it.
We have already seen the result of how the question can be manipulated in the 1979 referendum farce where the dont knows were counted with the against Independence option.
I favour a simple choice of Independence or remain within the union or dont know any other options are added to simply splinter the basic options and leave none with a clear majority.
Actually I also believe a clear majority of Independence supporting MPs returned to Westminster is enough of a mandate to automatically grant Scotland Independence from Westminster as this was enough to form the Union of Parliaments in the first place.
337

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 16:50:41
368

So Duncan

Do you accept that 46% can be a mandate or not?
338

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 16:54:36
Hello Duncan or AM2

Do either of you accept that 46% can be a mandate or not?
339

moral___superiority_,

05/12/2008 16:55:06
US Light Crude Oil is now at $43.92 a barrel.

This is a 4 year low.

This just wouldn't happen in an independent Scotland free to run it's own affairs.
340

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:02:18
374

Scotland wouldnt control the global price of crude in or out of the union no one nation does. Scotland would however keep every penny it makes from having a huge oil and gas resourse but only as an Independent nation. As things stand at the moment irrespective of what the price of crude is Scotland gets nothing.
So even if oil were only 1 dollar a barrel it would be an improvement for an Independent Scotland relative to a Scotland within the UK.
341

Alan B,

05/12/2008 17:02:54
#Messenger

"I just hope, in the end, that something gets bashed out to replace the CT which is an horrendous burden on those who pay it."

LIT or council tax for the "majority" of people it will not make much of a difference. At the end of the day if you want to raise X amount of money you need X amount of tax.

Like most tax the middle 70/80% of the people pay for it.

The good think about the snp proposals is from my perpective is it is a tax cut. But in principle i would prefer the tax cut on a property tax not income tax.

My main reason for supporting a property tax is to give us a wider tax system and tax base.

The only problem i have with wide tax basis is the use of it by labour. They realised to significantly raise taxes they had to stop raising income tax and look for more and more stealth taxes. So while a wide range of taxation is good it is not good if it is abused as a way to raise the overall tax burder as labour have done.
342

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 17:03:05
#372 It is possible to envisage situations where 35% is a mandate, and those where 49% isn't. Indeed, there are situations where 65% isn't a mandate. We set different thresholds for different purposes. So the answer to your question is that it could be, yes.

Both the SNP and Labour got somewhere in the mid-30s percent of the popular vote in last year's election. There was about 1% between them. The one with the higher vote (the SNP) had the mandate to form the government, no doubt.
343

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:04:45
364

Come off it Duncan Labour clearly expressed their plans to continue with the council tax even before the SNP proposed LIT as an alternative. They have not as far as I know come up with any other alternatives to council tax. The only proposals I have seen from them is to review the banding levels.
344

Alan B,

05/12/2008 17:05:03
#moral___superiority_

In an independent scotland it would not matter as we would have our norwegian sized oil fund to tide us by.

As such you would ride the peaks and troughs of oil prices with norwegian levels of wealth.

Rather than scotland levels of poorness.
345

Arfur,

05/12/2008 17:05:20
AM2 - I see you have rejoined us here at the hootsman pulling figures that suit you and ignoring all others.

Would you please stop mincing on about this poll where the LIT support was only 44%. There was also one that very same week where LIT support was 70%. Of all the polls but your one, LIT support has consistently been at 60 - 70%.

As for your ten businesses - is that all? Of all the business in Scotland TEN appose it - well zippity dooda. Also of 16 business in Scotland polled last week only 6 opposed LIT with 10 voting for it which is................63% voting a big fat YES.
346

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 17:06:03
#377 I agree with almost your whole post here. I would add that ALL governments end up with increases in non-income or "hidden" taxes - it is not a Labour thing. But Labour have done it, no doubt about that.
347

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:07:02
#361 A "True" Scot

You said of my post #30: "Totally untrue. None of these "INSTITUTES" have expressed opinions as institutues with regards to local taxation."

I only need one counterexample. Let's take the Scottish TUC.

http://www.stuc.org.uk/news/505/local-income-tax-plan-rejected

"The STUC has today called for fairer local tax bands and to retain a property tax, rejecting the Scottish Government’s current 'Local Income Tax' plans which would remove accountability and be financially unsustainable."

etc
348

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 17:07:22
#379 Who are you arguing with? When did I say Labour had come up with a proposal other than CT?
349

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:07:31
378

That post raises more questions than answers good for you Duncan thats called debating.

So what situation do you envisage which could justify a 35% being accepted as a mandate?
or indeed where 65% couldnt be accepted as a mandate?

So if 46% can be a mandate what is your objection to using the 46% as a mandate to introduce LIT?
350

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:07:49
#361 A "True" Scot

You also asked: "BTW why do you have a web site called Scottish unionist when you claim to be and Irish unionist?"

I was born and did much of my growing up in Northern Ireland, moved to Scotland as a teenager, put down roots here and later came to identify with Scotland more than any other part of the United Kingdom.

In terms of nationality, I would therefore consider myself Irish (by birth, and by which I mean the island nation of Ireland), Scottish (by adoption, and primary identification) and of course British (as a matter both of objective reality and political persuasion).

Moreover, I’m not each of these three in some fractional sense totalling 100%. I’m no less Irish just because I moved elsewhere or less Scottish because I happen to be a new Scot. Rather, I’m fully Irish, fully Scottish and fully British — and those nationalists who try to tell me otherwise only betray their own prejudices.
351

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 17:09:39
#380 :-) Because of course an independent Scotland would be endowed with a time machine which would take us back to 1970...
352

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:09:40
#381 Arfur

Unison and the Institute of Directors carry rather more weight that your local plumber or corner shop owner! And please link to your 70% poll. Why was the SNP trumpeting a 46% one if a 70% one appeared the same week?
353

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 17:11:51
388 UNISON's main concern is their member's jobs - and quite right too, that is their purpose - but I wonder what other organisations on your list have a vested interest in keeping the Council Tax ? Are they all ''uninterested'' parties ? I doubt it.
354

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:12:18
384

"When did I say Labour had come up with a proposal other than CT?"

Where did I claim you did?

"They want the opposition, particularly Labour, to kill it, so that they can blame Labour for the CT continuing."

"Come off it Duncan Labour clearly expressed their plans to continue with the council tax even before the SNP proposed LIT as an alternative. They have not as far as I know come up with any other alternatives to council tax. The only proposals I have seen from them is to review the banding levels."

Clear as day to me Duncan you off on another tangent?
355

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:12:24
http://www.cbi.org.uk/scotland

"CBI Scotland has published its recommendations for changing the Scottish government’s spending plans to give a much-needed boost to firms and the economy ... scrapping plans for a local income tax..."
356

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:14:19
"SCDI adds to chorus of concerns over local income tax"
www.scdi.org.uk/mg/pr/PR180708.pdf

etc
357

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:15:04
386

Ok but then wouldnt it have made more sense just to refer to yourself as British Unionist? claiming to be a "Scottish Unionist" under the circumstances you have described is actually false advertising is it not?
358

Alan B,

05/12/2008 17:15:54
#Duncan

I think labour have done it more so as they have raised the over all burden of tax. Previously labour in the 70s would have been more pro income tax.

The complaints about the thatcher tax cuts (they were not really cuts as all she did was move from one tax to the other) was she increase regressive taxation like vat.

You support a higher tax base than me so i understand you will be more supportive of labours overall tax rise. I understand that as there is an ideological difference between us here.

I would have preferred labour not to say we will not increase income tax and then increase taxes on income. Much about brown was what he does not say that what he does.

But as long as government are open about it, it is important to have a wide tax base and therefore increase stamp duty on houses or flight taxes etc can play there part.

My main fear with income tax is we overload it again. Tax on income is already quite high. 11% NI + 20% Income Tax, 10%+ employer NI that individual can be liable for if he is works through his own company, then pension contributions say add up to another 10%. And that is the basic rate.

At top rate tax now just being bumped up to 45% with lit it will be 48%. And that does not include pension contributions.
359

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:16:28
392

"SCDI adds to chorus of concerns over local income tax"

As an organisation or is it somebody within the organisation expressing his own poltically affiliated opinion?
360

Alan B,

05/12/2008 17:19:00
#Duncan

Aye with that oil fund we could have bought a few time machines.

Maybe if we used it enough and did a ground hogg day we could have redone one of those elections and stopped brown bankrupting britain. :)
361

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:19:25
388

Unison and the Institute of directors would indeed carry more weight if they ever expressed an opinion one way or another problem is they havent yet certainly not as organisations. Why dont you let us know when they do instead of claiming they have when they clearly havent.
362

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 17:19:31
#385 Okay, well:

35% - could be a mandate to form a minority government in a PR system like that in Scotland, if it was the highest vote received.

65% - could not be a mandate in a vote on major constitutional change, such moving to a republic, which could quite validly be considered too divisive to rely on a slender majority. It is not uncommon elsewhere in the world for the support of 2/3 of an electorate to be required for major constitutional change.

As for 46% support being enough to bring in the SNP's national income tax which they erroneously call "LIT", well, we have an established convention in our primary legislature that votes are binary choices, and they are made according to rules set out by the Parliament. It would be quite possible for the support of 46% of MSPs to be sufficient, should there be enough abstentions, to pass such a bill into law. But 46% on an opinion poll where the question asked may be biased and where the full information on all the options is not available - pretty meaningless.
363

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:21:41
387

Labour obviously doesnt need a time machine to take us back to the 12th century economically does it?
364

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:23:03
#389 Observer

Of course they're not disinterested! Think about it: organisations representing workers, small business owners, directors, larger businesses, trade unionists, accountants, students etc - all are opposed to a local income tax.

Perhaps that's why public support fell from 88% (2007) to 46% (Sep 2008) and opposition hardened from 22% (May 2008) to 31% (Sep 2008).
365

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:25:18
402

"35% - could be a mandate to form a minority government in a PR system like that in Scotland, if it was the highest vote received"

Surely not within a democracy?

65% - could not be a mandate in a vote on major constitutional change, such moving to a republic, which could quite validly be considered too divisive to rely on a slender majority. It is not uncommon elsewhere in the world for the support of 2/3 of an electorate to be required for major constitutional change

Surely not in a democracy?

As for 46% support being enough to bring in the SNP's national income tax which they erroneously call "LIT", well, we have an established convention in our primary legislature that votes are binary choices, and they are made according to rules set out by the Parliament. It would be quite possible for the support of 46% of MSPs to be sufficient, should there be enough abstentions, to pass such a bill into law. But 46% on an opinion poll where the question asked may be biased and where the full information on all the options is not available - pretty meaningless.

Ah Sorry Duncan this is obviously your own opinion and not national or international convention.
Actually I would classify it more as wishful thinking than opinion.
366

Alan B,

05/12/2008 17:26:30
#Spook

My general point with LIT was that you have to be careful not to over burden one method of tax. Part of the reason for the decline of the uk economy up to the 70s was that top rate tax was 83%.

ie a country is better if the tax system is wide ranging. look for a fair tax system if you like and not about making every individual tax fair as you can very ofter end up with an unfair tax system.

Overloading direct taxation can have detrimental effects on the economy.

Something to remember tax rates largely do not matter in the amount of taxes raised over the medium term. It is the rate of growth of the economy.

If you have higher growth you will create much more tax revenues than raising rates. So government that want to seriously raise public services via increased funding are far better improving the rate of growth in the economy than peeing about with tax rates.

As for 45% from 40%. Tax reductions from 60% to 40% increased revenue for the government. This was a panic measure to appease the populace at a time of economic crisis not a well thought out policy.

Remeber the more you push taxes higher the more likely people will avoid them. there are alot of way Brown lets you do that.


367

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:27:14
#401 A "True" Scot

http://www.iod.com/intershoproot/eCS/Store/en/pdfs/scottish_local_inc_tax_response.pdf

"Finally we would again reiterate that we are opposed to the proposal for a local income tax. It would be economically damaging and administratively complex."
368

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 17:29:32
#407 What a strange and juvenile response. Why would the first two instances not work in a democracy? Silly silly.
369

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:30:14
405

"Of course they're not disinterested! Think about it: organisations representing workers, small business owners, directors, larger businesses, trade unionists, accountants, students etc - all are opposed to a local income tax."

Havent seen any referendum results within any of the mentioned organisations to back this up.
You obviously clearly wish to ignore the fact that your claims regarding the above organisations opposing LIT are false in fact they are blatent lies unless you can prove any of it?
Is it or is it not a fact that only individuals attached to these organisations have expressed their own opinions and not the collective opinions of these organisations?
370

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:30:16
#408 Spook

LIT doesn't stack up. As I've said all along, it's superficially attractive - no denying that. But it doesn't withstand scrutiny. The SNP's defeat in this amendment means that alternative proposals of all kinds will be weighed against LIT. This policy is the busted flush. Deny it until you're blue in the face.
371

Jimmy Le Pie,

05/12/2008 17:30:29
AM2

So in a few words, are you for or against LIT yourself, and if you are, are you quite happy with the present council tax??
372

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 17:30:47
#411 I have spent half the afternoon pointing out that it isn't that simple. There are half a dozen different ways to fund local authorities.
373

Duncan in Edinburgh,

05/12/2008 17:32:03
#415 Classic. Right back where we started - the false suggestion that the choice is between the SNP's LIT proposal and the CT. The whole article and half of the comments are about how this isn't the case. Ugh.
374

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:32:18
#401 A "True" Scot

http://www.unison-scotland.org.uk/briefings/localincometaxbrief2.html

"UNISON remains convinced that taxing property is fair and cost effective despite the consultaion not offering this as a route forward. There is in fact widespread support across the polictical spectrum to fix the real problems with the current local tax regime. Scotland could move quickly and effectively to a real solution before any more time is wasted on an additional tax on wages."

So, why did you claim that neither the IoD nor Unison had expressed an opinion?
375

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 17:33:01
405 my point is that in the case of UNISON they are clearly not objective as their members administer council tax, and they are concerned they may be made redundant. That is a specific interest, it is not a general response to the LIT proposal.

Furthermore, UNISON have not actually asked their membership about it.

All I am saying is don't read too much into these organisations so called opposition to LIT, they may not speak for their members.
376

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:33:18
#415 Jimmy Le Pie

That's a joke, right?
377

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:35:33
410

1. It doesnt specify who we is there is only one name on that document ergo its his own opinion not anybody elses. Now why dont you present some evidence that shows at least a majority of the Institute of Directors expressing an opinion to their objections of LIT.

2. Its a PDF document which could have been written by anybody and posted by anybody it doesnt even look official.
378

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 17:36:26
418 - that was written by Dave Watson. Do you know who he is ? A ''True''Scot is quite right to question these statements - which are made by officials, not the union membership who have not been consulted.
379

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:37:09
412

Eh because neither of them are democratic are they?
380

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:39:10
#419 Observer

Wait a minute. The "true" Scot was trying to discredit their opinions by claiming that the views were of individuals, not the organisations in a corporate sense. But now that I demonstrate that to be false, you try the reverse tack, by claiming that their views should be discounted because they might not represent the rank and file (ie relatively uninformed) broader membership. Someone less charitable than I might imagine that you're just saying whatever you can think of to try and make your political point!
381

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:39:20
416

I am sure there are more than half a dozen the point is the proposals on the table are LIT council tax or LVT and out of the available proposals LIT is clearly the best for the majority of the population which has been proven so many times on these blogs already.
382

Nikostratos,,

05/12/2008 17:42:07
Oh dear poor Alex The best laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley,




http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/05/oil-commodities

Oil prices could slump to just $25 a barrel next year, as much of the world sinks into recession and demand falls, according to the latest predictions from Merrill Lynch.
383

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:43:14
418

Why have you claimed they have? You havent produced anything where all members or at least a majority of members have expressed their own opinions have you?
I would settle for a list of signitures within each company on a proposal expressing opposition to the LIT.
Do you have any from any single organisation?
384

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:44:49
#423 Spook

You said: "I have always said any form of income tax is a fairer way than the council tax, even your Auntie Annabel can see this..."

I don't have an Auntie Annabel. Honestly Spook, you need to overcome these peculiar assumptions. I'm not a Tory. I'm not the same person as sm753 (or anyone else).

Now, I'm not sure why you think Annabel Goldie thinks LIT is fairer than council tax:

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scottishconservativeparty/On-the-spot-Annabel-Goldie.3298393.jp

AG, speaking about Alex Salmond: "He’s banged on about a local income tax, which isn’t local and doesn’t even tax all income. A Scot Nat tax which has been comprehensively rubbished by most independent commentators."

Doesn't sound much like a supporter to me!
385

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:45:20
426

You havent proved anything at all except your consistancy to lie.
386

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:45:32
#428 Peter

"Ho,ho; the same AM2 that said Labour would hold Glasgow South!"

No I didn't. Why say that?
387

moral___superiority_,

05/12/2008 17:47:02
Spook, your blog is well out of date.

Whats going on?

I rely on it to know what is happening in the world.
388

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:47:55
#434 A "True" Scot

Are you serious? You claimed in #401 that the IoD and Unison hadn't expressed any opinions on LIT.

I proved that to be false on both counts.

You then accuse me of lying. Bizarre.
389

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:48:18
429

Like I said before even 25 dollars a barrel is better than the zero dollars a barrel we receive just now dont you think?
390

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 05/12/2008 17:49:17
429 You are being disingeneous, read my posts again. I am making 2 very specific points relating to your statement about UNISON. You haven't rebutted them. But then, you seem rather busy.
391

Observer. 1,

05/12/2008 17:49:59
sorry 439 was for 426
392

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:50:35
437

Thats correct they havent what you have shown is that individuals attached to these organisations are expressing their own political opinions.
None of it is backed up by referendum results or petitions of signitures and without either then there can be no evidence of institutional representation of opinion can there?
393

moral___superiority_,

05/12/2008 17:50:41
Oil to Plunge Below $25 Next Year, Merrill Lynch Says.

Crude oil prices may crash below $25 a barrel next year and gas prices could fall below $1 a gallon if the global recession spreads to China, an energy analyst and CEO said Thursday.

Demand for oil will continue to decline in 2009 as economic growth slows to its weakest level since 1982, Merrill Lynch Commodity Strategist Francisco Blanch concluded in a report.

That would barely give an Independent Scotland enough surplus to bail out the Dunfermline Building Society.
394

Jimmy Le Pie,

05/12/2008 17:51:00
#420 AM2,

No, it's a perfectly serious question.
395

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:51:13
#433 Spook

That's not true either. That £13.2bn figure has now been significantly downgraded. Didn't you notice that the oil price has fallen 60%+ since the summer?

Is this thread a great big wind-up? Is the basic idea just to post as many total lies as possible and have a laugh as I can't even keep up with half of them?
396

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:51:57
432

A Tax spent locally is a local tax.
397

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:52:08
#444 Jimmy Le Pie

To you, perhaps. But it doesn't warrant a serious answer.
398

moral___superiority_,

05/12/2008 17:52:42
"438 A True Scot.,05/12/2008 17:48:18
429

Like I said before even 25 dollars a barrel is better than the zero dollars a barrel we receive just now dont you think?"

Yes it would be if it were true. But obviously its not true so your post is about as representative of the truth as Karen Matthew's Alibi.
399

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:53:07
445

Irrespective as to what the true revenue figure may or may not be it is still better than the zero revenue figure we receive within the union though eh?
400

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:53:43
#443 Spook

Re: "you have said on many occasions you are a conservative supporter"

No I haven't. I have said quite clearly that I have no fixed allegiance.
401

moral___superiority_,

05/12/2008 17:53:51
Do not forget to check out Alex Neil making a complete t*t of himself tonight on Channel 4 @ 19-30.
402

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:53:58
448

Really so how much oil and gas revenue does the Scottish Government collect and from whom?
403

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:55:25
#450 "True" Scot

What do you think the £30 billion Scottish Executive block grant is?
404

A True Scot.,

05/12/2008 17:56:29
455

A pittance returned from the 137 billion Scottish GDP what did you think it was?
405

moral___superiority_,

05/12/2008 17:56:46
449 I would not be too sure about that.

Your picture would not look out of place next to this:

http://boifromtroy.com/wp-content/mrgajpg.jpg
406

AM2,

Scotland,UK 05/12/2008 17:57:39
#433 Spook

"i said Auntie Annabel favours a different tax system than the current council tax, i never said she favoured LIT, now spin."

Nice. And that's not what you said, which was:

"I have always said any form of income tax is a fairer way than the council tax, even your Auntie Annabel can see this"

Enough of this. You don't even kn