Varney’s tax offer: a poisoned chalice?

Comments

5 responses to “Varney’s tax offer: a poisoned chalice?”

1. 

   DougtheDug

   September 9, 2007

   “The big question, however, remains the one I have been banging on about for the past few weeks. How can Gordon Brown justify these limited proposals when the Labour Party is moving towards accepting fiscal devolution for Scotland.”
   The big question is, “What does fiscal devolution in Scotland mean?”
   Since Westminster has ruled out North Sea oil revenues coming under control of Holyrood it doesn’t mean fiscal autonomy, it means control of some taxes and some revenues.
   http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1405762007
   “Some” can vary anywhere between 0% to somewhere well below 100% of all tax revenues since North Sea oil has been ruled out.
   Fiscal devolution is as yet a vague concept from the Labour party, no details on what taxes are to be controlled or gathered in Holyrood and no details on what percentage of these revenues will be spent in Scotland. Just the feelgood phrase and no promises of even implementing it, far less the detail.
   The Government has ruled out control of corporation tax in NI with perhaps more of an eye on what will be permitted in Scotland rather than what will benefit NI. If Northern Ireland gets control of corporation tax levels it will be very difficult to deny it to Scotland and with it give more fiscal freedom of manoeuvre to Alex Salmond and the SNP.
   I think you’ve got the cart before the horse. Northern Ireland is a weathervane on what’s going to be devolved, or more precisely, not devolved in Scotland rather than Scotland being the yardstick in the process of fiscal devolution. Whatever fiscal devolution means beyond the current buzz phrase.

   Reply
2. 

   DougtheDug

   September 9, 2007

   Dammit, it lost my name on the post again. It seems to happen because I preview the post.

   Reply
3. 

   Tom Griffin

   September 9, 2007

   H Doug, Sorry about that. I have edited your name in.
   I agree that fiscal devolution is a vague concept at the moment, but it is significant that Wendy Alexander is prepared to concede the principle. Obviously, she has to be pushed to clarify what it means in practice.
   I think Scotland ultimately will be the yardstick because the Scottish electorate have greater leverage at Westminster.
   We shall see however. It may be that London Labour will rein in Alexander, but I think they will pay a political price if they do.

   Reply
4. 

   DougtheDug

   September 9, 2007

   “It may be that London Labour will rein in Alexander…”
   To be correct, Wendy Alexander is London Labour, as there is no separate Scottish Labour party, branch or association.
   The only changes and policies that will get implemented are those that will be approved by Gordon Brown. Wendy has no authority over the Labour party in Scotland apart from over the MSP’s in Holyrood. All her talk is just talk without Gordon Brown to actually take it forward. No fiscal devolution unless GB wants it.
   “Obviously, she has to be pushed to clarify what it (fiscal devolution) means in practice.”
   Wendy can’t define fiscal devolution as she has no authority to do that or authority to start the process of defining it. She will have to wait till Gordon Brown decides to look at it.
   But I think the process of reining-in has already started. She may have no authority but she does have a tendency to push the boundaries of what is acceptable to promote within the Labour Party.
   This is a quote from:
   http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1675219.0.alexander_plans_to_drop_the_new_labour_brand_in_favour_of_scottish_identity.php
   “The Sunday Herald also understands the Scottish Labour leader-elect is considering a proposal to have a Labour MP as her deputy rather than an MSP.”
   The poster, “Doonhamer, Dumfries on 12:47am”, on that article probably got it right, Wendy’s going to be given a watcher.
   Going back to the corporation tax, maybe the Government was not prepared to have regional variations in corporation tax across the UK but the fact they were willing to look at it suggests that they might have been.
   It’s interesting to speculate what the outcome would have been if Gordon Brown still controlled Holyrood.

   Reply
5. 

   Tom Griffin

   September 9, 2007

   I think if Labour were still the dominant party, Brown would avoid conceding more powers for fear of a backlash in England. As it is, they have to do something to regain the initiative from the SNP.

   Reply