Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Salmond wins vital support in tax battle

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: 08 September 2008
A HISTORIC political deal to replace the council tax with a local income tax is on the verge of being agreed between the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, The Scotsman can reveal.
Jeremy Purvis, the Lib Dem finance spokesman, who is set to meet finance secretary John Swinney this week to thrash out an agreement, signalled that compromise was on the cards.

In addition, the two Green MSPs, whose support would be vital, have indicated they are now ready to talk about the policy. Although there were talks before the summer, the SNP and Lib Dems have been split – the SNP wants a centrally set rate of 3p, but the Lib Dems want local councils to decide the rate.

Speaking to The Scotsman, Mr Purvis made it clear his party could strike a deal on the major sticking-point and give councils control of tax rates after a bedding-in period.

If this happens, the SNP would only need to find support from the Greens – though if the SNP wins the by-election which would be called if the former first minister, Labour MSP Jack McConnell, becomes High Commissioner of Malawi, they would only need independent MSP Margo MacDonald's vote in Holyrood to carry their plans.

The Greens, who favour a land value tax, said yesterday that they could be flexible. A spokesman said: "We are open to discussion on this issue because there is no doubt the council tax needs replacing, which is the weakness of most parties opposed to LIT. We want a land value tax, but if we can get that into the mixture of options for councils … then there is a room for agreement."

Ms MacDonald said she would back LIT if it can be operated at no great cost and she could have guarantees it will be fairer for the majority of Scots. She said: "There are some big questions to answer, but I can be persuaded if Mr Swinney can reassure me on those points and show me that only a small number of wealthy people can avoid it."

The political breakthrough came despite evidence that support for LIT is tumbling – a new poll put public backing for it at 46 per cent, just 15 per cent above the council tax, compared to 88 per cent support a year ago. The SNP has insisted this figure was reached after the "don't knows" were taken out.

Senior figures in the Nationalist parliamentary group have suggested the centrally set rate could be in place for the first few years before Scotland's 32 councils were allowed to set their own rates, once the system was bedded in.

Mr Purvis said this would be an acceptable solution. "Obviously any new tax system would take a year or two to bed in, so it would be completely reasonable to have a centrally set rate in that transition period and then allow councils to set their own rates," he said.

"I'll be meeting with John Swinney this week and if that is what he has to offer and it's not just something being aired by SNP MSPs, I think we can find a solution. There is a big difference between having local accountability introduced over time and not having it at all, which is the current proposal.

"The sticking point for us is local accountability and the ability of councils to raise their own taxes. If that can be overcome, then we can move forward."

The Lib Dem solution, which potentially would see businesses having to pay 32 different rates, is the nightmare scenario outlined by the Institute of Directors, CBI Scotland and Federation of Small Businesses. In their submissions to the consultation on LIT, they warned that it would create administrative chaos and overburden businesses with paperwork.

But Mr Purvis insisted LIT was not as expensive and complex as critics were claiming: "Essentially it is quite simple, you simply set the income tax rate to the person's postcode, which is a lot cheaper and simpler than going through valuations of property."

But there has been stinging criticism from Labour, who still believe there needs to be a property-based tax.

Cathy Jamieson, the acting leader of Scottish Labour, said: "It looks like we are likely to have a dodgy back-room deal between the SNP and Lib Dems, as we warned. The Lib Dem plans are even worse than the SNP's, which is difficult. This is simply a recipe for chaos."

A Scottish Government spokesman said it was open to informal talks with various parties, but was currently sticking to the original proposal of a 3p centrally set rate. As well as business groups, LIT is also opposed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Unison, the National Union of Students, Glasgow City and South Lanarkshire councils, the STUC, Carers Scotland, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, local authority finance officers, the Policy Institute, the Treasury and range of experts.

They have questioned its fairness, legality and cost and warned that the wealthy with non-salary incomes will be able to avoid paying it.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 September 2008 12:59 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Scottish National Party
 
1

Angus Ogg,

07/09/2008 22:35:30

The SNP have done brilliantly in their first year.

But this is a Tartan Poll Tax.

It'll simply no' do.

As one who lent his vote to the SNP, it's in danger of being donated somewhere else in future with this abominable idea.

Methinks there are maybe more than a few floating voters of a similar view.

Wee Eck's sure footedness is in danger of going the way of other political leaders. He is assuming ALL of the electorate voted for him, rather than a sizeable chunk who were primarily moved to vote for the eviction to the previous incompetent incumbents. Tartan Poll Tax WILL cost Alex and the SNP many votes.

If he is not careful, it'll be the same tears at bed time for Alex Salmond by 2011 that happened when P45's were given to Jim Callaghan in 1979, Maggie Thatcher 1990, John Major 1997, Tony Blair 2007, Henry McLeish 2001 and Jack McConnell 2007.
2

Richardinho,

08/09/2008 00:02:57
Don't suppose the drop in support for LIT would be anything to do with the concerted media campaign against it in the last few months?
The fact is that LIT was in the SNP's manifesto. They are doing what they have been elected to do.
The real test will be when it's up and running and people will be able to judge the reality, not the propaganda peddled in this rag on an almost daily basis.
3

the_figures_are _fudged,

Galashiels 08/09/2008 00:04:18
Council Tax is hardly a fair tax either is it ?
4

Backofthenet,

08/09/2008 00:18:18
"Although there were talks before the summer, the SNP and Lib Dems have been split – the SNP wants a centrally set rate of 3p, but the Lib Dems want local councils to decide the rate."

In other words, the LibDems want a genuine local income tax.
5

,

08/09/2008 00:20:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

Conan the Librarian™,

08/09/2008 00:25:41
4
There you go.

http://tinyurl.com/5w9o9z
7

Richardinho,

08/09/2008 00:29:15
I'm very excited about LIT. It is a gamble, but if they manage to bring it in, and if it proves workable and popular, then it could just be the making of the SNP.

I note this newspaper elsewhere seems to think that the SNP are hoping that it gets voted down so they don't have to carry it through-for Gods sake, why would a party not want a flagship policy to reach the statute books?

The SNP needs to act with boldness and confidence. Fortune favours the brave and if they believe that LIT is a good policy, then they should have the courage to run with it.
8

Padraig,

08/09/2008 00:40:57
"As well as business groups, LIT is also opposed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants" - which Institute of Chartered Accountants? Te Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland or the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales, who surely have no worthwhile point to offer in this debate?
9

Team Scotland,

08/09/2008 00:41:27
LIT is not a poll tax. The poll tax was a flat charge and therefore regressive. LIT as currently proposed is neutral.

10

Richardinho,

08/09/2008 00:59:23
#13 well the worst that could happen is that they'd replace one extremely unpopular tax with another unpopular tax.
I'd rather the government predicate it's policies on the possibility of success rather than the expectation of failure, as does the labour party.
11

Arthur Teak ,

This week only Oslo 08/09/2008 01:11:37
The simple point evading all the naysayers on LIT is, that at this time, Alex Salmond is popular enough to get just about anything through Parliament. If he fails he can then say: "I did my best my but minority administration was baulked by the forces of reaction".

Salmond can't lose at the moment and neither can Scotland. Independence is just around the corner.
12

A Better Way,

Scottish Republic 08/09/2008 01:12:58
I see Angus Ogg, who is a reporter of the Hootsman who pops his head up whenever his masters want the tone of what they dont like, to be influenced at the number one spot on this forum.

Lit is the way to go, but if the Councils can vary the rate to suit their budgets, then there needs to be a mechanism to audit and approve the individual rise in rate. Perhaps Audit Scotland could audit Council efficinces, and then set a rate that expects them to become more efficient, with little wastage.

The majority of Scots will be far better off with an identifiable tax rate for local amenities and services.Lets not forget Councils dont have the usual ring fencing that New Labour used to control them and make them dance to McConnels Jig.

If the money is collected by the Councils then there is no need for Westmonster to get their hands on the money, and no charges from the English Treasury.
13

Embra Don,

08/09/2008 01:30:31
Quote "The Lib Dem solution, which potentially would see businesses having to pay 32 different rates, is the nightmare scenario outlined by the Institute of Directors, CBI Scotland and Federation of Small Businesses. In their submissions to the consultation on LIT, they warned that it would create administrative chaos and overburden businesses with paperwork."

This is pure nonsense and scaremongering! all employees have different tax codes already. It should make no difference to employers
14

Willie Macleod,

Wick 08/09/2008 01:36:57
#21 The ? Highland What do you want to know?
15

muppetfinder,

08/09/2008 01:40:29
no extra for employers all is done by payroll software. postcode already on file. they alredy make one payment per month for all taxes.
16

Jo Larkinson,

Glasgow 08/09/2008 01:56:21
#18 #19 #20 #21 #22, The person using all those usernames is on holiday ... back soon thou.
17

,

08/09/2008 02:04:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

,

08/09/2008 02:04:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

,

08/09/2008 02:05:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
20

Huistean baxter,

London ontario. 08/09/2008 03:14:11
Don't know if it is the same thing but councils here set their own local taxes. Every year there is a huge increase council claiming they need more money to pay the high wages they pay their police and firemen.It is
getting to the stage now that people can't afford the council high taxes.
21

Gobsmacked,

west kilbride 08/09/2008 04:07:25
#31 you got it in a oner. Many of our local authorities can hardly run basic services - trust them to raise taxes efficiently? No chance. LIT will be the SNP's downfall.
22

Joshua Vincent,

USA 08/09/2008 04:14:59
LIT has destroyed cities like Detroit and Philadelphia, Cleveland and other garden spots in my country. For god's sake, hasn't the SNP done any research on the effect of a LIT as it has been used around the world?

The SNP may be in opposition to Labour, but they certainly have no options that make them stand apart from blind confiscation of peoples' labour and investment.

The Scottish Green want local land value tax (LVT). If someone can tell me how land can leave a place where it is taxed at a higher rate (unlike income), I'd love to know the physics involved. It's a safe, sane, and reliable source of local revenue, full stop.

How much can LIT could Glasgow raise? How much land value in Glasgow is owned by absentees who will not pay LIT? Do the numbers. LIT will enrich the landlords of a desperately poor are. Good for you, SNP.
23

Robbie 2,

NZ 08/09/2008 05:49:49
23 Embra Don
As they say Don (in NZ anyway) “If you want a good reason for voting for something, always look at the people who are telling you not to.”

24

sdwrm,

08/09/2008 06:29:47
As an expat living in California, I can tell you that in this state with 58 counties, there are potentially 58 different sales tax percentages, and yet this state seems to function just fine - actually, there may be more than that, because cities can decide to levy a different rate. There is a 'base level' set by the state, at 7.25%, and then localities (cities or counties) can charge additional amounts up to 8.75%.

Maybe that's the compromise - once it beds in, set a national rate, then allow councils to vary it by a small margin.
25

sdwrm,

08/09/2008 07:10:10
Sales tax is collected at the point of sale - there's no escaping it. You buy something in a store - it's added on right there.
26

sdwrm,

08/09/2008 07:12:28
I know that sales tax (kind of like the UK's VAT) is quite different from a LIT, but I was bringing up the idea that it is quite possible for an economy to function with different tax rates - whether it's sales tax, or LIT. I personally think that a Scottish Sales tax might be a fairer way to go - no one can avoid it.
27

sdwrm,

08/09/2008 07:18:14
If you're buying something from another state (online or via mail or something), you get charged whatever the applicable rate for that state is. For example, if I go to the website for 'bestbuy dot com', an electronics store, and buy something, I enter my ZIP (postal) code, and the website calculates the sales tax, and adds it to your total.

If you've traveled to another state and buy something there, then you pay that state's sales tax rate.
28

sdwrm,

08/09/2008 07:26:47
#33 - the problem with the examples you raised is that individual cities levied those taxes, and the surrounding suburbs/counties did not - hence it was fairly easy to avoid the tax by people and businesses moving out of the cities - with devastating consequences.

A nationwide LIT would not have that problem. Just as no one (unless they get creative with an accountant) can avoid US federal taxes, neither could any resident of Scotland who earns income avoid the LIT. The big problem I see with the LIT is what do you do with some of the wealthiest people in the country, who do not earn income, and instead earn through dividends or interest?
29

the town cryer,

tranent 08/09/2008 07:27:03
correct this would be another form of the poll tax,the cost of setting up a new system has no finacial limit,better spent on wage increases for our public sector workers,the only way forward is to expand the amount of council tax bands,the liberlas as we have seen in east lothian and edinburgh have shown a complete contempt for the electorate,this is an attempt to help their failings
30

sdwrm,

08/09/2008 07:34:13
#46

There are a small number of states that do not have a sales tax, and I guess if you're buying a big ticket item, it could be worthwhile driving across the state line and loading the item in your car or truck, then driving back home - but for everyday items, it's not worth that kind of hassle.

If I lived on the state line between, say Massachusetts and New Hampshire, I might be tempted to do a fair bit of my shopping in NH....
31

Richardinho,

08/09/2008 07:44:15
#34'Following the debates on these threads it is clear that the SNP supporters would cheer at any proposal Salmond makes, no matter how ludicrous.'

Actually, reading your posts it's pretty clear that you don't have anything worthwhile to say against Salmond, only pathetic attempts at what I assume is meant to be humour like #36.
In fact there is a serious debate to be had about LIT,and I would love that to happen, but at the moment most of those against it ,like yourself, seem to prefer telling lies and whipping up ludicrous scare stories about it rather than discussing it in a mature considered way.

32

westcider,

Isle of Lewis 08/09/2008 07:45:02
bring em on has been knocking Alex Salmond for not having a plan. Do you think he has simply been lucky up to now? Do you perhaps know of someone outwith the SNP who has a cunning plan and if you do why not astound us with it or is it a big secret?
33

mike3,

Midlands 08/09/2008 07:48:16
If income tax is OK then what's wrong with a higher rate in Scotland if higher spend is wanted? Seems fair.
34

Richardinho,

08/09/2008 07:59:42
#51 Only if you believe the guff the Scotsman has been talking about it. Once the tax is a reality and the world doesn't grind to a halt and many people find themselves pleasantly surprised to be paying less tax, then we will be able to judge how good a policy it is.
35

Mikey,

08/09/2008 08:01:16
I'm amazed at the self respect that the National Party has brought to Scots in in just over a year!

Of course, as is always the case in Scotland, there is a loud mouthed minority of wannabe English who want us to follow Westmonster whatever the cost. Luckily, these people, who have no respect for themselves or their country, are now seen by your average Scot as being out on the lunatic fringe.

Salmond is no idiot. He knows that at the next Westmonster election, Labour will be wiped out and should the National Party get thirty seats, it will negate the reason to have a referendum. Thirty seats and the game's over! He knows that the rallying calls of the onionists has been that should the National Party get a majority of seats in Scotland, the game's over.

And who will bet against those thirty seats going to REAL Scots?

Onwards and upwards, folks!

Saor Alba!
36

Linda,

Edinburgh 08/09/2008 08:07:15
Even some progressive Tories support LIT.
Leaving only Labour who don't care about the lower paid any more i.e. doubling lowest tax rate from 10p to 20p.
Read Michael Porrtillo on LIT Sunday Times 7th September 2008
Having thought hard about local government finance, I am convinced that an income tax supplement must be part of any equitable local tax system. I admit that earners would pay more and high earners much more, but greater social justice is not a powerful argument against it.
More importantly, raising the money in that way would enable local government to grow in scope and importance. By comparison with almost every country I know, we suffer from chronically weak local government and from central government that is too powerful. Decisions are made remotely, national policies are imposed although they are inappropriate in most localities and terrible amounts of public money get wasted.
At present local government is little more than an instrument of Whitehall. It is dependent for most of its income on the Treasury which can therefore dictate most of its policies. It simply cannot be otherwise for as long as local authorities are forced to raise their money througha levy that is unrelated to ability to pay.
Central government does not want local government to acquire extra competences and the easiest way to block that is by maintaining an iniquitous system of local tax from which only small amounts can be raised. Local democracy scarcely exists if town halls merely take dictation from national politicians. Unsurprisingly it attracts few characters of drive and imagination. The shoddiness of British cities offers visual evidence that they lack power and confidence. They are unable to take bold initiatives like, say, Bilbao which attracted the Guggenheim museum and with it global interest.
The leading parties are constantly searching for a big idea that could be trans-formational. Salmond has hit upon it, admittedly for opportunistic reasons. Sadl
37

Linda,

Edinburgh 08/09/2008 08:13:20

NUS opposition to the Scottish Government’s LIT proposals is totally misguided.

A student would have to earn £10,500 a year or work or 33 hours a week at £6 an hour before they would pay a the equivalent of a weekly bottle of beer at a city centre bar in respect of LIT which is unlikely to come into force until 2011 but in the meantime the same student has to forego 13 bottles of beer every month to meet Gordon Brown’s doubling of the lowest tax band from 10p to 20p
38

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 08/09/2008 08:15:29
A blind Unionist can clearly see that the United Kingdom is now a quasi-federal state in everything but constitutional name.

The centralised, 20th Century British State is long Gone With The Wind.

This suits the constitution of the Liberal-Democratic Party which has always been in favour of the long held ideal of Liberal Federalism within the Union.

However, IF, this report is accurate, then the Scottish wing of the Liberal-Democratic Party, which is distinctly separate from it's Southern counterpart, will have moved from a position of long-held Liberal Federalism within the Union, to one of propping up a political party which intends to secede from the U.K.?
39

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 08:25:52
I'm amused by the triumphant demands for comment from me at 2am! I was asleep, sorry.

Incidentally, I wish people would stop this conspiracy theory that every poster who doesn't agree with the SNP must be the same person with different logins. Somebody claimed I was kimba the other day - this is beyond the pale. I only ever comment under this username.

Now then, to the business of the day: if the Lib Dems agree to a "bedding in period" where the rate is set nationally then what we are witnessing is the removal of local control over the raising and therefore of taxes for the first time in 500 years. Make no mistake, local tax would be abolished under this scheme. Instead, national taxes would be increased. But, and here's the rub, they would not be increased nearly enough to cover the shortfall in local taxes.

Assume for a moment that the SNP's wish list is granted, and not only are they allowed to increase the higher rate of income tax (something the Scottish Parliament is not competent to do under the terms of the referendum in which we all voted) but are also allowed to claw back the £400m council tax benefit despite the benefits system being reserved and Council Tax no longer being paid by anyone.

On that unlikely basis, the LIT at 3% would reduce the total tax take by approximately £350m. That's a £350m cut in local services across Scotland, every year of the "bedding in" period.

It should be clear from the experience of the council tax freeze last year that cuts to income have a direct effect on the amount and quality of services provided by councils. In Edinburgh, schools building programmes were axed, maintenance programmes were postponed indefinitely, charities doing vital work were forced to close, creche services were shut down, and so on. That was on the back of a relatively small shortfall.

If the 3% LIT comes in, that will seem like child's play. Budgets will be cut all over. Roads maintenance will be put off. Schools will crumble into
40

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 08:26:24
#57 cont'd

... disrepair. Refuse services will be reduced. Sports facilities will be downsized. Scotland will become a less attractive place to live and work. And yet, you won't be able to do anything about it in the local government elections, because the incumbents will tell you they had nothing to do with setting their budgets, only spending them.

The SNP, having complained bitterly about the lack of fiscal responsibility in the Scottish Parliament, will have acted to remove it from local authorities as well.

I do not support the SNP's national income tax increase, and nor should anyone else who has the interests of Scotland at heart.
41

eric,

08/09/2008 08:28:03
Overground from abnormality .Overboard for identity,Just a digit in another space!
42

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 08:32:33
#54 Linda, Portillo supports a Local income tax, because of its empowering effect on local authorities. What the SNP is proposing is a National income tax increase, which will have precisely the opposite effect to what Portillo is praising.

In other words, the article you quote argues against the SNP's position. Which, incidentally, Portillo makes clear in a section which you have chosen not to reproduce.

Cynical half truths? Surely this can't be the brave party of true Scots, Salmond's truth-tellers, who don't fear the facts but face them? Oh yes it is.
43

Doh,

08/09/2008 08:38:04
#58
So as a Labour supporter you dont support a tax based upon the ability to pay but you do support a tax increase of 10p on the very poorest.

As for your numbers - where do you get them from?
You are comapring a tax that has not been implemented with a tax that has not ye been set after re-evaluation. How are you so certain. You should stop being so partisan and dogmatic.

44

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 08:48:35
#63 Let's drop the points scoring attitude and look at this sensibly. The vast majority of taxes in this country are progressive (i.e. income/profit related) and those which are not are means tested. The Council Tax Benefit is what makes CT a workable, if imperfect, tax because those unable to pay it do not pay it.

Ask anyone with more than a political interest in taxation and they will tell you that a broad tax base, taking in purchase taxes, income/profit taxes and land/property taxes is the most sensible approach for a capitalist economy. That is because if you limit your taxes to just one or two types, the revenues become less predictable, tax avoidance becomes far easier, and the public purse suffers.

For a small but significant number of people, Council Tax is the only major tax they pay personally, having arranged their business interests to avoid personal income taxation. Bring in LIT and those people will stop paying tax altogether.

There are other examples, but the point is that a broad tax base is healthy, and benefits can be used effectively to reduce the impact on the lower paid.

I recommend you read the Green Party's proposals for a land tax - they make a lot of sense.
45

John not from the Borders,

Haddington 08/09/2008 08:49:15
Nobody likes the Council Tax because it's a Tax. If LIT comes in, in 5 years time no doubt we'll hear that the dreaded LIT has to be replaced. It's basically political bull!

The Council provides services which everyone in the community use and should pay for. It shouldn't be dependent on property value, income or anything else that is variable. That way we all know the true value of what we are gettting and the council are then accountable for what the provide.

Once you establish that principle you can then put in support mechanisms for those who need it.

If you think LIT will reduce the amount that you pay for your Council Services dream on!
46

mr angry,

ayrshire 08/09/2008 09:21:48
#64 , what a lot of student b*llocks. What are you reading from , the Labour students spin manual. You are a windbag pontificating on something that has not been set out yet. Rather than take your pathetic guess at the Governments policy I would prefer to wait and see what is proposed , we will then see whether we are short or where any differential is coming from. There is nothing progressive about tax in this country.
Away to school son.
47

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 09:28:04
#68 Ignoring the silly insults, this seems to be a common response from SNP supporters - wait and see what is proposed. Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but the 3% rate HAS been proposed by John Swinney. My calculations are based on that amount. Swinney himself acknowledges, in his consultation paper, that it will not cover the current revenues.

Or do you think Swinney was making a "pathetic guess" too?

Try harder.
48

Senga Jean,

08/09/2008 09:30:45
OK then .Hows about a local sales tax? Just add it to vat on a post code basis!
49

Jingling Geordie,

Sunshine on Leith 08/09/2008 09:36:06
Semi-detached properties no 1 and no 3 both band D.
No 1 has three earners on £25K total income £75k, house No 3 has one earner on £25K, total income £25K,
both households pay the same council tax........fair or unfair?
LIT would reverse this fairness.......most pensioners will benefit from LIT.
Having paid income tax for 50 years and rates, poll tax and council tax for 40 years I feel I am entitled to some relaxation of these burdens in my retirement.
50

Doh,

08/09/2008 09:44:22
#64 Duncan,

Having a broad base of taxes is not the same as arguing to retain the Council Tax to fund local government- i.e. the portion they can control - I know from your previous posts that important to you.

As for a land value tax - that is a good idea as well - it would might with approval by the Liberals - Chris Huhne spoke on it recently.

I have also stated that those in favour of the council tax should have it renamed the Home Tax ot perhaps the Westminster Tax.

Meanwhile a LIT would give councils a boyant tax which rises in line with wage inflation (council's largest cost). Rather being stiched up by central government and being forced to increase the Council Tax every year just to cover inflation.

51

Thistledhu,

08/09/2008 09:53:17
would pensions be affected by this Fire/ambulance/ Armed forces Etc ?
52

Salmond Rushdie,

08/09/2008 10:12:19
LIT is simply a tax on the hard working people of Scotland. What aspiration or motivation will the Scottish work force have to improve their financial position when they know the Scottish Government will take 3p off each extra £ they earn? The SNP and Lib Dems have lost the middle class vote overnight in Scotland, which may not concern the SNP and Lib Dem.

If Salmond wins the referendum, will the 3p rate stay in place? The SNP current response is, we don't know because it will depend on economic conditions etc. The bottom line is if LIT goes up above 3p the SNP/Lib Dems are in trouble. Especially if more than 50% of working people are worse off than they were under the Council Tax. 3p LIT is projected to allow 67% to be better off. How many will be better off when the Scottish Block Grant and Council Tax Rebate disappear or if the rate changes to 4p/5p?
53

Nailhead401,

everywhere 08/09/2008 10:15:23
if you are working and live in an area of high unemployment and all the associated problems this has, will you be paying more in tax to offset the population that aren't in work?
what if you live in a rurual area and local services i.e bin collections take longer and ultimatly cost more, is this reflected in the LIT?
if an area has a high LIT, do people move out of that area, lowering the house prices and raiseing the house prices in another area?
if there was ever a way to create division in an area this is it!
surley the tax system just now works without interference? why re-invent the wheel?
this all seems ill thought out....
there may be trouble ahead.

54

bluehead,

edinburgh 08/09/2008 10:18:21
does anyone have the details of the local tax system
that would be implemented?we all know the national tax system ,with allowances etc,so how does this one work,
it would interesting to be shown two or three examples
then people can judge for themselves,even though I voted SNP I have never trusted politicians,they are not without a chancer or two,or even a lot more.!!!!!
55

Thistledhu,

08/09/2008 10:26:26
lets not forget the long term unemployed who despite thousands of unfilled vacancys still managed to stay on every benifit under the sun.

they will still expect (and no doubt get) everything to be payed for them while paying nothing in return who picks up the slack for them?
56

adl333,

Linlithgow 08/09/2008 10:27:34
I cant believe that no-one has mentioned the 2 main issues here.

The ADDITIONAL cost of administration (Council Tax may not be perfect, but it is easy to collect). More importantly, to derive a figure the HMRC, Local Council, your employer, or whoever is to collect the LIT, they will have to find out your earnings before taking the 3% from you.

Civil servants ability to lose confidential information knows no boundaries.

57

Salmond Rushdie,

08/09/2008 10:32:56
Salmond and Tavish Scott are proposing a form of taxation that is currently reliant on Westminster continuing to provide the Council Tax Rebate. If for whatever reason this is not forthcoming, what will the rate of LIT be? This new tax should not be voted through until this position is finalised/confirmed. The result of no Council Tax Rebate is that many more people will be worse off.
58

Angus Ogg,

08/09/2008 10:34:28
#8 What's your point, apart from latent paranoia ?

#16 You are talking, or rather posting out of your back side.

With all due respect, I am certainly not employed by the Scotsman. For the past few years I have leant towards the SNP and posted on these boards views from that perspective. But because I post something that is not pro SNP you make assertions that are untrue.

Who are you anyway ? Why should you be allowed to say what you say?

Free speech that's why. But there are responsibilities with free speech. I don't have gratuitous pops at you, other than to counter the fact your post is unfounded and wrong.

As for posting before midnight, I have written repeatedly how this is done. I am no computer expert and can barely work email, but for anyone with an ounce of deductive reasoning it is a fairly simple system. You copy the change date button web address at the top line. Then instead of going backwards you put in the next days date.

If by posting before midnight you deduce I am an employee of the Scotsman, then your brain isn't wired that well. I would question a lot of your belief system as it seems based on faulty logic. Perhaps it is time for you to go the way of the USSR. It didn't work that well either.
59

Angus Ogg,

08/09/2008 10:46:15
#33 Joshua,

Thank goodness for some experience and reasoned debate. These Boards are often infested with the party clones such as A Worse Way at #16 and Paranoia Van at #8. There are a minority of guilty fanatics in both Unionist and Nationalist camps that act as attack droids to abuse any floating voter who dares not to fall into one box or the other.

It is refreshing that you post from experience and that LIT has been proven to be just as bad, if not worse that Local Property Rates when trialed in America.

It just seems a shame, that the SNP who have done admirably well in their first year, should fall into the trap of assuming because they were elected, that this is a carte blanche endorsement of every single policy. Especially when so many voters and organisations are baulking against LIT.

You would think Alex Salmond, who is usually so politically astute and has such a refined ear to what the voters want, should not take a second look at whether LIT is flawed.
60

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 10:48:09
#74 Indeed, there are a number of arguments against the SNP's LIT proposal. I just think that two of the strongest are the narrowing of the tax base and the removal of fiscal responsibility from local authorities. And no "bedding in period" branding for the fixed rate will change that.

I'm not sure how inflationary rises in CT can be considered the result of a "stitch up" by central government. People expect inflationary rises. Perhaps you're saying that people are too stupid to realise that an unchanging income tax rate results in an increasing income tax take. Perhaps you're right. It's not an edifying thought though.
61

Angus Ogg,

08/09/2008 11:02:07

#72,

Appreciate your effort to argue the case for LIT, but your logic is flawed. The exact reverse case is true.

A couple with three kids at the semi in no 5. Opposite them at no 6 is a huge mansion with a retired bachelor who made lots of money working in finanial services in Edinburgh.

He lives in a huge house and and thanks to LIT pays nothing, whilst five people living across the road in a small semi pay infinitely more than him.

Fair ?

No.

There will be winners and losers all round. But my concern is this will be another Poll Tax. You had lots of enthusiastic people who debated well, saying the old Rates system was hated and the Poll Tax was the answer to all our prayers.

What happened? Riots, mayhem, and Poll Tax was scrapped. To change the system from Rates to poll Tax to Council tax cost billions of pounds that were wasted in beaurocracy and could have been spent on hospitals and schools.

Though at least the Poll Tax got rid of Maggie Thatcher.

Trouble is, I quite like Alex Salmond, and don't want to see him evicted from Bute House when the Tartan Poll Tax causes riots in the Banff and he loses his seat as well as his FM job!
62

AberdeenAngus,

08/09/2008 11:06:00
"He lives in a huge house and and thanks to LIT pays nothing, whilst five people living across the road in a small semi pay infinitely more than him."

The five people use more services - fair enough.
63

Thistledhu,

08/09/2008 11:09:24
or they five are on benifts and pay zip anyway
64

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 11:13:17
#89 So is this meant to be a progressive tax or not? Seems to me that's the opposite of a progressive tax - the richest pay nothing.

And the point is that many of the services he receives will cost the same no matter how many people live in his house - policing, fire service, refuse collection (there will be less rubbish they have to call at his house anyway); and many are not directly provided services to those who pay, but social services for those who cannot, like children or the old and vulnerable.

It is indefensible that the well-off should avoid contributing towards any of that. That is why a broad tax base makes more sense.
65

AberdeenAngus,

08/09/2008 11:19:56
"The rich" will always avoid paying tax.
66

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 11:21:38
#92 Except property or land tax! That's the whole point of a wide tax base!
67

WMSART,

MUSSELBURGH 08/09/2008 11:22:48
WHY IS IT THAT LABOUR KNOWS BEST. WHAT IS THIER VIEW, AND POLICY.
68

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

08/09/2008 11:25:18
I have serious doubts about this two-phase introduction of LIT. I just don't see the point of taking revenue-raising powers away from councils only to hand them back again some time down the line.

All it does is that instead of one changeover to confuse voters and businesses we will have two changes that will confuse voters and businesses.

It is perfectly possible, even within the present legislative framework, to create an LIT that could have variable rates. Having variable rates would make Scottish councils more accountable than a nationally set Scottish Income Tax.

Instead of this two-step solution I'd prefer short-term changes to be made to the existing Council Tax with a much more long-term view to introducing a genuine LIT. Those short-term changes could be implemented far quicker than any new tax and would bring relief to many - particulalry pensioners. Moreover, the link between local authority, expenditure, income and representation would not be broken.

By going down the two stage route, we break that link, and, however temporary that may be I don't believe it is acceptable.
69

AberdeenAngus,

08/09/2008 11:25:32
I think I'd rather wait to see what the Libdems/SNP come up with. Whatever else, it's consensus politics which can only be a good thing. In some European countries there's a "council tax" AND a land tax.

Council tax is for water & rubbish. There's a small amount for local roads and town infrastructure and a land tax.
70

AberdeenAngus,

08/09/2008 11:28:19
In some European countries, the council tax is exactly the same no matter the size of property.

There is an annual tax based on house value.

There is a tax when selling property. This tax is based on increase in land value.

I'm getting a bit confused about the whole thing!
71

Kimg Arthur,

08/09/2008 11:28:24
#93 - actually, the rich also avoid paying property taxation as well - they rich, who own multiple properties, have no incentive to sell them on, as they are only taxed on sale (stamp duty), hence, the very rich build up enormous portfolios of property, which give them capital gain and yield like a bond...its as safe as...houses.
72

Angus Ogg,

08/09/2008 11:29:00
#88 Hi Spook.

LoL. Hope you are well. This was the reason I stayed off of the Boards for a while. Fortunately, there are some decent debate points such as #74 DoH and #86 Duncan with a more forensic analysis of wide base and narrow base tax band merits, and of course the Spook input as well.

Just seems sad that there are some that just come on to abuse. Though I suppose these Boards are much like a local pub. Lots of crack (the talk not the drug), lots of good company, but the occasional drunk or bore. Though it's a bit more tricky sifting out the alcoholically challenged on the Scotsman Boards. At least in a pub you can see them as they are usually horizontal.
73

Kimg Arthur,

08/09/2008 11:29:16
100
74

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

08/09/2008 11:30:10
#87 "To change the system from Rates to poll Tax to Council tax cost billions of pounds that were wasted in beaurocracy and could have been spent on hospitals and schools"

Another reason to oppose a two-stage introduction of LIT. Why pay for one set of bureaucracy only to replace it with another set of bureaucracy some time down the line?

A bedding-in period would make sense if it were just going to be a change to the existing bureaucracy. But that's not what will happen - instead we will have a shift from local bureaucracy to national bureaucracy and back to local bureaucracy.

Crazy indeed.
75

Angus Ogg,

08/09/2008 11:30:24
#95 worse than that, the LIT experiment will consume millions that should be spent on schools.
76

noswod,

Honestus 08/09/2008 11:30:36
Its political suicide time for the Nats. When the middle and upper classes calculate how much 3p in the £ means i.e £5k rates instead of £2k then its curtains for the economic adviser to the Darien Bank. They will no be having it. Also the working class guy with two kids and a wife working rates a grand now but with this 3p business its £1,800. As usual the dependencey class get it free without any incentive for them to get a job and start earning like the rest of us. As with all proposed changes to rates its a stealth tax increase to keep funding the dependency classes not those who will freeze to death this winter.
77

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 11:35:21
#95 This proposal makes a lot of sense. However I have long suspected that the idea of the SNP's LIT proposal was not actually to achieve a local income tax, but rather to put yet another lever in place for independence, that being the raison d'etre of the SNP.

Locally set rates would not allow the SNP to link budgetary constraints back to Westminster. Changes to Council Tax to reduce the burden on the poorest would not allow the SNP to pick the CT rebate fight with Westminster. And actually getting something going before the independence referendum would expose the SNP to the danger that people would experience the service cuts that come alongside the tax cuts in time to vote against the SNP in the independence vote.

I wait to be convinced that this isn't a sacrificial policy. One thing can be relied upon - if it does fall, we will be told in no uncertain terms that it is the fault of Westminster - either for refusing to allow the SP to exert powers beyond its competence, or for refusing to supply additional funds needed to make the change, or for whatever other reason.

#15 gets it absolutely right, unfortunately - in his first para at least. His second para is woefully wrong-headed.
78

AberdeenAngus,

08/09/2008 11:37:48
I think there are a number of posters here who just make up figures to suit the argument. Go to Glasgow's LIT calculator then come back.

I refer to 103. It all depends on earnings. Like everything else in life there will be winners and losers. A few more tweaks are needed.
79

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/09/2008 11:38:01
#57 Duncan

Not so. The £350m you talk about will be funded from central government.
80

Kimg Arthur,

08/09/2008 11:38:25
For me, my gripe with council tax is not the tax, per se, but the fact that it constantly rises, particularly in Labour run areas, at inflation busting levels. And we really see no difference - it is mostly swallowed up in wage rises. Its like the 10% increase in the tube fares boris announced last week - most of that will go straight to the drivers who already earn 40k+ on average - there will be no improvement to the service.
81

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/09/2008 11:43:10
#69 duncan

The difference between Swinney and you is that you are naive enough to believe that the SNP will allow the LIT to be under-funded to the tune of £350m and that this will lead to huge cuts in service.

You are in a very small minority.
82

Calvinist,

08/09/2008 11:47:46
The whole concept of a LOCAL income tax is arrant nonsense. If I understand the LIB DEM position each local authority will set and levy its own tax. So far so good but on what basis is this going to be levied? If I live in Edinburgh and work in Glasgow do I pay the Edinburgh or the Glasgow tax? If the tax is cheaper in Aberdeen than Dundee can I move to pay less? This strikes me as a costly white elephant which will be impossible to administer and will be full of loop holes. The only beneficiaries will be clever accountants and the super-rich (as usual).
83

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/09/2008 11:47:58
#83 You are displaying your ignorance of the Scotland Act.

3p maximum !
84

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 11:52:05
#106, #108 connaughtboy, the irony of you calling me naive is delightful.

It doesn't matter whether you think the service cuts will be from local or national funding. A £350m tax cut is a £350m tax cut, and it means £350m less to spend on services.

You talk about "central government" funding as if it was a source of endless cash. It isn't - it is paid for by our taxes, and if it is £350m down then services WILL be cut.

In any event, Swinney has already laid out plans for significant budget cuts to local authorities in the concordat. He has freed them from ring-fencing but taken away cash.

Every Scottish citizen will experience the effects of these cuts.
85

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 11:54:29
#110 You are displaying your ignorance of the SNP's LIT proposal. Swinney explicitly states that it is unrelated to the SP's tax varying power. As it would have to be, since it increases the higher rate of tax by 3% too, which is outwith the tax varying power of the SP.

Swinney is arguing that this is possible because he is not changing a national tax, but a local one. Of course this argument is flimsy, but you'd need to take that up with him.

You need to read your own party's consultation paper sunshine!
86

Alan B,

08/09/2008 11:55:10
#109 Calvinist

You would pay the tax where you live, just like the current system. You do not pay council tax where you work you pay it based on your address.

"If the tax is cheaper in Aberdeen than Dundee can I move to pay less?"

Exactly what you could do with council tax if it was cheaper in one area that another.
87

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 11:57:39
Why are people still insisting on calling this the LIT.

There is nothing local about it. It's nationally set, nationally collected and nationally distributed. It's the end of all local council fiscal autonomy.

It's a National Income Tax.
88

AberdeenAngus,

08/09/2008 12:00:03
115

Because it sounds stupid if you call it NIT?
89

Alan B,

08/09/2008 12:00:13
#104 Duncan in Edinburgh

"I have long suspected that the idea of the SNP's LIT proposal was not actually to achieve a local income tax, but rather to put yet another lever in place for independence"

I think that statement actually says alot. If a unionist lib dem put a proposal for lit then that is ok. If the snp have a similar policy and have a similar stance to the lib dems then it is not acceptable.

I for the life of me cannot see how supporting lit can do anything to further independence. (Apart for a tenuous link of the snp being seen to run the country well.)
90

Kimg Arthur,

08/09/2008 12:03:04
Someone in Edinburgh us talking with breathtaking arrogance - I suspect he is a middle manager in the public sector. He probably thinks that because half the people around him are dumb or lazy that he is somehow a genius. He probably spends alot of time in front of the mirror.
91

Alan B,

08/09/2008 12:03:32
#Highland Mighty

They would probably call it LIT as it is tax money to be spent by councils locally.

Part of the problem with so much of the expenditure of councils is the fact that so much is centrally raised, 80%. And so much of the spending of councils set down to meet statutory targets of central government. Much of the council tax rises in the previous 10yrs were to meet central government set issues and not for things councils lead stuff.
92

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 12:04:37
34. Spot on.
93

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 12:06:06
#117 Oh Alan, go away. I explained the logic in the rest of my post but as ever you are going to ignore it and start nipping away at illogical extensions. You tire me. If you can't understand my argument, just be quiet.
94

AberdeenAngus,

08/09/2008 12:08:49
121

No need to go in the huff! Just because you post something doesn't make it true. I think you've got an ulterior motive here. Is it a greed thing? Will you lose out?
95

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

08/09/2008 12:09:35
A better name would be the National Local Authority Expenditure Tax.
96

Alan B,

08/09/2008 12:09:45
#Duncan in Edinburgh

Why do always find you have to be rude when someone post what they regard as flaws in your posts?

Should other posters tell you to be quiet because they find your posts illogical and flawed and without logic.
97

Calvinist,

08/09/2008 12:10:53
113
'You would pay the tax where you live, just like the current system. You do not pay council tax where you work you pay it based on your address'.

I pay INCOME tax where I work not where I live. Are you proposing then to have two PAYE systems. One for the work place and one for ones domicile? Time for some joined up thinking perchance?
98

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 12:12:41
#122 I never claimed that me posting something made it true. I said that his question is already answered in my post, but as ever he fails to read or understand it.

As for accusing me of greed, is that really what you're left with? As I have said often enough in the past, the one telling thing about this LIT proposal is that for myself and my partner, the shift from CT would be virtually costless - but that as relatively high salary earners we should by rights be paying far more. In case you hadn't noticed my gripe with the 3% rate is that it should be higher! How that can be described as greed I have no idea. Perhaps you've just run out of counter-arguments.
99

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/09/2008 12:14:19
#103 To pay £5,000 LIT, the relevant household income would need to be around £175,000

To break-even on the £2,000 CT, the income would be around £75,000.

Not many people earn that level of income.

I don't think that, under your example, there would be too many unhappy
100

Alan B,

08/09/2008 12:15:55
#Calvinist

I am not proposing anything. I am just saying the proposal means that you would pay LIT where you live.

How do pay where you work? Everyone in the uk currently just pays the same rate of income tax at the moment. But if the scotland act power to vary income tax was used or under any future fiscal federalsim you would pay based on yor address.

Gaving another example. When i worked in ireland a while ago i would still be paying taxes in scotland not ireland as that is where i lived. The tax rules would mean that you only start paying taxes there if you live more than 6months there.

I do not support LIT so not backing it. But as far as i understand the proposals it is for the inland revenue to levy a 3p tax onto the payee system based on where you live.



101

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 12:16:11
#124 I am not always rude, Alan, only to you. And that only when you, as in this case, fail to read and/or understand what I said.

In #117 you say that you cannot see what support for the SNP's LIT proposal could do to further independence. And yet in the post to which you were responding, I gave three alternative ways in which it would act as a lever.

I would be quite happy for you to say you disagree with them - fine, make an argument. But to say you can see no argument is simply to avoid the issue altogether. This is typical of your approach I'm afraid.

I will resolve to try not to be rude to you, but could you please read my posts more carefully, and argue the points rather than the generalities?
102

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/09/2008 12:17:00
#111 Duncan

I never claimed there was endless cash available from central government. This tax will be fully costed before implementation and it will be fully funded.

So, yes, naive is the correct word for you.
103

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/09/2008 12:18:42
#111 i would like to see the evidence for this, if you have any:

"In any event, Swinney has already laid out plans for significant budget cuts to local authorities in the concordat. He has freed them from ring-fencing but taken away cash."
104

Calvinist,

08/09/2008 12:19:31
Alan

Thanks that make things very much clearer.
105

guenevere,

08/09/2008 12:20:17
127. You would be surprised, i know a lot of scots who work in the middle east who earn in excess of 175,000.
106

Alan B,

08/09/2008 12:20:36
#126 Duncan in Edinburgh

I understand perfectly what you are saying. Just do not agree with you and find that you will always tend to support labour position no matter what and take an anti snp position.

Even when i agree with you on not backing LIT, i find your arguments abit ridiculous. Maybe because you tend to be obnoxious i tend to point out what i regard as flaws in your position.
107

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 12:22:52
#130 Say what? What does that mean? Does it mean the cash will come from cutting services elsewhere? Does it? Where else do you think the government can find a spare £350m a year? Down the back of the sofa?

"This tax will be fully costed before implementation and it will be fully funded."

Oh well then, I can hear the SNP faithful say, that's okay. Fully costed, very good. Fully funded, excellent. Marvellous times, eh?

Honestly, do you believe you have just said something? You have said nothing. My point stands - a tax cut has to be funded from cuts in services however you dress it up.
108

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/09/2008 12:25:11
#134 Stop trolling.
109

AberdeenAngus,

08/09/2008 12:26:12
134

Are they taxed under PAYE?
110

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 12:26:29
#135 Fine, than pull me up on my arguments. Don't tell me I haven't made arguments!

Saying that I haven't made arguments is not "pointing out flaws" in my position. It is ignoring my position.

I am sorry you find me obnoxious. I'm just trying to put across my point of view in an environment which is inherently hostile to me. Sometimes I overdo it.
111

AberdeenAngus,

08/09/2008 12:29:49
What Scottish political party is happy with the current set up?
112

guenevere,

08/09/2008 12:31:47
138. Not sure,but they have homes in west Scotland in excess of 400,000,killearn and balfron mainly.
113

Eddie,

Edinburgh 08/09/2008 12:34:53
To provide local services, we should look at the purpose of it, and who benefits from the outcome. The ideal way to fund local spending in a simplistic world would be a tax on individuals who use the services, ie everyone.

So we could complicate it by making allowances for the poor, the homeless and students, with discounts to the needy and those who deserve and need help, and a full charge on just the others who are working and are able to pay.

The very wealthy business man has the same individual's requirement as regards rubbish collection, street repairs and water supplies as his poorer neighbours. And, because he paying for and running a bigger property, is already paying higher levels of central income tax which trickles back to the Councils, and needs the police, schools and social services much less.

Sounds fair? Sounds a bit like the Community Charge? But just call it a Poll Tax and it becomes a very very bad thing!

Now lets hear from all the losers!
114

Country Life,

Edinburgh 08/09/2008 12:35:57
Council Tax is levied on all property owners, local income tax will only be levied on earned income. So many wealthy people who currently pay coucil tax will not pay local income tax. And what about the many who live outside Scotland but have Scottish holiday homes? They pay council tax but will not pay local income tax.

So the same burden falls on a smaller group of payers. Genius.
115

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

08/09/2008 12:36:52
#140 The Tories and Labour. Both parties want to keep Council tax but moderate it, particularly for groups like pensioners. Whilst in the short-run that is acceptable in the long-run I believe much more fundamental change is required.
116

AberdeenAngus,

08/09/2008 12:39:05
141 guenevere

Is it a 2nd home?
117

AberdeenAngus,

08/09/2008 12:42:20
Country Life

"And what about the many who live outside Scotland but have Scottish holiday homes? They pay council tax but will not pay local income tax."

"2nd home owners will not be part of LIT, but they will pay a tax. What is your point here?
118

guenevere,

08/09/2008 12:42:55
146. No,it's there main residence
119

AberdeenAngus,

08/09/2008 12:44:47
If it's their main residence, does that mean they commute daily to the middle east?
120

Kimg Arthur,

08/09/2008 12:47:35
#148 - do you not mean it's "their" main residence? LOL!!!

Guenevere - i'm still waiting for what's coming to me...where is it?
121

Busymale,

08/09/2008 12:49:47
As a rich b*&£"£d I would like to know why I should reduce my standard of living to subsidise those old age pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes during the winter and are likely to die as a result, be made to pay a progressive income tax according to what I'm earning, and stop my having 3 holidays in the sun a year and reduce them to 2? My gas guzzling sports car needs petrol after all and I need to pay tax on my portfolio of second homes.

And by the way, I'm not happy with the 2.5% offer the government have offered public sector bureacrats like myself.

To hell with the poor, think about me! Is there no justice in the world?
122

Kimg Arthur,

08/09/2008 12:49:53
People I know who work in the middle east almost universally do so to take advantage of the tax free/lower tax rates. To enjoy that, they can only spend 90 days in the UK per financial year...or at least, they can only declare 90 days.
123

Darien,

Panama 08/09/2008 12:52:18
Tavish for Foreign Minister in the first independent Scottish Government starting from 2010, anyone......? Tavish kens whit oil can dae for an economy.

Post Ming/Steel LibDems maybe can see the way the wind is blawin'. Feel the power, LibDems? (That's no the puppet-devolved type o power, its real power Independence offers).
124

radge dug,

Dùn Eideann 08/09/2008 12:56:02
Labour has had years to do something in London and in Edinburgh. Theyy did nothing.

But do they have the guts to work with the SNP, Lib Dems and Greens to bring in something fair? Or will they stick with the Tories?
125

Kimg Arthur,

08/09/2008 12:56:05
they're are a numburr off very good fings about LIT "its' yummee?
126

guenevere,

08/09/2008 12:58:30
149 LOL, it means the man of the house is in the middle east but his wife and children live in the family home.
127

guenevere,

08/09/2008 13:00:47
154. guess they will "stick with the tories" oh dear, what will Salmond do then!
128

AberdeenAngus,

08/09/2008 13:03:27
156

He can't be a man of the house if he's not in the house.

If the wife and children are earning, they'll pay LIT. If the husband is working in the middle east and is away from home, does his wife not get conjugal visits?
What if the husband doesn't want to pay LIT and stays in the middle east? Will the wife be sad or what?

129

camster,

E Kilbride 08/09/2008 13:07:19
Most countries have property taxes and in many countries such as the USA they are much higher than the UK. If you take away property taxes then it reduces the cost of owning property especially for wealthy people who can own many properties. In addition many wealthy people like my parents have flats in England so they will not need to pay any LIT. My worry is that if the rich can avoid the tax that leaves us the working middle classes picking up all the costs of the system.

With a property tax you can reduce it by sharing your house or moving in with your parents but with an local income tax the only way to reduce it is to move outside Scotland.
130

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

08/09/2008 13:08:52
Ach weel. I know now to avoid voting for the Liberals and Greens too. Seems like I'm about to become a Tory despite my reservations.
131

TWC,

Ayrshire 08/09/2008 13:14:57
157.
Wee Eck will just thump them at the next election. Then introduce LIT when he likes.
I personally would like a sales tax but if not that, then LIT will have to do.
132

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 08/09/2008 13:19:56
Anybody on more than £60k per annum isn't worth it. They should be taxed at 90% over that sum and if they don't like it: bye bye. They won't be missed.
133

Salmond Rushdie,

08/09/2008 13:20:00
#110

Would the Scotland Act apply under an independent Scotland? Is it not a Westminster act? If so, surely all Westminster acts will be abolished under an independent Scotland and the 3p cap abolished? My question remains :

"Under an independent Scotland, will LIT remain at 3p given there will be no Scottish Block Grant and no Council Tax Rebate?"

134

Dylan fan,

Planet earth 08/09/2008 13:22:03

I know nothing of your current tax situation. Where I live, we have lots of different ones....

Sales taxes are up to the individual states where I live.(some states don't tax food, for example. Some don't tax sales at all.)

Some states do not have state income tax.

Property tax goes to the county and is adjusted depending on where you live within the county.
( Some exemptions exist for domiciles ( lower)and seniors(no taxes in some states.)

Some states require an inspection sticker on any licensed vehicle. All require the license Tag.

There is a Federal Income tax everyone pays to some degree or other.
135

Salmond Rushdie,

08/09/2008 13:23:06
#162

You obviously believe all business people and entrepeneurs should earn less than £60k a year. That policy should lift Scotland into a world economic powerhouse...get real
136

Salmond Rushdie,

08/09/2008 13:24:23
#162

The reason you earn less than £60k a year is because you are clearly thick as mince
137

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 08/09/2008 13:28:51
I'm just waiting for the English to start grumping when they realise Scotland is getting a much fairer deal than they are ever likely to get. They have 2 choices. stick with labours candy stealing ways or opt for the Tory version of the same Tax....
138

Dylan fan,

Planet earth 08/09/2008 13:30:08

Yes, the very wealthy often find ways of avoiding paying their fair share.
139

Salmond Rushdie,

08/09/2008 13:31:10
#167

Support is growing down south for an independent English Government. They may get it through default...
140

Pat Scot,

Albernia 08/09/2008 14:00:01
I'm all in favour of a progressive tax system. Council tax is flawed, but so is this so called "local" income tax proposal.
_ Firstly, it's not local, it's national. It will only be local when councils can vary it.
_ If Holyrood can only vary basic rate, then higher rate taxpayers will escape much of the charge.
_If unearned income isn't taken into account, it's a tax on work, not a tax on income.

If the Lib Dems accept an arrangement whereby it will be a couple of years before it is locally variable, then the must ensure that the lower paid are protected, at least to the the extent of the council tax benefit would have shielded them. They also need to ensure that it lis levied on all income that is normally taxable under income tax.
141

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/09/2008 14:16:58
#136 Duncan

you may not be doing this intentionally, but your posts are full of anger and aggression and it make debating with you quite an unpleasant experience.

On the subject matter, £350m is a relatively small proportion of the £30bn annual block grant and can be funded from the annual budget.
142

Scunner,

Bonnie Scotland 08/09/2008 14:18:27
I would be happy to pay 3p in the pound up to the basic rate threshold and it should then be 6p in the pound once you are over the higher rate banding.

Only problem I see with councils setting the tax is that most of them are poorly run and I fear they would squander the cash.
143

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/09/2008 14:23:54
#141 guenevere

Your input is a distraction to the debate. Even if you know a dozen that fall into this high income bracket, I stand by my statement that very few people earn in excess of £175k pa. The average salary in Scotland is a fraction of this.
144

Embra Don,

08/09/2008 14:24:12
#163 Salmond Rushdie

Oh no - how will we manage without our housekeeping allowance?

145

Salmond Rushdie,

08/09/2008 14:27:22
#174

That's about the extent of Swinney's fiscal planning.
146

Kimg Arthur,

08/09/2008 14:28:50
171 Connaughtboy, sadly, in my limited experience on this website, it is people like duncan in edinburgh that make this website an unpleasant experience. He seems to be typical of your Scottish Labour supporting contributors - abusive and unable to grasp the new order in Scotland, and that there are people with alternative and valid views to his own.
147

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/09/2008 14:33:17
#163 Salman

In an independent Scotland we will have a far healthier revenue surplus, so, if anything, taxes will tend to reduce.

Try reading this if you are genuinely interested:

http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.org/obfuscation.htm
148

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/09/2008 14:35:11
#176 KA

Agreed.
149

Salmond Rushdie,

08/09/2008 14:43:57
#177

Was the GERS report not commissioned by the SNP adminstration?

If so, your website seems to show a nationalist refuting a report commissioned by a nationalist party.

At the end of the day, the referendum will not be a straight Yes/No vote. It will include a question on whether the voter would prefer the Scottish Government to have increased powers of devolution. This question will obtain the most yes votes and scupper the SNP's call for independence. This is also the reason there is no political opposition to Salmond in Scotland. Labour and the Tories know the question will be included in the referendum.
150

argonaut,

east lothian 08/09/2008 15:10:35

I see the usual suspects are out again today, the royal ed must have broadband !

LIT will become a reality, we have known for years that both SNP and Libdems favour, each working individual in every area of Scotland should contribute to their areas local services, constantly the majority of Scots favour a local income tax.
Its just bizarre that an elderly person/ couple with little actual income, the only asset they have is the family home they paid for with years of toil, then they have to pay a tax based sorely on an outdated valuation of their property - madness !
5 working adults in a large house pay the same council tax as the working couple next door - more madness.
its not the house that puts pressure on or utilises the local services - its the actual people. No tax is popular but tax based on your earnings/ ability to pay is the closest to being fair. the people demand it..it will happen
151

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 15:14:38
177. Is this link, by any chance, to ANOTHER amateur nationalist 'analysis' akin to that totally discredited waste of bandwidth that was the 'Great Deception'?

Any particular reason why anyone with a 3-digit IQ should believe anything in this site?

No, I didn't think so.
152

Salmond Rushdie,

08/09/2008 15:18:31
#180

When has a politician introduced a new tax that was popular with the people? Salmond will come unstuck with this, like all before him. Particularly if the SNP haven't done their sums. If the 3p LIT rate goes up, more than the current 33% of Scottish households will be worse off. Salmond's double whammy could be an increase in the LIT rate + a cut in public services. We'll see.
153

notanactivist,

the Borders 08/09/2008 15:18:55
#180

Too true, it will become a reality.

It will be Big Fat Eck's own poll tax and, like its predecessor, will do wonders for Scottish Labour.
154

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 15:22:18
181 [contd] LOL! Just looked at your link.......and it IS the 'Great Deception'!

Are you seriously still trying to peddle this nonsense?!

Snap comparison....

From the 'Great Deception': "The GERS report gives the figure of £2,729 Millions or 8.44%, which also charges the entire cost of the Trident system to Scotland, when it fact it is a UK wide commitment.
In actual fact the CORRECT FIGURE is £954 Millions or 3.5% ."

Note the last sentence, people.

Now, from the SNP's GERS:
"Defence Expenditure = £2.729bn = 5.5%"

It says a great deal that the nats will rely on the 'Great Deception' (the work of an amateur) more than they do their beloved and 'perfect' SNP.

Nats = Gullible, ignorant, ill-informed and/or outright liars.
155

Bryce Curdy,

08/09/2008 15:30:28
I think it's outrageous that this ridiculous and controversial piece of legislation could be passed by bribing a couple of Green MSPs. LIT is discredited by every organisation qualified to consider it and now even the less well informed general public are starting to realise that these proposals are deeply flawed. This is despite the fact that making 20% of the population pay massively more for their local services to fund a bribe for the remaining 80% should be superficially popular, even if fundamentally unfair.
156

Bryce Curdy,

08/09/2008 15:32:57
Can I just add that I would rather have independence than LIT.
157

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 15:33:38
#171 I would be less full of anger if I wasn't faced with a barrage of insults when I expressed a dissenting view from the prevalent "Salmond is perfect" mindset that populates these boards.

I would be less full of anger if in response to reasoned posts like #57/58 or #64 I got reasoned replies. Instead from the SNP camp I get "what a lot of student b*llocks... You are a windbag pontificating..." etc. etc.

You are very quick to criticise me for reacting angrily to such provocation, but you don't ever seem to criticise those on your own side who provoke. Funny that.

In #57/58 and #64 I made some clear, sensible points, and I am still waiting for a clear, sensible response to them. Do you as an SNP supporter genuinely welcome the abolition of fiscal responsibility for local authorities? Do you genuinely welcome the narrowing of the tax base and enabling of tax avoidance for the rich? Do you simply accept every single aspect of what Swinney has proposed in his ill-named Local Income Tax proposal?

Instead of attacking me, attack my arguments. It would be far more interesting and worthwhile.
158

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 15:39:38
184 [contd]. More examples of how the SNP discredited the 'Great Deception':

GD: Betting and Gaming revenue should be £121m.
SNP-GERS: Betting and Gaming Revenue is £95m
*GD is wrong by 21.5%*

GD: Non-North Sea Corporation Tax should be £4.322bn.
SNP-GERS: Non-North Sea CT is £3.019bn.
*GD is wrong by 30%*

GD: Inheritance Tax should be £297m.
SNP-GERS: Inheritance Tax revenue is £228m.
*GD is wrong by 23%*

GD: Council Taxes should total £2.006bn.
SNP-GERS: Council Taxes total £1.812bn.
*GD is wrong by 9.7%*

GD: Defence expenditure should be £954m.
SNP-GERS: Defence expenditure is £2.729bn
*GD is wrong by a whopping 65%!*

And yet the centrepiece of the nat's economic argument is STILL the 'Great Deception'!
159

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/09/2008 15:42:16
184 HM
There is no need to waste time and effort refuting the so called analysis in the "Great Deceptrion". It is so obviously fabricated, fiddled and flawed that even some nationalists don't take it seriously and are (rightly so) embarrassed by it.
160

Kimg Arthur,

08/09/2008 15:58:40
duncan in edinburgh has really pulled out his handbag!

No, you see, I've seen your posts and you really do get personal and angry. Perhaps you should practice what you preach first? That really would be interesting.
161

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 16:00:02
Before I get back to work, I'd just like to throw this into the nat works:

The nats often like to mention the public sector pension and PFI liabilities for the Treasury means that the 'true public debt' is nearer 100% of GDP as opposed to the published 43% figure.

Well, just looked up the liabilities for France, Germany and Italy...

France's public-sector pension liabilities = 120% of GDP (this does not include the 67% govt debt or their own PPP/PFI schemes)

Germany's public-sector pension liabilities = 243% of GDP (again, this does not include their 60% govt debt or their PFI/PPP schemes).

As for Italy....well, they have enough problems. Yikes!
162

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 16:02:31
190. Utter carp and you know it.

How come your figures bear no resemblance, in any way shape or form, to figures produced by the SNP?!

You are making yourself look ridiculous. Again.
163

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 16:09:26
194. Support for independence is still only 34%?

Wasn't Salmond trying to claim after Glasgow-East that is was 46%?

And 50% for pro-UK is very high compared to recent polls.
164

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 16:10:47
196/197. I think I've broken him!
165

Bryce Curdy,

08/09/2008 16:12:08
#180 - I disagree with your idea of the fairest tax.

The fairest tax is one which takes account of an individual's use of local services. If you CAN afford to pay to have your bin emptied, you SHOULD pay to have your bin emptied. For those struggling to afford to heat their home it IS reasonable to expect those with greater wealth to contribute more. For those struggling to afford satellite television or a holiday it is NOT reasonable to expect somebody else to effectively subsidise these luxuries. Where does it end with redistribution? Next we'll be charging people different amounts for their groceries. Some people won't be happy until we all have the same disposable income.
166

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2008 16:15:17
#192 You don't find it in the least ironic that you are criticising me for getting personal by getting personal with me?
167

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 16:17:00
202. You cling to this scenario like your life depends on it!

Don't you dare let any hard fact or figure tear you away from your world!

Bless you and your....er, girlfriend!
168

Bryce Curdy,

08/09/2008 16:17:38
How would non-PAYE income, the self employed etc be taxed under these proposals?
169

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 16:19:06
205. They wouldn't be.

That's.....let me just check......that's flaw no.342.
170

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 16:21:01
You calming down, Spook? Taken one of your pills?

So, tell us about this "girlfriend". Is she plastic or inflatable rubber?
171

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 16:28:55
209. "You are the numpty [see posts 190, 191, 194 & 200] who posts huge statistics every day like your life depends on it, not us the ordinary forum users"....

....who just make it all up.
172

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 16:39:26
190. So, according to you (and seemingly you alone), Scotland runs a surplus of £3.5bn..

compared to the Great Deception's £1.9bn surplus and..

compared to the SNP's £2.7bn deficit.

Mmm.
173

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 16:42:11
Spook, brilliant!

Just went to see AM2's blog and saw this excerpt from an SNP handbook on maintaining a high profile while canvassing:

"There are several ways we can maintain a high visual profile (HVP). HVP exercises are a useful technique to create an impression of strength. No one need know that the 6-8 workers that you have in your team is the sum total of your activist pool."

LOL!
174

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 16:46:18
And then there's this:

"A YouGov poll for The Sunday Times reveals that only 46% of voters now favour the LIT compared with 88% last year."

I really am most grateful for prompting me to go back there.

As for your..ahem, "girlfriend".....seriously?
http://tinyurl.com/63q9nu

175

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 16:48:41
From that same SNP handbook on attracting parents with children to your booth:

"Balloons, wee flags & stickers are useful ploys to get parents across to the table."

"Wee flags"! I'm actually starting to cry here!
176

morris,

edinburgh 08/09/2008 17:53:52
219

Spook Have a look at this.
Despite Siol Nan Gaidheal publicising it,it is actually a very independent report indeed from the most reliable source possible!

It was compiled by
Sandy Stewart

Senior Statistician

Office of the Chief Economic Adviser


but has been interpreted by Neil Aslen and whilst its not my territory, he appears to know what he is doing.
He is an accountant as far as I know.
It tears Westminsters claims apart !

http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.org/obfuscation.htm

I did not study it in detail.Its conclusions were enough to convince me ,but perhpaps you might find it more meaningful.
177

Miss H,

08/09/2008 18:12:48
218 Laugh on - that's 6-8 more than Labour could get out in most wards!

178

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/09/2008 18:14:51
Here we go again.

The LibDems would be happy to see the LIT raised at local level after a couple of years of bedding down (at National level).

Is this not what the SNP right at the outset? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Here we go again? Yes. Is this not what the SNP did with the Tories re the 1000 policemen?


179

Miss H,

08/09/2008 18:16:34
37 That's the plan.
180

Miss H,

08/09/2008 18:17:56
229 Yes.

The other option is that they don't have a 'nationally set' tax but negotiate with COSLA so that all LAs set it at 3p.
181

Media 1,

cape town 08/09/2008 18:26:44
Salmond and the SNP = Shameful Governance
182

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/09/2008 18:30:12
231, Miss H. Could you clarify on the point about the wealthy (bstrds - in some posters' minds) regarding how it is not possible to apply LIT to share or dividend income?

This is beyond me as I used to have a Ltd.Co and still have shares. UK tax was and is payable on both.
183

weh,

08/09/2008 18:31:10
Gordon Browns downfall

http://www.order-ord
er.com/
184

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/09/2008 18:32:38
232, Media 1. Good post - keep them short and sweet.

Less boaky
185

Media 1,

cape town 08/09/2008 18:36:53
#235 Jock Tamson

Yes I agree!

Salmond and the boak appear to go hand in hand.
186

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/09/2008 18:42:31
236, Media 1. Normally a boak is face in toilet. Or all over your host's carpet - if it is a good party.

Unionists never boak because they don't have good parties where everyone can join in.
187

Media 1,

cape town 08/09/2008 19:21:30
Jock Tamson

Encase you didnt notice, the Union is all about partnership, not Nationalist seperation and division based on nonsensical indoctrination.

I dont mind an independent Scotland, I just dont think it is necessary. But if you really feel that your daily civil liberties are being removed, if you feel that you are restricted in business and discriminated against then by all means vote for independence.

But I can assure you that an independent Scotland will not deliver you any more freedoms than the ones you already enjoy. You will not find some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and you will quickly find out that the solo life is not as beneficial as you have been indoctrinated to believe.

You have been brought up believing that Scotland is a little dog that belongs to England - But she isnt! Scotland is a REAL partner in a REAL partnership and for that reason Scotland and her people are more affluent now that at any time in history.

An independent Scotland will be fine, but very very expensive! And all the doors that are open now will no longer be open in the future.

I think that if you ask yourself a serious question about independence you will find that your real reasonsing for doing so has something to do with England. NOT SCOTLAND!
188

Robbie 2,

NZ 08/09/2008 19:46:57
241 Media 1, cape town states:
“… the Union is all about partnership, not Nationalist separation and division based on nonsensical indoctrination.” AND
“ Scotland is a REAL partner in a REAL partnership…”
Media a real partnership that after 300 years the World, including the ‘Senior’ partner does not understand.
See BBC article ‘Andy Murray - England's greatest Scotsman?’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7604057.stm
189

Weegiewarbler,

Still Sailing 08/09/2008 20:30:47
LIT is also opposed by the

Institute of Chartered Accountants, (If it’s a flat rate “unavoidable” tax – less work here – less need for the non-productive in this – a vested interest need to band together and “oppose”

Unison, - Why? The vast majority of their members, though not perhaps the “union management” would be better of. If you’re not representing the needs of your members – time for a management change perhaps.

National Union of Students, Ditto Unison. Your members will likely have significantly more “beer and book” money.

Glasgow City and South Lanarkshire councils, Labour controlled – troughs perhaps – understand very inefficient.

STUC, - Ditto UNISON – Ditto NUS.

Carers Scotland, - Hmmm – Odd name that when those you would represent would be among those that would primarily benefit – except potentially your management?

Society of Local Authority Chief Executives: Vested interest – less jobs needed (and less public revenues) as the staff to collect local revenues not required.

Local authority finance officers: You might have a fixed budget per head of population and expected to manage funds efficiently for the first time – you’ll also have your performance measured DIRECTLY against your peers.
Perhaps we have here a case of ACCOUNTABILITY = PANIC = OPPOSITION. (They’re also higher paid and will pay more… familiar theme?)

Policy Institute, (Have they ever actually done anything worthwhile? – except be a mouthpiece for vested interest such as oil & nuclear – theme here??)

Treasury (Loss of control = paranoia = first step in losing ALL Scotland’s revenues = PANIC = how to pay for deficit?)

and range of experts – Read potentially – “AND A RANGE OF OTHER VESTED INTERESTS”

It would be a Local Income Tax because it would be collected locally and distributed locally.

Also – you don’t need the army of civil servants to administer and approve all the grant, rebate, and exemption programs that currently assist those with diff
190

Media 1,

cape town 08/09/2008 20:38:35
The Nationalist perspective is simple. England is the adversary and Scotland must do all she can to free herself from English rule.
A commendable nationalistic perspective indeed, if of course you are living in Zimbabwe and are denied your civil liberties.
But this is not the case in Scotland and no matter how hard the nationalists attempt to scrape the barrel of desperation; they will never deliver an independent Scotland that is freer than she already is.
And no matter what they tell you, nobody around the world will notice an independent Scotland. To them, Scotland will still be the little nation in the northern hemisphere where bag pipes and whiskey go hand in hand. England will still be known as Britain to most and London will as always be one of the top three cities in the world. (London, New York, Paris)
Scotland will not suddenly become some paradise that excels on her own and England will not suffer the loss the nationalists like to induce themselves to believe.
Scotland to the unionist is a tremendously successful country operating within a union partnership.
Scotland to the nationalist is pathetic failure belonging to England and its this sort of SNP rhetoric that shackles the minds of those who are easy to influence. The SNP want people to believe Scotland is a little nothing state because that way they obtain the power they so dearly crave.
Politicians are politicians and Scottish ones are not exempt from deceit.
191

Highland Mighty©,

08/09/2008 20:39:26
227. Read 188.

That 'report' is a crock of no.2 which even the SNP don't agree with!

While I'm here, someone has been peddling some rubbish that we produce more oil than Kuwait and/or we have greater reserves.

Obviously, as it was said by a nat, it's also a load of rubbish - Kuwait produces over twice as much oil and has 90 times the reserves.

Another day, another skip-load of nationalist lies and nonsense happily discredited.
192

Media 1,

cape town 08/09/2008 20:51:21
Spectator

Had you been permitted to broaden your horizons as opposed to being indoctrinated by people who know less about politics than you do, you may have had a chance in life - but having read your post I am certain that any chance is now sadly gone.

193

Weegiewarbler,

Docked for the night 08/09/2008 21:00:05
#241 - Media 1

IF Scotland were a respected equal, she would have as a nation, the same amount of MP's in the westmister parliament as the English. This would also apply to the Welsh and Northern Irish.

Until either this happens or the UK is dissolved there can only be dominion - NOT partnership.

We could propose on an esily identifiable personal basis that you have a say in how we spend our income, and we have the same say in how you may spend yours, except we ALWAYS get TEN votes to your ONE - Please respond as to how this is equality???
194

Darien,

Panama 08/09/2008 21:15:25
#249 Media 1 says: "..Scotland is a little nothing state.."

Actually, Scotland is not even a state (as the Chinese reminded us during the Olympics), so the country is in fact less than "a nothing state". Internal colony is more apt. You might have noticed that this is something close to a majority of thinking Scots now seek to remedy. You may sentimentally lament the passing of an economically and socially bankrupt UK, but most Scots will soon rejoice in the rebirth and renewal of a great nation, which gives us better hope for the future based on a quite different agenda to that of an increasingly discredited 'Rule Britannia'.
195

Richardinho,

08/09/2008 21:19:05
It looks like the Local Income Tax has became in the eyes of the numpty labourites a 'Nationalist Shibboleth'-eg they feel the need to attack it regardless of it's merits because it happens to be supported by the SNP. We saw the same thing happen when labour rejected the Calton Hill option for the Scottish Parliament, and more recently when they have ganged up to oppose the Donald Trump development. On all these occasions they have shown that they will always put labour party interest in front of the interests of Scotland.
196

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 08/09/2008 21:23:01
Media 1

I think you've been in Cape Town too long.

My two English friends who've settled in Scotland, now happily vote SNP and will vote for independence in a referendum. They're not nationalistic.

Why, you may ask, would they do such a thing?

Well, they are fed up with beaurocratic, ineffective, corrupt Government. Fed up with the red tape, the Westminster fisticuffs, the silent stealth taxes, the many layers of spin, Gordon Brown's 70 paid-up advisors, the selling off of UK assets to the highest bidder, the £13 billion in 'City' bonuses in a recession year, the shambles that is the UK's current constitutional arrangements, etc.. They are fed up of their voices not being heard by Westminster, and are pleasantly surprised that the Scottish Government is listening to people who live in Scotland. "Populous" is what Gordon Brown likes to call it.
197

Kimg Arthur,

08/09/2008 22:05:37
Andrew - from an Englishman, it's great to hear you say that.

Funny, that the Labour drones on this website try to smear the snp as being "populist". Well, I thought doing things that people wanted was what politics was all about. Shows you how arrogant Labour now is.

Equally, all the Labour drones deriding Salmond for taking his cabinet on the road......and now Brown does the same? Hypocrits, clinging to a dieing ideology.

Yours, a proud Englishman.
198

subrosa,

08/09/2008 22:30:29
# 249 'where bag pipes and whiskey go hand in hand.'

You've got that wrong, I think you must be thinking of Ireland. We don't produce whiskey in Scotland.
199

Buckfastleigh,

Buckfast 08/09/2008 23:17:26
#261. No; but your water of life is nothing like as well loved as our very own monkish brew from Buckfast, which surely we need to raise our glass with to this historic replacement for the son of poll tax.

If the Lib Dems are so progressive in Scotland we need to re-examine them as a real choice government for England as well as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland etc. etc.
200

Silent Hunter,

Scotland 09/09/2008 00:07:27
Hmmmmmmmm?

Let me see........Labour don't like LIT & the CBI don't like LIT & the Scotsman (An unquestioning Labour supporter) don't like LIT........It's got to be a winner! :O)

Well done the SNP & LibDems & Greens & Margo !

Let's do it & Stuff the Crooked Scottish Labour Party.
201

morris,

edinburgh 09/09/2008 00:12:28
258

What you say is undoubtedly true.
What I find surprising (but nevertheless welcome) is that they have yet to realise that when they attack the legitimate First Minister of Scotland ,and the administration in Edinburgh, they are percieved as attacking a legitimate government dealing only with devolved matters,and they have the authority to do so, as much as concensus politics will allow,and are perceived as attacking Scotland and her people,in effect, when it clearly comes from no 10.

This is causing an even bigger gap between the SNP and the Labour Party. Aunty Bella by comparison has managed to hold the Tory vote steady, by being the one leader who could even live with Salmond,and it makes no difference which one of the three muppeteers is chosen .They are all useless and wont get near Nicola Sturgeon either!

The SNP cannot believe at just how incompetent the Labour Party are!

I have suspected for many years that independence would come about because of the SNP starting the process,but another party would ultimately deliver it. I had always meant that it was intentional though!
I had never in my wildest dreams considered that the Unionists would volunteer to fall on their swords!

They could not make a bigger botch of it if they tried !
OR COULD THEY ?

It says it all when Cathy "Magic Circle" Jamieson is considered to be the front runner for their leadership!
202

morris,

edinburgh 09/09/2008 00:21:27
265

If you genuinely consider this to be the "Son of Poll Tax" why are you not campaigning for the abolition of PAYE ? We collect 80% of local Government Finance through Westminster collection of this (and other taxes are also collected ,but lets keep it simple)so if this is wrong then PAYE must be wrong also, since thats what it is to all intents and purposes and thats been around a lot longer!

Your argument is not even sensible never mind factual!
203

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 09/09/2008 00:22:36
If London Labour are so sure that LIT will be Salmond's downfall, why don't they allow it through?

Answer. They know it will be hugely popular and they are scared that the vast majority of people will be drawn to the SNP.

That is why they are desperately opposing it.
204

morris,

edinburgh 09/09/2008 00:41:40
270

Indeed and it will invariably be demanded UK wide soon!That's maybe the real problem.The Lib Dems will use it down south probably!
A vote winner for sure!
This is like PAYE and taken at source and fair. The government does not want a simplified tax structure which is based upon ability to pay!They want as much taxation from non fair sources as possible so they can bribe people at elections. Removal of the council tax helps the poorer elements in our society, and its a racing certainty that they will get a taste for improved standard of living and dump LABOUR who have actually increased the gap between rich and poor!

This is bound to cause resentment down south.
I can hear the Londoners now shouting:

" Scotland does not have to pay any Council Tax ! How come they get evryfink an we get nuffink"?

Salmond is either a master tactician or hes been just plain lucky,but he sure dictates the tune and even Westminster dances when he does!
If Labour think that the THREE MUPPETEERS can take Salmond on then they really have lost it!
205

The Tin Man,

09/09/2008 09:01:53
Is this a sign of Swinney dancing to a LibDem jig?
206

The Tin Man,

09/09/2008 20:14:51
#271 Hawkeye

After 10 years you will be free to carry a Swiss passport, Sean.

Your input to your beloved country is........?
207

livilion,

livingston 10/09/2008 00:53:43
I'm all for getting rid of the council tax.

How can a council like Shettleston or Pilton raise enough funds from their own residents to improve conditions for their areas and others such as Barnton or Kelvinside, who are doing alright thankyou very much, don't require the same level of funding to maintain their local standards?

Surely everyone should contribute according to their ability to pay and the monies collectively disbersed to where it is needed the most rather than to where the most money can be raised?
I understand the tories being all for this, but I never imagined the 'Peoples Party' ever could. How times change?

Council tax, as it is, and LIT as envisaged by the Lib Dems will only see the poorest communities progressively get worse off and the those better off neighbourhoods get even better off.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

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

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