Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Swinney: SNP's success forced tax 'cave in' – but don't forget the oil

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: 06 September 2008
JUBILANT SNP ministers yesterday accused Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, of caving in to pressure over granting Scotland greater fiscal autonomy.
But they warned that any discussions on the issue must include Scotland's North Sea oil revenue.

The reaction was part of the fallout from Mr Brown's speech to the Scottish CBI in Glasgow on Thursday, in which he accepted for the first time
that devolution meant the Scottish Parliament needed to have some powers over how much money it raised.

Yesterday, there was still confusion over what Mr Brown meant and whether this may mean new tax-raising powers, but John Swinney, the finance secretary, claimed it was a result of the SNP's success in government and the recent Glasgow East by-election.

"Here we are a year later, Gordon Brown has caved in to pressure from the SNP and rising support for the SNP, based on the aspirations of the people of this country," he said. "I'm immensely encouraged that we are now going to be in a situation where we will have a Scottish Parliament – in whatever scenario that develops – that will have more financial powers."

Mr Swinney added that if Scotland was given all the revenue raised in the country, including North Sea oil money, the recent Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) report showed it would receive more money.

But the UK government was clear that this was not a change of heart by Mr Brown.

A Whitehall source pointed out that Mr Brown had been instrumental in setting up the Calman Commission and his statement was merely his continued support for its work.

"This was an affirmation that he is behind the Calman Commission's work and its efforts to make the devolution settlement irreversible in terms of Scotland's position in the UK and independence," he said.

The Calman Commission, which is looking at the devolution settlement, is due to hold its first public meeting in Glasgow on Wednesday in a tour of the country to

gather ideas on how devolution can be improved.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 September 2008 10:17 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

06/09/2008 00:18:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

BIG EYE,

Paisley 06/09/2008 00:18:31
What he means is he is willing to increase our pocket money!

We need all our resources for ALL our people!

It is called independence!

It's time!
3

the_figures_are _fudged,

Galashiels 06/09/2008 00:27:45


"But the UK government was clear that this was not a change of heart by Mr Brown. "

hahahahahhahahahahahaahahah

And inflation is still at 2%

We are sick and tired of his lies and his lack of leadership.
4

First Minister,

Markinch 06/09/2008 00:28:22
Notice how much more civil most people are now that the Scotsman ( North British Metropolis ) have cracked down on all the multi user name separatist unionists who regularly spoiled any chance of decent debate, so thanks at least for that Britman publications.
5

Scotindy,

06/09/2008 00:48:57
Calman and devolution are irrelevant, what is not irrelevant, is INDEPENDENCE FOR OUR PEOPLE not handouts with our own money from london.. LET'S GO FOR IT SCOTLAND and get rid once and for all, those THIEVING LYING BARSTEWARDS from london.....
6

Senga Jean,

06/09/2008 01:18:34
Who cares that Scotland is being ripped off? I as an independisto do care very much. Power to the people of Scotland, amigo!
7

Breezy,

Argyll 06/09/2008 05:34:51
Seems pretty obvious as to how devolution can be improved.
Vote S.N.P.
8

AM2,

Scotland,UK 06/09/2008 06:26:33
John Swinney is just posturing and anyone who buys into his inane hyperbole hasn't been paying attention.

The Calman Commission was specifically charged by Scottish Parliament motion motion S3M-976 (passed 6 December 2007) with looking into the issue of financial accountability.

The SNP tried to scupper that motion (see link below) so for them now to celebrate what it has always been seeking to achieve is bizarre in the extreme!

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/chamber/mop-07/mop07-12-06.htm

And Gordon Brown's comments are nothing new. He's been saying the same kinds of things since at February - maybe earlier. See here, for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7249002.stm
9

tommy M,

06/09/2008 07:37:57
www.oilofscotland.org

It's time.
10

ennerdale27,

sale, cheshire 06/09/2008 07:47:53
Beware of London bearing gifts - they might well grant " greater fiscal autonomy" - be sure it doesn't come with a spade.
11

Just_Me,

moray 06/09/2008 07:48:37
AM2

Isn't the Calman Commission flawed, as far as Im aware it doesn't even cover all future possibilities.

I believe it was also commissioned later than the SNP's National conversation which does cover all future possibilities, in fact wasn't the Calman Commission a direct response to this.

Im sure Ive also read that AS also mentioned a possibility of the Calman Commission's findings as a middle option of a referendum.

I would say its not too difficult to see who is trying to work with everyone (i.e. scottish people and opposition parties) and who has only the confidence to chase their own ends without outside input.
12

Thomas1,

berwick-upon-tweed- - - - - -carnoustie 06/09/2008 08:03:29
Does this mean we can move the border back again and maybe a little further.
Why move a border in the first place?
I thought it was the UK and we all live happy together.
13

donald,

glasgow 06/09/2008 08:39:02
Is there an election on something?

What about the whisky duty, etc?
14

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 06/09/2008 09:08:26
Gordon Brown's proposal for fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Parliament sounds highly improbable coming from someone like the former Chancellor, or should that be Chancer, of the Exchequer!

This is merely a ploy with the difficult Glenrothes by-election coming up.

IF, deluded voters believed every promise made by politicians,the psychiatric hospitals would be full to bursting!
15

Nevsky,

Moscow 06/09/2008 09:09:46
Watever happens it is yet another day that brings Scotland closer to independence. Every power that Scotland gains is one less that has to be added to the 'to do' list.

I presume all the unionists are for this move which leaves the question what will remain of the UK soon, maybe just an olympic team?
16

Ken S.,

Reading 06/09/2008 09:20:47
#4 First Minister,

".. multi user name separatist unionists.."


'separatist Unionist' - what an excellent description for those that want more devolution, yet feel that this is compatible with staying part of UK (ignoring the fact that those of us south of the border will in time get so cheesed off that they'll find themselves independent by default!).

I prefer the clarity of genuine unionists and forward looking independenistas (the latter being those whose case isn't based predominantly on real or imagined grievances of long ago).

Why do you refer only to [quasi-]unionist multi namers?
Having read these boards for quite a while, I have the distinct impression that there are also some Nats who are, in effect, debating with themselves under different guises!
17

GM,

06/09/2008 09:20:57
@11 AM2

old habits dies hard AM2

your post suggests that simply because the Calman Commission was setup by the Scottish Parliament that it has to have the support of the parliament,

and yet in the very next breath, you confirm that the SNP tried to scupper it...


Well, not trying to state the obvious here, but given the SNP tried to scupper it due to its limited scope and obvious exclusivity, they are *more than entitled* to be critical of anything it may produce.

What they are also entitled to do, is 'posture' as you put it when the Commission's origin and outcomes quite clearly have come about simply down to nationist pressure and the ever increasing will of the scottish people.


In other words, if the SNP hadn't gotten in, and done such a damn fine job, do you think we'd have a Calman Commission?
Do you think GB would be talking about increasing the fiscal autonomy of scotland?


No, I don't think so either.

Swinney is entitled to bask in yet another cave-in from the great Labour party.
18

GM,

06/09/2008 09:22:13
@21

the only *proven* multi-users here have all been unionists.
19

Nikostratos,

06/09/2008 09:29:13
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7249002.stm


: Sunday, 17 February 2008, 13:20 GMT

PM backs Scottish powers review

gordon brown
Gordon Brown said he supported a review of devolution

Brian Taylor's blog
Gordon Brown has told the BBC he backs a review of the powers of the Scottish Parliament, including taxation policy.

Speaking to BBC Scotland's The Politics Show, Mr Brown said there was a "very strong case" for a review after 10 years of devolution.

He said changes to tax-raising powers for the Holyrood parliament would be part of the review


: Sunday, 17 February 2008, 13:20 GMT


: Sunday, 17 February 2008, 13:20 GMT


: Sunday, 17 February 2008, 13:20 GMT

: Sunday, 17 February 2008, 13:20 GMT
20

Nikostratos,

06/09/2008 09:29:27
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7249002.stm


: Sunday, 17 February 2008, 13:20 GMT

PM backs Scottish powers review

gordon brown
Gordon Brown said he supported a review of devolution

Brian Taylor's blog
Gordon Brown has told the BBC he backs a review of the powers of the Scottish Parliament, including taxation policy.

Speaking to BBC Scotland's The Politics Show, Mr Brown said there was a "very strong case" for a review after 10 years of devolution.

He said changes to tax-raising powers for the Holyrood parliament would be part of the review


: Sunday, 17 February 2008, 13:20 GMT


: Sunday, 17 February 2008, 13:20 GMT


: Sunday, 17 February 2008, 13:20 GMT

: Sunday, 17 February 2008, 13:20 GMT
21

Nikostratos,

06/09/2008 09:29:38
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7249002.stm


: Sunday, 17 February 2008, 13:20 GMT

PM backs Scottish powers review

gordon brown
Gordon Brown said he supported a review of devolution

Brian Taylor's blog
Gordon Brown has told the BBC he backs a review of the powers of the Scottish Parliament, including taxation policy.

Speaking to BBC Scotland's The Politics Show, Mr Brown said there was a "very strong case" for a review after 10 years of devolution.

He said changes to tax-raising powers for the Holyrood parliament would be part of the review


: Sunday, 17 February 2008, 13:20 GMT


: Sunday, 17 February 2008, 13:20 GMT


: Sunday, 17 February 2008, 13:20 GMT

: Sunday, 17 February 2008, 13:20 GMT
22

GM,

06/09/2008 09:34:32
@24, 25, 26

Brian Taylor today - (since you seem to think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread)

"Is he "caving in" to the SNP? To some degree, yes. His comments reflect the political reality that people in Scotland seem to like the concept of decisions honed in Scotland, reflecting Scottish wishes and driven, solely, by a Scottish mandate.

In response to the SNP pressure for independence, he is still firmly saying no.

Now, however, it is "no, but . . . " This resembles the instigation of devolution itself."
23

Calvinist,

06/09/2008 09:37:28
I have never been convinced by the oil argument. At present the oil belongs to the UK, not to Scotland. When the Cameron government takes over as is inevitable, do you think for one moment that they will simply give the oil revenue away? The only fair way to distribute this resource would be according to population i. e. Scotland would receive 8.3% of the revenue. Imagine the reverse scenario: all the oil fields are located of f the south west of England. The people of England decide that they would be much better off by seceding from the UK and keeping all the oil for themselves. Wouldn't we rightly accuse them of greed an opportunism? If you want independence by all means have it but let us achieve it honourably and not at the expense of our fellow human beings just because they happen to be born in the wrong geographical area.
24

GM,

06/09/2008 09:54:50
@28

I hate to say it, but you rpost actually makes me feel a little nauseous (apologies for spelling).

---------------------------------------------------
"At present the oil belongs to the UK, not to Scotland."

that had the first hint of bile working its way up.
---------------------------------------------------


"The only fair way to distribute this resource would be according to population i. e. Scotland would receive 8.3% of the revenue."

That had last night's carrots and lumpy bits in the back of the throat

----------------------------------------------------

"If you want independence by all means have it but let us achieve it honourably and not at the expense of our fellow human beings just because they happen to be born in the wrong geographical area."


This bit almost literally had me throw up on the monitor. It reads like a line from a Whitney Houston song.


Calvin,

the oil is in Scottish waters.
it belongs to Scotland.
currently the cash from it goes straight to westminster (every last drop)
westminster controls it and is famous for (mis)using it.
you have basically admitted that England would be 'worse off' if we cut off the oil money to them - is that the confirmed position of unionists now?

actually, I don't know why I bothered - your contribution was one of the most nonsensical I have *ever* read here

25

GM,

06/09/2008 09:58:14
@28

was it £50,000,000 per day of revenue lost during the Grangemouth strike?

imagine if you will that this amount of money (or more since the unionistas would have us beleieve its barely a trickle now) came directly into a country of 5m people.

Imagine it came in for 30 years
Imagine it came in for 50 years
Imagine it came in for 100 years

Do you think scotland would have any real poverty?
Do you think scotland would have crumbling schools?
Do you think scotland would have one of the highest taxation systmes in Europe?
26

GM,

06/09/2008 10:16:33
@31

I've never stated that the revenue belongs to anyone else.

The £50,000,000 per day was widely quoted at the time IIRC (even the PM stated it?)...


Get your own facts right.
27

GM,

06/09/2008 10:19:12
@31

here ya go -

"Malcolm Webb, chief executive of the organisation, said he supported Hutton's assertion that the Grangemouth dispute was unjustified. "This potential loss of production would have a wholly disproportionate effect on the national economy, losing the UK about £50m every day, of which forgone tax revenue to the exchequer amounts to £25m a day."



so, just the £25,000,000 per day in tax revenue.
I keep putting the zeros in as it really brings home just how big a figure this is.


"economically illiterate guff"?
28

GM,

06/09/2008 10:20:55
@31

perhaps you'd care to justify Calvin's "I believe that children are our future" post at 28?

actually, thats the second thread today you've attempted to bail Calvin out.

Could it be another of your split personalities on here?
29

Publius,

Girvan 06/09/2008 10:30:42
#14 Just_Me

You write:

"I believe it was also commissioned later than the SNP's National conversation which does cover all future possibilities"

Don't be silly. The SNP made up its mind long ago. The so-called conversation isn't a discussion. it's a monologue at public expense.
30

subrosa,

06/09/2008 10:35:07
# 28
i. e. Scotland would receive 8.3% of the revenue. Imagine the reverse scenario: all the oil fields are located of f the south west of England. The people of England decide that they would be much better off by seceding from the UK and keeping all the oil for themselves.

If that was the scenario we would have been cast adrift years ago. England isn't interested in Scotland whatsoever - perfectably understandable. But they are interested in Scotland's assets. Perfectly understandable.

But don't try to imply that Scotland would 'expect' a cut of something that was another country's asset. That's not in the Scots' nature. One thing we aren't is greedy and that's always been part of our problem - not aiming high enough in dealings with people who think they know better than us.

But the times they are achangin' ...
31

GM,

06/09/2008 10:48:49
@36

according to Clavin's utopic post @28,

we Scots should really have our hand out for a share of every other countries national resources. After all, its not our fault we were "born in the wrong geographical area".

I await our share of Saudi oil income, american grain income, south african diamond and gold income, etc etc

surely they wont mind!
32

GM,

06/09/2008 10:53:54
@35

Of course the SNP made up its mind long ago. Its hardly any secret that independence is one of its aims. Its no different from Labour etc nailing its own unionist colours to the mast.

but, let compare the 2 reviews -

The SNP have opened up *all* options for Scotland's future (sure, they hope independence would be preferred)

The labout/tory/liberal group has opened up *all* options for Scotland... oh, except one that for political reasons they don't agree with therefore it shouldn't be considered by the public.



Can you see the subtle difference here?


I honestly have no idea what the unionist strategists think about, but if it had been me, I would have *made sure* independence was part of the Calman review remit. If only so it could be investigated and caste out of hand.
As it is, the Calman Review will *always* be flawed as it has not considered one option for the future of Scotland.

Labour and unionist strategy in Scotland is all over the place!
33

pwd,

Hawick 06/09/2008 11:33:37
* 28 Calvinist

Well spoken! It's sad to hear again the old pathetic cry of "It's Scotland's oil".

That sad and greedy cry was first heard in the 70s when all of us around at the time were well aware that there was a great financial bonanza under the North Sea, including gas in 'English' waters. To the vast majority of Scots it was never 'Scotland's Oil'. Scots were a more robust breed then, very British and Scottish, very proud of both and very conscious of decency, standards and obligations as well as rights. To commit the ultimate act of selfishness and proclaim something was entirely ours and shun, for the sake of a fast buck, our fellow Britons in Wales, England and Northern Ireland, with whom we had shared nationhood and values for a very long time, was something inconceivable. That a people could be made of such stuff may be difficult to understand for the minority of a younger generation growing daily more zenophobic and warping whatever sense it has with pathetic bleats of victimhood (it's the English!). The fact is this, however, we have no intention of clamouring for independence to grab for ourselves what is British, just as, say, Welsh anthracite or Buckinghamshire wheat is British.

No true Scot worthy of his heritage would claim "It's Scotland's oil".
34

bill-alba,

fife 06/09/2008 12:11:51
~39 its sad and pathetic that you decry the people of scotland asking for what is there's .. fyi I wanted an independent scotland long before oil was discovered..but discovered it was and all revenue from the scottish natural resource shoujld be coming to scotland...its you britnats that are not worthy of being scots with your bent knee and cringing paracial british attitude.
35

lulach mac gille coemgain,

06/09/2008 12:40:14
All the Russian Empire countries have survived Independence but Russia is a bit shirty wi Georgia at the mo’

Nae reason why Scotland shouldnae survive independently

Individualism and self identity is where it’s at - no more London Rule
36

GM,

06/09/2008 14:22:49
@39

trollometer score 3.4 out of 10

A little too obvious to be honest, but on the subject matter it scored highly.

A deduction of 1 point was made given you clearly are using an alternative moniker when it suits you,
and
A further deduction of 1 point was made given you've tried this troll before in March.


A little originality and subtlety might have gotten you over half marks.
37

A Better Way,

Scottish Republic 06/09/2008 15:15:45
The Calmun Commision cant even draw enough people to hold a public meeting and yet it is getting 500,000 quid of our money.

Come to think of it Gordon Broon the mental case, stated to the Scottish CBI that it was his idea to start this commision.

If thats true then why isnt Westmonster that is paying for it out of their billions that they already steal from us.

What about a comment from AM2, especially when he couldnt shut his cakehole screeching about the SNPs Conversation that has involved hundreds of thousands of real Scottish Folk speaking about their rights to a free Scotland.

Double standards from the Unionistas as usual.
38

pwd,

Borders 06/09/2008 15:33:05

* 40
If you're as old as you imply how come you can't spell, punctuate or observe the syntax of the English language.

Also, you say: "... you decry the people of scotland (sic) asking for what is there's (sic)...". Think! I do not decry the people of Scotland; I rejoice in their honesty, their decency, their common sense and their sense of honour. The same shameful claim has been made for c30 years now but the Scottish people do NOT believe it's Scotland's oil and they have not and are not asking for it. How do I know? Because they have consistently voted for the Union and at the last count only 83% of the Scottish electorate voted for the SNP and that big lie. Well done the Scottish people, I salute you.

*40 & 42
Sorry if what I say stings a bit but try answering the points made instead of stooping to insult.

*43
Wrong, you're miles out.
39

European Scot,

06/09/2008 18:00:58
39 pwd

" That sad and greedy cry was first heard in the 70s when all of us around at the time were well aware that there was a great financial bonanza under the North Sea, including gas in 'English' waters. To the vast majority of Scots it was never 'Scotland's Oil'........ No true Scot worthy of his heritage would claim "It's Scotland's oil".

I've read some incredible Unionist trash on these sites, but this one comes close to being the ultimate,
As most Scots at the time were kept in the dark as to the true value of those North Sea oil deposits thanks to the 30 year secrecy of the McCrone report. it was not possible for them to register their true feelings about the oil bonanza sitting on their doorstep, or should I say shoreline.
" No true Scot worthy of his heritage would claim it's Scotland's oil."
Well here's one for starters !
40

LEAL,

06/09/2008 19:52:55
39 pwd
Do you really believe what you have written?Only you and toom tabbard.
41

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 06/09/2008 21:12:31
#39 Pwd,really amazing logic.I have always wanted my country of Scotland to be independant,since I consider it to be a natural situation.That is even more evident since the 1970's as more small nations in Europe have become independant .Of course as unionists, in their deperation, try to infer(wrongly) that Scotland is incapable of joining the other independant nations,nationalists are forced to use economic arguments foir independance.I don't think that this is the most important argument but it has revealed a logical flaw in the unionist position.Scotland cannot be too poor,and greedy at the same time.
42

Wee Beardie,

Edinburgh 06/09/2008 21:51:35
Is is too much to expect supporters of indepenEnce to learn how to spell it?
43

European Scot,

06/09/2008 21:59:30
53 Wee Beardie

" Is is too much to expect supporters of indepenEnce to learn how to spell it? "

Including a second 'd' would be nice !
44

Alan Reid,

NZ 07/09/2008 02:10:34
pwd,Hawick, One prize chump!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

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

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