Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 30th August 2008

Premium Article !

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

Options

Premium Article !

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

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

Sign In
Register

Expert accuses SNP of bending truth on tax



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

A LEADING Scottish economist has accused SNP ministers of using misleading data to justify introducing a local income tax.
Professor Arthur Midwinter, who until last year was the adviser to Holyrood's finance committee, has suggested the local income tax proposals are even worse than the poll tax.

In a paper for the committee's inquiry into local taxation he describe
d them as "the least rigorous set of proposals for local taxation since the community charge Green Paper in 1986." Although Prof Midwinter is now paid as an adviser to the Scottish Labour leader, Wendy Alexander, the paper is intended as an independent analysis of the SNP's proposed 3p local income tax to replace the council tax.

He has accused the SNP of exaggerating the unfairness of the council tax with a claim that it rose by 60 per cent between 1997 and 2007.

He said in reality the increase was 47 per cent, with the average band D bill going up from £783 to £1,149.

He also questioned why the SNP had first said there would be a shortfall of £450 million, but then changed it to £281 million without explanation. He added: "The SNP also claimed that 90 per cent of households would gain from the change. Now it is the 'average household in nine out of ten income deciles'."

The SNP has dismissed Prof Midwinter as a mouthpiece for Scottish Labour.



The full article contains 241 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 17 June 2008 10:07 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Scottish National Party
 
1

Highland Mighty,

18/06/2008 00:06:53
After barely a year in office, it really is starting to unravel for the 'Lets get everyone to hate each other' party!

Joy, sweet joy.
2

ThomasP,

18/06/2008 00:07:43
"Although Prof Midwinter is now paid as an adviser to the Scottish Labour leader, Wendy Alexander."

Of course this is not Labours doing...

But every Civil Servent will have their opinion. There must be someone within the Scottish National Parties group of Civil Servents saying that this could work etc etc
3

Arnold Codger,

Glasgow 18/06/2008 00:11:44
Everyone guessed it would be the spurious Midwinter being the so called 'expert' again. How many times have we been here, the traitor press troop-out this uncredable expert who's main hobby is attacking the SNP, never any other political party, on unsubstantiated grounds. Your a disgrace Mr Midwinter as is the Scottish Press.
4

ThomasP,

18/06/2008 00:15:56
Arnold Codger.

"...who's main hobby is attacking the SNP, never any other political party..."

That exaplins how they got the job with LABOUR.
5

Jwil,

18/06/2008 00:19:42
"Although Prof Midwinter is now paid as an adviser to the Scottish Labour leader, Wendy Alexander, the paper is intended as an independent analysis of the SNP's proposed 3p local income tax to replace the council tax."


Aye right!
6

,

18/06/2008 00:28:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

DouglasT,

18/06/2008 00:30:51
I note there is no author to this article. I wonder if this is because he/she is embarassed by her words. Or maybe it was wrtten by Prof Midwinter who is 'now paid as an adviser to the Scottish Labour leader, Wendy Alexander'

Quality journalism! where can I find it? lol
8

DouglasT,

18/06/2008 00:33:17
A petition on the Number 10 website. Asking Brown to ditch the Lisbon treaty.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/

over 10,000 already
9

frank mcbride,

lusitania 18/06/2008 00:42:14
Mr Midwinter is a NuLab employee. Need any more be said?
10

Shave,

Edinburgh 18/06/2008 00:44:39
I believe Prof. Midwinter even less than the SNP.

The SNP are presenting an unfinished proposal.

The Scotsman are presenting it as a policy.

Prof. Midwinter is presenting himself as a Labour wh0re.
11

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 18/06/2008 00:52:12
"Midwinter is now paid as an adviser to the Scottish Labour leader, Wendy Alexander" -

So how independent should we expect him to be? Come on Scotsman. Get a grip.
12

Senga Jean,

18/06/2008 00:52:54
We must have a fair local tax system. If Westminster is a barrier to achieving this the solution is simple. Give the Westminster Government the "heave-ho" and throw Midwinter out with the slops.
13

Senga Jean,

18/06/2008 00:55:17
Expert? Expert??? He was not even an expert when pulling padlocks on his beat and he has not travelled far since.
14

Edward,

18/06/2008 01:06:19
When I saw the headline to the article 'Expert accuses SNP of bending truth on tax'
I just knew it had to be the bleak Midwinter!
Its a regular for the Scotsman
Very boring and like having eaten fried onions, just keeps coming back at you!
15

,

18/06/2008 01:19:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

Castaway,

18/06/2008 01:22:08
In a paper for the committee's inquiry into local taxation, can the no name author give the name of this no name committee ?
Now I get it last year he was an adviser to Holyrood's finance committee and this year he presented a paper as an independent adviser although paid as an adviser to the Scottish Labour to the Holyrood finance committee.
17

,

18/06/2008 01:25:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

,

18/06/2008 04:16:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

Castaway,

18/06/2008 05:49:50
#17:Traquir - It looks like from Professor David Simpson statement (below) nothing has changed as far as Arthur Midwinter is concerned and this was in April 2007
"The language and tone of Mr Midwinter's comments on the SNP's financial plans are more appropriate to a press release of a political party rather than a balanced analysis."
April 2007 - Scotland's leading public finance expert (Arthur Midwinter) has issued a savage attack on the SNP, he accused it of "lacking the fiscal competence necessary for governing", and describing its plans for tax cuts as "a nonsense".
Professor Arthur Midwinter claims in a new paper that the party's budget plans constitute "an uncosted wish list" with a £1.8bn hole at its heart.
But the SNP moved quickly to dampen the impact of his claims.It also issued a paper by Professor David Simpson, the former chief economic adviser to Standard Life, rebutting Midwinter's claims.
It declared: "The language and tone of Mr Midwinter's comments on the SNP's financial plans are more appropriate to a press release of a political party rather than a balanced analysis."
http://200.115.171.174/htmlfiles/april2007/snpunfit.html
20

,

18/06/2008 06:19:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

donald,

glasgow 18/06/2008 07:16:07
Paisley Uni experts ratified Tommy Sheridan's Local Income Tax proposals.
22

BIG EYE,

Paisley 18/06/2008 07:16:38
Great journalism!

Your source is no expert!

Your source is a paid lackey of the Labour Party!

Your newspaper is rapidly disappearing!

Unbelievable!
23

sm753,

18/06/2008 07:31:19

Why does the SNP want to introduce a new, "local" 3p/£ tax instead of using the existing Scotland Act power to raise a, er, 3p/£ tax?

Surely there are enough SNP fanboys and girls here to explain this? Or don't you understand either?
24

john z,

edinburgh 18/06/2008 07:37:40
Hahahahaha! An independent report by an adviser to bendy wendy - hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Are these people for real?? Do they think the general public are dumb or something??
25

john z,

edinburgh 18/06/2008 07:39:25
Number 17, Traquir,

Thanks you for providing our Scottish news. Keep up the good work. Maybe the Scottish editors will eventually grasp the fact that the times of censoring news in Scotland, to hide oil revenue is over.
26

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 18/06/2008 07:57:03
The following extract is taken from an example of Labourite scare mongering prior to the May 2007 election.
(http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/vote4rami/costofsnp.html)
“Professor Midwinter, a well-respected economist, has exposed the black hole at the heart of SNP spending plans. Families know a vote for the SNP in May will cost them more. Economic commentators now agree the SNP will cost more.
Concentrating only on devolved areas, and not even taking into account the massive cost of separation, the current basket of spending proposals from the SNP totals over £8billion for the next parliamentary session. That's equivalent to an extra £1,085 per year for every taxpayer in Scotland.
Speaking at the launch of ‘Can’t Count – Won’t Count’, the initial list of SNP spending proposals, Chair of Labour’s Holyrood Campaign, Cathy Jamieson (right), said:

“Families across Scotland are starting to ask how much the SNP will cost them. Unfortunately the SNP remain silent, they would rather talk about anything other than their plans for the Parliament and how much they will cost. So, today we are setting out the bare minimum cost of the SNP. We’ve erred on the side of caution, ignored their sillier spending pledges and not even included the £11bn cost of separating Scotland from the UK. Yet still, we’ve revealed that even this initial batch of spending proposals would top £8 billion in the next Parliamentary session. The equivalent of over £1000 per year for every taxpayer in Scotland.”

Now, we are more than one year into the life of the SNP Government, and not only has tax not been raised, but Council Tax has effectively been cut.

No bowler-hatted tax-bailiffs have been round chapping my door demanding my £1,000 extra contribution necessary to fund the first year of a SNP Government.

See Labour? See credibility?
27

HughB,

Edinburgh 18/06/2008 07:58:07
If he had been paid £999 a year, then he wouldn't have had to declare it.
28

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 08:02:28
We are now at post 34 now and still not one post which manages to answer the points raised by Professor Midwinter.
I take it that the SNP accept this report as essentially sound?
29

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 08:11:46
32
'No bowler-hatted tax-bailiffs have been round chapping my door demanding my £1,000 extra contribution necessary to fund the first year of a SNP Government.'
Indeed, due mainly to the fact that the SNP ditched a whole raft of their promises when tehy were elected because their numbers didn't add up....
30

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 08:12:23
see the SNP, see promises...
31

McMadman,

Saor Alba 18/06/2008 08:19:28
#37

Usually a parliamentary term lasts four years, there is plenty of time left for delivery on manifesto promises. I note you are quick to criticise the SNP for not having delivered their entire manifesto in the first year, but if we trolled (and I do mean "trolled") our way back through the last 50 years of Liebour (and for balance, Tory and Fib Dem) Manifestos I am sure we could fairly easily find more than one broken promise in them.
32

McMadman,

Saor Alba 18/06/2008 08:22:30
#35

They have. See post #21, in particular

"The SNP moved quickly to dampen the impact of his claims.It also issued a paper by Professor David Simpson, the former chief economic adviser to Standard Life, rebutting Midwinter's claims.
It declared: "The language and tone of Mr Midwinter's comments on the SNP's financial plans are more appropriate to a press release of a political party rather than a balanced analysis."
http://200.115.171.174/htmlfiles/april2007/snpunfit.html"

Some people have claimed Prof Simpson is a Nat. Whether true or not, Midwinter is a newliebore/sameoldsh't employee who I gather works for old bendy herself.

So. Midwinter comments. Simpson rebuts. Job done, move on.
33

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 08:25:44
39
I'm sure you could.
However, I do not criticise the SNP for not immediately delivering their entire manifesto, I criticise them for making promises which they knew they could not deliver. Labour pointed out the holes in their numbers and were accused of scaremongering.
The truth of the matter is that Labour were quite correct; to deliver the promises made by the nats in the election campaign there would have to be a huge hike in taxation.
The proof of this is the fact that the nats have had to ditch so many of their promises. If the nats delivered on all their promises our tax would go through the roof. QED.
34

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 08:29:14
40
Simpson rebuts? Don't you usually rebut after? Midwinter's report 2008, Simpson's rebuttal 2007 - what is he, a time lord?
35

brownlie,

18/06/2008 08:35:02
34 AM2

I am not from the SNP and I'm certainly no economics expert but do the figures you quote in your first paragraph show that the council tax on average rose 4.7% every year.

Was this in line with inflation?

Does it not mean that without the council tax freeze, and with increasing inflation, the council tax would have increased by around 20% before the next election?
36

sm753,

18/06/2008 08:50:33
post 47 and still no answer to:

"Why does the SNP want to introduce a new, "local" 3p/£ tax instead of using the existing Scotland Act power to raise a, er, 3p/£ tax?"
37

 Ayrshire Scot™,

18/06/2008 09:01:29
28. Laughable. AM2 states that Arthur Midwinter, a paid adviser of the Labour Party, is a credible independent "expert" and at the same time says that Professor Neil Kay (an actual professor of economics unlike Midwinter), who is not a paid adviser of the SNP, lacks credibility and is politically motivated when he criticises Midwinters usual predictions of doom.

AM2 seems intent on blowing the last shreds of credibility he had.
38

 Ayrshire Scot™,

18/06/2008 09:02:03
47. Because the 3p power relates only the standard rate.
39

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 18/06/2008 09:02:51
AM2

Far from playing the man and not the ball, I think most of the objections are to the constant attempt by the Scotsman to suggest that Arthur Midwinter is somehow independent. If a newspaper published an article about an expert who was known to be in the employ of the SNP but argued he was independent, you'd be the first on trying to show it - rightly - as a sham. An 'expert' Arthur Midwinter may be but he is still an expert in the employ of the Labour party and to me that hardly makes him independent. (P.S. You're not him are you?)
40

mr angry,

ayrshire 18/06/2008 09:04:42
#47 Thicko, its been stated many times that the reason is the fact that the existing 3p/£ tax power is for standard tax rate only , not applicable to higher rate tax. Get a life and ask something relevant.
41

,

18/06/2008 09:06:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

sm753,

18/06/2008 09:09:10
49

"47. Because the 3p power relates only the standard rate."

...and the LIT proposal is for 3p on both the basic and higher rates - is that the point?
43

 Ayrshire Scot™,

18/06/2008 09:13:05
54. Yes.
44

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 09:16:24
53
Leading? Well, he worked in their accounts dept and didn't he get off with his boss?
45

Guga II,

Rockall 18/06/2008 09:24:55
Here we go again. The Hootsmon trots out its favourite "expert", who is not even an economist, to try and have another go at the SNP.

How much do they pay this Labour lackey for spouting his propaganda and garbage?

If he is such an "expert", how come he didn't manage to keep The Mouth of the South out of trouble with her law breaking?

As for AM Squared, trust him to pop up with his usual blind support for anything to do with the New Labour Sleaze and Corruption Party (North British Branch). I wonder if the Hootsmon pays him for his garbage contributions too? I also wonder if his pal Midwinter ever advised on economic matters in Northern Ireland?

46

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 09:29:37
57
OK so you've had a go at the newspaper, other posters and the professor. Now's the time to point out where Professor Midwinter is in error....
47

Tom R,

18/06/2008 09:35:20
#56 Grahamski

You try pathetically to undermine the significance of Alex Salmond as a economist. Compare his qualifications and experience to that of the Labour incompetents Midwinter, Darling and, yes, Brown.

Salmond worked directly for the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) between 1980 and 1987, first as an assistant economist, then as the Oil Economist and latterly as Royal Bank Economist. He specialized in oil and energy issues, even devising the “Royal Bank/BBC Oil Index,” which continues to be published monthly.
48

brownlie,

18/06/2008 09:36:29
46 AM2

Please explain how 47% divided by ten is 3.9%?

Is this Labour's midwinter of our discontent?
49

Scallywag,

Edinburgh 18/06/2008 09:37:51
This Midwinter stuff has been coming out of the Scotsman of a few years now. What is worrying is that the Scotsman never asks soemone else working in this field to either back up his claims or put forward an opposing argument.

Given the Profs closer and open association with Labour the SNP response that he is just a mouthpiece is wholly correct.

Both unionist or separatist should really be commenting on the poor quality of reporting by the Hootsman or just accept that they have an agenda and we go elsewhere for some balanced reporting.
50

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 18/06/2008 09:41:17
At one time, Professor Midwinter was an impartial economist whose views were generally well respected.

However, after becoming an advisor to The Labour Party in Scotland he forfeited his impartiality, and like so many other professionals he became just another consultant.

No doubt, both the Nationalists and Labour are muddying the waters when it comes to the argument over Council Tax, or the proposed LIT!
51

Alan B,

18/06/2008 09:44:04
#Grahamski

"Now's the time to point out where Professor Midwinter is in error...."

Firstly
" has suggested the local income tax proposals are even worse than the poll tax."

This is subjective. But this article does not explain in any way how he perceives it worse that the poll tax. Like most taxes they have advantages and disadvantages, but taking on say fairness or collectability then LIT is far better. So he wrong before u even get past the first paragraph.

Off course if u are of the extreme right then u may agree that a flat charge rather than a tax that hits ability to pay is better.

Says something when the labour party are saying the poll tax is a better option. In fact is shows the hypocracy.

"He has accused the SNP of exaggerating the unfairness of the council tax with a claim that it rose by 60 per cent between 1997 and 2007"

That is clearly wrong. Just having a brain can tell u that. The unfairness is not to do with the amount council tax has risen. But the perceived unfairness of how the tax is levied.

So first 2 claims are clearly wrong or so subjective to be meaningless.

As for the percentage rise. I think we all know both parties will have taken different figures to make different claimes. The article does not explain how the 2 measures compare.


52

Melly,

Sussex 18/06/2008 09:50:09
Prof. Midwinter, professor of politics, economist, financial expert, political scientist, advisor to Bendy Wendy, jack of all trades and MASTER OF NONE !!
53

Alan B,

18/06/2008 09:50:44
Labour are being short sighted in rejecting LIT.

For them to gain power again they will need a coalition with the lib dems. The lib dems will make LIT part of any coalition deal.

Just watch labour then try explain why LIT is a good idea under them.
54

Arfur,

18/06/2008 09:58:09
as soon as i read the headline i thought to myself - this will be some tool who either works or did work for Labour.

Surprise surprise.

Headline should have been - SNP have good day yesterday by introducing a scottishness year so we have got another Labour lackey in to spout more anti SNP bile.
55

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 10:04:07
63
Alan,
Perhaps you could deal with the substantive points raised by the professor?
56

Andrew Buchan,

Kincardineshire 18/06/2008 10:11:53
How much during this man's lifetime did he earn from being in the pay of HM Loyal Labour and Unionist Party?
57

 Ayrshire Scot™,

18/06/2008 10:13:19
67. What substantive point? The council tax has risen far faster than inflation over 10 years - the Professor parses the extent of this above inflation increase and says it is 47% not 60% - he agrees that council tax either way has risen way above inflation which is the substantive point. The Professor references £450 vs £280 million "shortfall", knowing that the "shortfall" is a deliberate tax cut. The professor does not mention significantly higher collection rate for income vs council tax. The professor does not reference the efficiency of 1 collection system and band vs the current 250. The professor does not reference cost and beuracract of a revaluation for council tax banding. The professor does not reference basing tax on ability to pay vs property value.
58

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 10:14:34
59
dear dear, where would you guys be without wikipedia, lol
59

Upbeat,

18/06/2008 10:15:01
62 Lachie Todd.

"At one time, Professor Midwinter was an impartial economist whose views were generally well respected.
However, after becoming an advisor to The Labour Party in Scotland he forfeited his impartiality,..."

So on this reasoning a Doctor becomes untrustworthy whenever they are assisting a criminal, a plumber becomes less trustworthy when they are working for an unreliable building enterprise , and a policeman is less trsutworthy when they go for a holiday in a property tycoons seaside holiday developement.

If you really consider that the person you are working for, or to whom you are connected in any financial arrangement, degrades your personal honesty, and reduces your reliability and credibility to zero ....which planet are you from.
?
60

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 10:22:02
69
His substantive point is that the SNP have deiberately exaggerated the negative of council tax and ignored the holes in their own policy finances. You have done nothing to disprove that assertion.
61

ThomasP,

18/06/2008 10:25:55
Considering that this man is on the Oppositions payroll then he should be ignored.

He can not possibly make a reasonable and reliable comment without having to side with Labour or risk being fired.

62

Andrew D,

BNE 18/06/2008 10:26:00
Fantastic! I got it right... saw the headline "EXPERT blah blah blah SNP kill and eat children" or whatever it is and knew in one it would be Midwinter.

Seriously NorthernBritishman... that is absolutely deceptive reporting and headlines.

The guy is a paid wonk in the Labour machinery so this is nothing more than a (oh so VERY slightly) undercover Labour press release.
63

ThomasP,

18/06/2008 10:27:57
72 Grahamski,Falkirk

If the SNP have messed up their spending plans then UK-Labour and Scottish Labour should allow the SNP to be hit hard by their mistake.

Can I ask why Labour have tried everything to stop this proposal when it could end the SNP?

The SNP are the ones in Government yet Labour have tried to do everything to stop the policy of the SNP and Lib Dems.

Could it be that it may work and become legendary?
64

Publius,

London 18/06/2008 10:30:50
#69 Ayrshire Scot

"The council tax has risen far faster than inflation over 10 years".

But so has income tax. Until 1998 the income tax threshold was lifted each year in line with average earnings. This practice ended ended in 1998. Someone on average earnings will have seen his total annual income tax rise by about 70 per cent - 'fiscal drift' or 'fiscal shift'. LIT will raise income tax further.

And all this on top of a raft of stealth taxes - on private pension contributions, stamp duty, excise duties on petrol, taxes on air travel etc.

Midwinter may be a labour hack but he may also have a point about the SNP proposals on LIT.
65

Alan B,

18/06/2008 10:32:09
#67 Grahamski

First of all u said where was the professor wrong. I have shown that quite clearly.

U now say the substantive points. That is what i have done.

I suggest u re-read my post.

Part of the problem is there is no realy substantive points in this article. He may have made some but they have not been reported.

If u make a challenge "where is he wrong" and then someone demonstrates clearly where he is wrong or it is so subjective to be meaningless atleast have the good grace to admit it.

As u will have seen from previous posts i do not support LIT.

Substantive arguments against LIT would be:
1)not locally set, hence lack of local accountability
2)it just adds to income tax, a good tax system is widely based. Having every tax as the fairest one, does not lead to a fair tax system. Having a small property tax as part of the tax base is better than loading more on to taxes on salary.

Taxes on income are avoided by many people. ie cash in hand economy etc.

3)that this tax only targets salaried income.

The problem is we should a real agrument about how local finance should work. Instead we have silly stories and the labour party trying to withhold finance.
66

ThomasP,

18/06/2008 10:32:29
Publius,London

Income tax will rise but you won't pay council tax at the end of the day.

You will pay LIT and that will be taken out of your pay.
67

ThomasP,

18/06/2008 10:34:47
Alan B.

You actually made more sense then the Unionists who have attempted to criticise LIT.

They usually only attempt to criticise it because it was an SNP idea and never knew the bad points.
68

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 10:40:22
75
Thomas,
Labour oppose LIT not because they fear it will work but because they know it won't. The SNP numbers don't add up...
69

Alan B,

18/06/2008 10:40:55
#76 Publius

Really do not know what ur point is.

Yes labour have considerably raised taxes over the last decade. And yes they have done it in abit of an under hand way with stealth taxes.

They will say we will not raise income tax and then in power will raise taxes on income. They are not technically lying but they are dishonest in knowing the public will not see the way they split hairs.

"Midwinter may be a labour hack but he may also have a point about the SNP proposals on LIT."

What were his points on the snp proposals? None of them seem substantive or even accurate.

That
- poll tax was better
- lit is unfair but then his reason is ridiculous and nothing about fairness of a method of taxation.
- that 2 different groups looking to make their side look better will use different figure to make their policy look better.
70

ThomasP,

18/06/2008 10:44:08
Grahamski,Falkirk

"Labour oppose LIT not because they fear it will work but because they know it won't. The SNP numbers don't add up..."

Yes. What a real arguement that is.

Labour said it so it must be true.

Labour are not in Government and should therefore leave the SNP to make their own mistakes.

Once it fails Labour can proudly say we told you so untill then they should stop using every trick in the book to stop it from becoming reality.

What has Labour got to loose? They already lost their credibility? They may aswell keep their heads down then shoot the plans once they fail afterall.
71

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 10:44:19
Alan
is Prof Midwinter wrong when he asserts:
1.The SNP of exaggered the unfairness of the council tax with a claim that it rose by 60 per cent between 1997 and 2007.
2.The SNP first said there would be a shortfall of £450 million, but then changed it to £281 million without explanation.
3.The SNP also claimed that 90 per cent of households would gain from the change. Now it is the 'average household in nine out of ten income deciles'.
72

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 10:45:36
82
Thomas,
I think you misunderstand the job of the opposition.
73

ThomasP,

18/06/2008 10:48:21
Grahamski,Falkirk

LIT has enough support within Parliament to make LIT become reality.

However, what do we see? UK-Labour holding back funding because they do not like it?

Why are they involved? They should keep their noses out of our business.

Or are they frustrated that they have no control over Scotland anymore?

Is the job of Opposition to score cheap points or to help Govern the country?

What has Labour done for Scotland in the past year? They may aswell not show up to Parliament for the use they are.
74

Alan B,

18/06/2008 10:49:38
#Grahamski

The biggest problem with the way labour oppose LIT is the fact that Westminster labour have intervened to try to prevent the snp bringing forward a devolved policy in a devolved parliament.

First they say they will not hand over the council tax rebate money to scotland as part of the block grant. That is pathetic and should be opposed by anyone with any moral standing. It is just so immature.

Labour in scotland were bitten by the same thing when london labour stopped money for scotland because we decided to bring in free personal care.

It really is pathetic.

The labour in london decide to say it is illegal when the legality of the issue resides with the preciding officer in the scottish parliament. Looking at the scotland act it is difficult to see how it is illegal.

It is all about causing problems and not arguing on the merits of the policy.
75

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 10:52:55
85
I think you'll find that the LIT proposed by the SNP will be opposed by Labour, the LibDems the Tories and the Greens. Don't see where they will get a majority...
76

ThomasP,

18/06/2008 10:53:23
Alan B.

Thank you Alan. You agree that UK-Labour should never have attempted to stop LIT.

LIT is actually encouraged by the European Union because they consider it effective.
77

ThomasP,

18/06/2008 10:55:15
87 Grahamski,Falkirk

The Lib Dems support LIT.

The only thing they disagreed was how it should work exactly but I think they came to an agreement at the end.

Well if the SNP have not enough support why the hell continue to jabber on about it?

It makes no sense the way you put it.

Anyway, it does have enough support but as we see if Scottish Labour does not have its way then it is UK-Labour who actually bullies Scotland out of money.
78

John S,

18/06/2008 10:56:59
Has Prof Midwinter paper for the Holyrood's finance committee's inquiry into local taxation been published as I presume the unknown author of the above article has actually seen the paper ? Where can I find a copy ?
79

Alan B,

18/06/2008 10:57:36
#83 Grahamski
"1.The SNP of exaggered the unfairness of the council tax with a claim that it rose by 60 per cent between 1997 and 2007. "

Already answered that. There are 2 points here.
First that the snp exaggered the unfairness of the council tax. That is subjective about what u consider unfair. His reasoning for unfairness linking it to a 60% is clearly wrong.

The council tax is not unfair due to increase. (the increase were wrong in my opinion (again subjective) as they were far too high) The council tax is seen to be unfair because of the structure of the tax. So yes he was wrong here.

Secondly that the figure of increase should be 47% rathter than 60%.

As i said the article does not given enough details to say whether it is accurate or not. One side say one thing the other something else.

I also said that this would PROBABLY be explained by both side using different figures and baselines.

It looks from the article that the 60% is council tax rise and 47% is average rise in band D. But who knows with the level of detail of this article.


80

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 10:59:51
86
Alan,
Westminster intervened because the SNP claimed the HMRC would collect the tax. Problem was the SNP hadn't actually spoken to the HMRC. The SNP also claimed erroneously that a national benefit was part of the block grant. It wasn't.
To characterise the opinion that this tax is illegal as solely a Westminster attitude is wrong. Numerous experts have called into question LIT's legality. A lot of these experts are based in Scotland which seems to be an important issue to the nats...
81

ThomasP,

18/06/2008 11:00:13
"Expert accuses SNP of bending truth on tax."

The heading only says 'accuses' which suggests that there is still no hard evidence against LIT.

This is a gimmick for some headlines by a biased paper to take a shot by the SNP.

The source is even from Labour afterall.

Not only do they take money out of Scotland if they do not like a proposal but they hire someone who has not qaulifications to be classed as an Economist to argue against the proposal.
82

ThomasP,

18/06/2008 11:03:21
92 Grahamski,Falkirk

If LIT is illegal then it is the courts and judges who know the Law to deal with it.

Not for idiots from Parties to point out.

The National Benefit was part of the Black Grant for Council Tax why can it not be for LIT?

or because we are not doing it Labour's way then we do not get the benefits?

Labour does have a history of cutting back our money if we decide to change the way we want to do things.
83

Alan B,

18/06/2008 11:07:52
#83 Grahamski

"The SNP first said there would be a shortfall of £450 million, but then changed it to £281 million without explanation."

Without an snp reply to the accusation i would not know. Googled for 281 figure and did not come up with anything.

Did they not give an explanation? Or did he just not like or agree with the explanation.


"The SNP also claimed that 90 per cent of households would gain from the change. Now it is the 'average household in nine out of ten income deciles'"

Splitting hair in language. 9 out of 10 is 90%. So the only difference between the 2 statement is the word "average".

ie 90% of averge households against 90% of households.

Hardly substantive.
84

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 11:08:09
89
The SNP continue to jabber on about it so that they can claim that they wanted to introduce LIT but the English wouldn't let them...
85

Queen D,

Glasgow 18/06/2008 11:08:26
How about getting a REAL expert ,Scotsman?
You trot out Midwinter , you trot out Lord Foulkes, personally I don't believe a word that either of them trots out!
86

John S,

18/06/2008 11:09:37
Wendy Alexander said if the SNP don't get the Local Income Tax Bill through parliament she will put a vote of no confidence in the government so they will have to go to the people - Mar 29, 2008
87

ThomasP,

18/06/2008 11:13:23
96 Grahamski,Falkirk

BRITAIN wouldn't let LIT because it was better for Scotland the people of Scotland.

Westminister is full of the most greediest in society and everything must return with a profit so they have more money to spend on pointless profits.

The SNP on the otherhand care more for how much money you have in your pocket and is not going to set out to rid you of everything you earn.

They learnt that the more money the Scots think they have then the better they have to be voted in again.
88

ThomasP,

18/06/2008 11:13:52
98 John S

Evidence please?
89

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 11:16:17
95
'Did they not give an explanation? Or did he just not like or agree with the explanation.'
- they didn't give an explanantion, and we're still waiting....
"The SNP also claimed that 90 per cent of households would gain from the change. Now it is the 'average household in nine out of ten income deciles'"

Splitting hair in language. 9 out of 10 is 90%. So the only difference between the 2 statement is the word "average".
- No, they are completely different figures..
90

sm753,

18/06/2008 11:17:01
55 Ayrshire Scot - Thank you.

51 Mr Angry - oooh, you are, aren't you? Did someone particularly urinate on your parade this morning?

I have now found the one and only reference to the 3p business buried in Annex D of the LIT consultation document.

Now there are obvious procedural problems with this.

- the 3p rate may not be "the" Scottish Variable Rate (SVR) in the Scotland Act, but it could be argued that it looks a lot more like that - a central tax - than it does a local tax. In which case it is ultra vires and needs Westminster primary legislation. Not going to happen.

- then there's the £400-odd m Council Tax benefit problem. As I understand it this is not just a lump handed over to the Executive, it is applied for by individual taxpayers and paid by the Treasury to the councils on behalf of those individuals. Understandably the Treasury is not going to be keen on saying "There you go John, call it £400m indexed at RPI, don't bother telling us who gets it"!

Why haven't the SNP thunk up an equivalent "LIT Benefit" system to make sure this money goes to those who need it?
91

Alan B,

18/06/2008 11:20:13
#92 Grahamski

U are really stretching in ur argument. And in doing so show how weak labours argument against LIT is.

"Westminster intervened because the SNP claimed the HMRC would collect the tax. Problem was the SNP hadn't actually spoken to the HMRC."

Firstly HMRC should collect this tax. That really should not be an issue. The governments should be co-operating. It is up to the snp when they decide to approach HMRC. I would suggest they need to go through there sonsultation phase first. Obviously they need to give HMRC enough warning to allow them to do any necessary changes. Costs etc can be discussed.

"The SNP also claimed erroneously that a national benefit was part of the block grant."
That money should be forethcoming to scotland. It is wrong to prevent scotland getting its share of the money. If u cannot see that there is little hope.

As i said i do not support this tax but do support the right of the scottish parliament to implement it. That includes not have monies stopped for daring to implement a devolved policy.

Think about it. If the tories get in and labour are in power in the sp. The tores introduce a poll tax mark 2. Do u really think scotland should have to adopt england method of local taxation despite it being a devolved matter or not get the any poll tax mark 2 rebate.

There is the issue of right and wrong. Labour are trying to find loopholes to stop the tax and end up looking silly.

It is simply scotlands money. If scotland get say 10% of the rebate because we paid in 10% of the tax base. Our money will then be withheld and our tax go to pay for other services in england just becuase we dare to introduce a devolved policy. a devolved policy setup by labour. pathetic.

As for legality. The point u seemed to miss. It is the preciding officers decision. Not the treasury. London Labour should not be interfering with a legal decision.


92

Alan B,

18/06/2008 11:26:12
#100 Grahamski

90% is 9 out 10. U are completely losing the plot. Ur arguments are just getting silly.

As for an explanation the article is so vague. If the want Midwinter arguments to be taken serious the scotmans should post an snp response so we can judge.
93

John S,

18/06/2008 11:26:24
#100 ThomasP: try this url's:-
I see that Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander is making noises about putting forward a motion of no confidence in the Gnat administration's local income tax policy.
http://thesoundofgunfire.blogspot.com/search/label/Wendy%20Alexander

Alexander: SNP facing vote of no confidence on local tax.
Wendy Alexander has warned her SNP adversaries that their "precarious" hold on power could see them being forced from office by a vote of no confidence on their local income tax plans.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2157693.0.Alexander_SNP_facing_vote_of_no_confidence_on_local_tax.php
94

Grahamski,

Falkirk 18/06/2008 11:29:31
102
The CTB is a rebate to individual UK taxpayers to relieve the burden of council tax. It is not a rebate to Holyrood.
I think you misunderstand the role of the presiding officer in this. Some nats have claimed that the presiding officer is the only person competent to decide on the legality of Holyrood's legislation. That is quite simply wrong.
95

John S,

18/06/2008 11:33:03
#104,is for #99 ThomasP, plus this url.
I've just heard Wendy Alexander on Radio Clyde, and if I have heard correctly then I'm astonished at what she just said.
She said if the SNP don't get the local Income Tax Bill through parliament she will put a vote of no confidence in the government so they will have to go to the people.
I did hear her correctly.
http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5399&p=70987&hilit=wendy+alexander&sid=4041faca9a6d933e4f28e08295902ef9#p70987
96

Jwil,

18/06/2008 11:35:50
How can Wendy claim this in "independent" research when Midwinter is a know Labour activist?

Laughable!

Try the Herald for serious articles and serious postings. This paper rates with cartoon capers.
97

Alan B,

18/06/2008 11:37:49
#Grahamski

Think for a moment about the stupidity of ur arguement.

Labour introduce a scottish parliament. Labour as part of that devolved settlement grant powers to the sp to control the method for raising tax for local government.

However in power labour at westminster and having lost power at holyrood want to stop the sp introducing a different tax by stopping part of the funding for local government tax.

It makes absolutely no sense to devolve the method of local tax and then stop scotland getting it share of the cash if it chooses to use that power.

As for legality. I am not wrong. The preciding officer is the first port of call over legality. If there is then a dispute then there is an arbitary body.