When No Doesn't Quite Mean No

Hardly surprising I see that SNP Tactical Voting is getting all Steamie about what has been reported about yesterday's end of day consultation session at the Lib Dem conference. I see the BBC, along with other media is giving only part of the story on the debate that went on earlier today.

I guess it is easy journalistic shorthand to simply write that the Lib Dems are opposed to a referendum on the subject of independence. Actually what came out of yesterday was that that the party was opposed to this particular referendum. Let's look at the specifics.

The SNP plans was to introduce the Referendum Bill to the Scottish Parliament on 25th January 2010, to provide for a on 30th November that year. For anyone not familiar with the Scottish calender this is Burn's Night and St. Andrew's Day respectively, so there was talk about using emotive dates to try and swing this a certain way, or indeed to hijack even more of Scotland for their means.

There was also the fact of the referendum themselves. Up until 2007 a referendum on independence didn't even feature as a means for the SNP to determine the will of the Scottish people. They aim to get to the goal of indepedence was to have the majority of Scottish MPs or MSPs. They have clearly failed in what has been the aim for 73 years of their existence.

Then there is the question itself:

"I agree that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the UK so that Scotland become an independent state."

Now the last time I took place in a referendum there was a document setting out what we were voting on, it was called The Agreement it had been signed on Good Friday. It wasn't a call to enter negotiations into something, it had come after a lot of wrangling, disputes and negotiation to come up with something. So Salmond's Bill isn't a referendum on Independence but a referendum to whether or not to enter negotiations with Westminster. Alex Salmond isn't prepared to enter those negotiations himself, because he knows he isn't ready, isn't in a position of enough power to do so. He wants to take a gradualist approach towards independence from his position of 33% of the vote and 25% in favour of Independence.

Which leads to one thing that was discussed and did come out yesterday. The Lib Dems would back a referendum. A referendum that was clear in its intent Alex Salmond keeps changing what Independence means, do we keep the Queen or not, the army or not, the Bank of England or not, and if we do keep the Old Lady of Threadneddle Street do they set our interest rate. It also shouldn't wrapped in the Saltire, wearing a kilt and printed on a shortbread tin. Well it may as well with the programme for introduction and implementation suggested. Multiple options is a no-go area it should be a yes know.

The press had also foretold it was going to be a spilt. Whilst in a party that is used to discussing hot topics in a grown up fashion, and indeed had seen some very strong debates, very many points of order and points of information to get it through the numerous votes yesterday. What came out was a listening to each others points of views, I'm know that many of the 30+ people who got called to speak were redrafting up to the point that they got called, as many referred back to previous contributions, some even the one who had just taken their seat.

Jeff also seems to suggest in his Steamie article that the Greens have given their backing to the SNPs Bill on Independence. Poor them for being misled, actually if you look at some of the example above it looks more like the SNP is actually a party of Gradualism or maybe even leaning towards Federalism than Nationalism. So maybe the Lib Dems should be encouraging the SNP to join us nationally across the UK to achieve a Federalist Scotland in a Federalist UK. It appears that Alex is prepared to go for strong Scottish Home Rule within some of the confines of the UK. You know something us Lib Dems and the Liberals before us have wanted that for over 100 years.

One thing that the SNP have to learn about Federalism though is that powers are devolved down to the appropriate level. Therefore they have to stop grabbing powers from council level and taking them hostage, like some poor unsuspecting ship anywhere near Somalian water, and hole those powers up in Holyrood. Yes I'm talking about the powers to set their own local taxation at a rate that is appropriate, even if that is a fairer system of local taxation like LIT. Yes that means giving them some leniency in how they should spend what they are given. The SNP are actually exercising more central control than Labour ever dared to take, even in the bad old days of the late 70s.

Nats Want Freedom: Just Not Their Information

The double standards for the SNP have come to light again this time over the Freedom of Information.

Last month they were up in arms with Jack Straw about the UK Government's failure to release Cabinet papers in the run up to the Iraq war. However, when the Scotsman asked them to release the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 10 February when the Cabinet decided to drop plans to ditch replacing Council Tax with LIT, nothing.

Taking Angus Robertson's words from last month.

"The public feels it was lied to about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, and those responsible must not be allowed to hide from an inquiry.

"This Cabinet cover up is typical of the Labour government’s attitude to freedom of information.

"....Those responsible have never answered the most fundamental questions about why we were led into this war.

"The claim that the war was about weapons of mass destruction was a lie, a mere cover story unsupported by the facts, which has cost the lives of thousands of civilians and hundreds of our brave soldiers"

With a slight adjustment we can ask.

"The public feels it was lied to about the reasons for breaking this policy
pledged in 2007, and those responsible must not be allowed to hide from an
inquiry.

"This Cabinet cover up is typical of the SNP government’s attitude to freedom of information and the Scottish electorate.

"Those responsible have never answered the most fundamental questions about
why we were led away from this policy that they still protected staunchly weeks
before.

"The claim that the recession makes it impossible to bring about a fairer tax for the less well off is a lie, a mere cover story unsupported by the facts, which has cost thousands of pounds needlessly to those less able to pay the unfair council tax."

Update: I see that Jeff has taken the contrary view which I find discouraging for a supporter of a party that only wants Open Government (to quote the Jim Hacker plan on this issue) on things that suit itself. It is not a case of either or. If you want to utilise FoI legislation for gaining info you have to also be prepared to tender information when requested.

I suspect that the Scotsman already know what happened in those cabinet meetings and are merely wanting to get the official minute before publication. A dangerous game for the Nats to play.

If You're Only Just Shy Of Support On LIT...

OK lets for a moment assume I accept the SNP's excuse for dropping Local Income Tax (LIT)proposals on the grounds that there was not enough support in Holyrood, even with the Lib Dems on side. What does that mean for the appointment of Mike Russell to his new role?

Now I'm not claiming to be good at maths (OK stats is what I do for a living) but surely there are 13 less MSPs* in favour of Mike Russell's new remit as Minister for Constitutional Affairs Independence than there was for scraping the council tax and replacing it with LIT. Indeed independence said Iain Grey in yesterday's FMQ's is the last remaining flagship policy on which the SNP got elected in 2007 that they 'currently' are still looking to implement before the next election. That is a disastrous only 21 months into a 48 month fixed term.

So we know that the SNP have over run the parliamentary process in Holyrood since taking office. No it appears that they think they can get away with overlooking the reasons that people voted for them as well. One by one the flagship policies are falling by the wayside.

Wait for the next good day to bury news for the announcement that the SNP will not bring forward a Bill calling for Independence for Scotland before the 2011 election.

*Instead of 16 Lib Dems they could maybe count on the two Greens and Margot MacDonald.

SNP Axe Pledge to Axe the Tax II From Tavish TV

Here is Jeremy Purvis's opinion on the SNP's decision to not follow though on their pledge to axe the council tax and replace it with local income tax.



You can read my views here.

SNP Axe Their Pledge to Axe the Tax

One of the things I agreed about in principle if not the means of execution of the SNP Government was their pledge to scrap the council tax and replace it with a local income tax based on the ability to pay.

Just this morning some of the press were praising Salmond for bringing in some heavy hitters today he is reeling against the ropes. One of his key pledges to get elected lying in tatters.

John Swinney, the Finance Minister claimed it would be politically very difficult to introduce the tax in the current political and financial climate at a time when the recession will see year-on-year cuts in public spending. Blaming political difficulty is hardly by itself a valid reason to bring about a change that leads to fairness.

Then there is also the adjustments being made under the Barnett formula £1bn over the next two years, so Westminster takes the blame. But surely an independent Scotland wouldn't have a cash payout from Westminster so if the SNP are truly intent on Independence such trivialities should not be the reason that they can hide behind.

No the problem of why the SNP's proposals from why LIT failed is intransigence of their proposals. They wanted a fixed rate set centrally. One that did not take into account local needs. They also wanted to set a rate below what was recommended giving themselves an inbuilt shortfall before they even started to look for other scapegoats. Like the first budget that failed to pass last month they refused to budge.

LIT can work and it can be fair. It needs to meet the requirements of the councils that need to spend it. Sadly the SNP administration has been failing them on too many counts by limiting their money while increasing their responsibility.

The SNP pretty much lifted the Liberal Democrat policy on Local Income Tax I remember being handed a leaflet about it in 2005 and noticed only 2 or 3 words difference from the policy as described in our pre-manifesto document. But they have betrayed the people who voted for them believing that maybe they could offer a faier local tax.

This is after all Scotland the test bed of Maggie's Poll Tax. Therefore to let the people of Scotland down over local taxation is liable to be one sin that may not be overlooked too easily.

There is Hope For Local LIT

Although the idea of the Scottish Tories was to get an airing for their reformed reformed Poll Council Tax, the vote yesterday in Holyrood for the Abolition of the Council Tax Bill to debate all proposals on the table paves the way for various alternatives to be looked at. It may also be a face saving way for the SNP to not implement a 3p Scottish National Income Tax, which seems to break all sorts of binds to Local Authority accountability, without losing too much face. That is of course if Alex Salmond actually listen to the will of Parliament, which would be a nice change.

Of course there is the Lib Dem proposal for a true Local Income Tax and the Green's proposal of Land Value Tax to be considered in the mix. It may please James @ The Two Doctors to know that over the years at various party conferences I have been at fringe events looking at LVT as well as LIT so I know there are benefits to each, just as everyone will also be pointing out there are disadvantages in both (or for that matter any tax system). However, looking at what is on offer in the essence of fairness the ability to pay has to be paramount LVT is still linked somewhat to the property you live in, irrelevant of when you purchased that, while closing up a few loopholes for acquisition of land and leaving it empty and unused.

One thing that recent Labour shenanigans at Westminster over taxes is clear though is that reform is needed. For years now under Labour and the Conservatives our tax burden has been increasingly borne by those less able to pay it while those most able have been getting greater and greater tax breaks. A friend of my said yesterday that they had overheard an elderly couple out food shopping and putting something back because the price was a mere ten pence higher than previously and outwith their budget.

It's not just the credit crunch that is affecting the worse off though it has been the tax squeeze from Labour stealth taxes and high earner breaks, which they picked up and ran with from the Tories that has been endemic in the system for long enough. We need to sort out the tax and benefit system, make it comprehensible, fair and based on ability to pay and true need.

Two Labour Takes on LIT

The latest comments from Norman Quirk of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce on Local Income Tax have drawn two different responses from the Labour Blogosphere. His comments that it would be "the wrong tax at the wrong time" and further and more disturbingly that it would be a "tax on labour" I'll deal with in a bit but first the Labour responses.

First there is former Railways Minister Tom Harris, who churns out yet again the old Labour line that LIT is people paying more income tax. Sad but true that Labour have for the last 11 years thought that people only focus on income tax. How else could one describe the fact that they have raised the overall taxation on the individual by stealth taxes and simultaneously closed the percentage of income paid in taxation between the top 20% and the lowest 20% of the UK population. Indeed Tom seems to miss that it is replacing another tax and shows very poor maths when he says:

"if they manage to implement it, and push Scots’ income tax up to three per cent
more* than what everyone else in the country is paying"

LIT (although as I've said whether the SNP really want a true local LIT is in dispute) is a progressive tax. With prices rising fixed percentage taxes such as VAT which we pay on our food, our fuel on top of our fuel duty etc are regressive especially to those on lowest incomes. For each 5 pence increase in their bills almost another penny goes to the exchequer. The council tax is a fixed rate tax. In hard financial situations you still have to find a way to pay it no matter what change you may find in your situation, only in the worst case scenario may you get social security support to assist you in that. Indeed should you be unable to pay it due to tight financial times it can cost those least able to afford it more either through fines, bank charges for a failed Direct Debit etc. as a few people have mentioned to me in recent months.

An LIT instead of course reflects you're ability to pay. Heck it can even been taken at the point of source therefore you'd budget around the net take home pay. Rather than face the possibility of paying your council tax or your fuel or food bill.

Take on the other hand the leader of Labour's group on Edinburgh Council, Ewan Aitkin who takes a more cautious view. He unlike Tom Harris seems to realise that this gift horse could turn into a Trojan horse very easily saying:

"Implementing the LIT is never the issue. Being seen to be fair and equitable is."

Aitken at least seems to realise that LIT would wash well the people if not the business leaders, and crucially says:

"it does make political sense because people feel, for good or for ill, unfairly
treated by the Council tax."

Of course he then go on to point out that the SNP plans figures for LIT do incur a shortfall, which is of course one reason why a centrally set rate does not account for local expenditure requirements, nor the ability of the residents of that local authority to burden the load.

So while one is blinded by one tax is headline grabbing the other at least is realising the fairness issue of taxation is important to the electorate. Possibly more so as we are buying more and more banks with our taxes. Of course if they (the voters) are not happy with the way the local authority finances, spends and runs things they can democratically have their say within 4 years. A more difficult task if, like me, the SNP do not represent your constituency in the first place to then unseat the Government.

*Seeing as it is only 3% on taxable income even the increase of a 3% LIT would not equate to 3% more income tax than someone else on equal income.

Please Don't U-Turn into a Cul-de-sac Swinney

After my initial joy at the news that the SNP are looking to localise their Local Income Tax (LIT)proposals I was a little shocked about some of the apparent revelations that have emerged.

John Swinney had said that he had raised the issue of LIT with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), it is the least one would expect 17 months into an administration that had this proposal as one of its linchpins. However, HMRC have apparently said they have not been involved in discussions. Yet the The Times had reported that the whole thing blew up at the weekend because of a leak of emails obtained by the BBC:

"E-mails obtained by the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that
some unpopular aspects of the proposal are under review. Correspondence sent from the Scottish Government to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs last month show that the SNP now wants etc.."

So if last month the Scottish Government wanted to review some things already sent to HMRC surely that means that consultation with them over the issue of LIT had to be underway.

Heaven forbid that the Sir Humphrey Appleby* equivalent at HMRC had been house trained after 11 years of Labour masters not to look at alternatives. Even it that alternative does come from a legislature overseeing a devolved part of the UK, after all devolution was a linchpin of New Labours sweep to power in 1997.

John Swinney has to be careful that this double talk, of misinformation coming from the HMRC is not allowed to cloud the agenda over LIT.

He also though has to not U-turn on his own U-turn having accepted that he has made one. When one Government official made a statement on Monday night saying:

"We favour HMRC as the most efficient way to collect a local income tax as it
already has experience of administering income tax. After introducing local
income tax at the same level in all local authority areas, in the medium term we
are considering options for local variability in a downward direction. HMRC
would still collect the tax in the most efficient manner - we are not proposing
to transfer collection to councils at any stage."

It makes it appear that the Nats have not moved away from we'll do it our way first, with a National Income Tax before giving way to council setting their own rate. This approach has already be vehemently rejected by the Lib Dems as not being a Local Income Tax. So if the statement on Sunday by Swinney was meant to appease Liberal Democrats the statement the next night when fending off the attacks needs either clarification or rejection.

* The current Permanent Secretary of HMRC is Dave Hartnett who was only appointed earlier this month.

Now That's What I Call Local

John Swinney the SNP Finance Minister has finally announced plans for a Local Income Tax, letting the local authorities set their rates rather than controlling it all from his Edinburgh office. After my ranting on Friday about the Nats not respecting local authorities, this is welcome news. Some are accusing Swinney of making a U-Turn but he is merely realising the problems he created for himself by lifting the core of the Lib Dem idea without many of the more thoroughly worked out difficulties and subtleties.

He is also considering sensible options to exempt students from paying LIT and to make sure it is paid on investment income as well. There has long been a dichotomy about those who are super rich and live off investments contributing regularly to the national taxation bracket. The super rich of course have their team of accountants ensuring they pay the least tax possible, tending towards zero.

Labour of course are up in arms, they don't want fairness in local taxation. You only have to look at their moan in The Fifer a tabloid they have put out in Glenrothes for the by election. They take a household with four earners and complain about the fact that this family will have to pay more for local services. They ignore the fact that in the same street, paying only 25% less Council Tax is the single mum who works her guts out to cope with raising her family.

There is also the young couple who both earn but at a lower rate than the heads of the family in Labour's literature who pay exactly the same Council Tax as the four earners that Labour are moaning about. But of course that is taking a far higher proportion out of their salaries than the four people up the street. The family of four's tax bill is not going to double, as all four of them will have their tax threshold of course, but Labour who are starting to sees flaws in council tax are upset that others have found a fairer system before them and Andy Kerr will do anything to run it down.

The Truth, The Half Truth, The Spun Nationalist Part

I was out delivering in Cowley Street yesterday. No not the Westminster one, this one is in Buckhaven, Fife and part of the Glenrothes constituency. But yes Lib Dem friends it did have number 4 and they did get the Lib Dem message of Harry Wills posted through their letter box.

However, I just loved the timing of the SNP postcard and its message that was going out over the weekend.

What the SNP tell you:

We have frozen Council Tax.

What they failed to mention:

At the same time we are asking you local council to do more and more. Provide access to a full time nursery teacher for all nursery child. Provide free school meals to every child in primaries 1-3. We've also appointed Ebenezer Swinney in charge of Holyrood's budget and he's not going to give you sufficient additional funding to pay for all this if any.
What the SNP tell you:

We will axe the council tax altogether.

What they fail to mention:

They want to do away with a local councils ability to raise their own finances, replacing it with a National Income Tax. They want to centralise all power at the centre, in their case Holyrood, in ways that surpass anything birthday girl Baroness Thatcher or NuLabour would have dreamed of. They want more power for Scotland but they don't want your council to maintain the power's it has had to best serve you on the ground for key local services.

Considering that just before the weekend COSLA was meeting due to the majority of councils realising that the concordat they were suckered into is being stretched beyond all limits by additional spending powers being heaped upon them by the Scottish Government, the timing of these messages must backfire. People will be seeing just that the Nats are saying, know exactly just what it ends up doing and doesn't lead to a lot of trust in what they will end up promising over the coming weeks.

Meanwhile on the Labour side as I navigated the Forth, Clyde, Tay, Tweed and Don and surrounding streets I did see my first signs, a handful admittedly, of Labour support. But just how can Lindsay Roy be a new voice for Buckhaven or Fife? Surely he is only a different person declaring the same tired, old, increasingly redundant Labour message? It's like John McCain advocating change hardly a new voice, just a different one singing from the same stained hymn sheet.

Are Lloyds-TSB Labour's Policy Wonks?

Just what was new Nu-Labour Scottish MSPs leader Iain Gray implying when he said that a Scottish Local Income Tax would affect Scottish jobs with HBOS?

Surely the man who is leader of only 45 other people isn't implying that a bank should be setting policy in Scotland? Last time I checked the board of Lloyds-TSB were not members of the Scottish Parliament. Also last time I checked Sarah Gordon Brown wasn't chief executive of Lloyds-TSB-Halifax-Bank of Scotland. So just what is Gray up to? Is he using a crisis for political gain? Scaremongering on a new tack with the same old refrain but with a new menace lurking in his wake?

The warnings from the CBI that Scotland's stalled economy would fail to grow once the crunch is over and that a consensus (when 46% of the people are actually in favour of LIT) are running on empty Iain. We've all seen that the wealthy are really only in it to keep as much of their own wealth to themselves and bugger fairness to those on the lowest incomes, very much like Labour policy. Ordinary people are looking for progressive not regressive taxation at the moment as they are struggling to make ends met. That way the hard working on lower incomes can spent theirs on what they need to spend it on rather than having a bulky flat rate tax set for something which in not reflective of their ability to pay.

Of course Gray did hint that Council Tax may have runs its course during his leadership election but has nothing concrete to bring to the table to replace it. We'll wait and see just how many of the same people also attack those proposals if and when they appear. Strangely people will always complain about their taxes and then always find the faults in any replacement system rather than weighing up the pros versus cons.

Local Income Tax and the Scotsman

I'm surprised to be honest that the Scotsman can only find gripes from 25 people about LIT. As any Tax system that you'd want to introduce is far from perfect and what we must strive for is the best possible, fairest and most comprehensively inclusive system that we can. Some of the Nats Jeff and Richard Thompson have given some pretty clear rebuttal on most of the points so I'll not haver on to much. Some I don't agree with 100% and I may get around to some of them later, but by and large many of the gripes can be applied to more or less any change in the tax system, a few are specific to LIT but are things that can be ironed out if looked at properly.

However, Jeff makes one claringly obvious Nat mistake by dismissing article 9 of European charter of local self-government too glibbly. Councils have the right to raise the large part of their own finances, therefore the Scottish plan for LIT is not all fine and dandy. The EU covers all manner of styles and divisions of Government Federal systems to countries like Luxembourg small enough to have all government controlled at one level. But each branch, level etc have their own responsibilities for the money they collect at whatever level but only two National and the local level are presumed to have direct responsibility in every nation.

The Nats are currently proposing a local authority tax raising power. They are centralising one of the fundamental powers of you local authorities. If even Sarah Palin can claim to have power of the budget of 7000 inhabitants of Wallisa surely you local councillors have the same right, whether they are Lib Dems, Tory, Labour, Nats or whomever. They have to spend to meet local requirements and Holyrood is not going to be able to know the minutiae of every plan, need or emergency that may arise when the rate needs to be set for the forthcoming year. And yeah if the council get it wrong you can vote them out, not everyone in Scotland can do the same for the Finance or Local Government minister at Holyrood.

Is This the Year for Fairer Tax? Not Me-ah Cathy Jamieson

Ok so Alex Samond has announced his plans for the next year. Including what the BBC seem to automatically assume is a replacement of Council Tax with a 3p flat rate Scottish National Income Tax.

Cathy Jamieson seems to think that by calling the bill the replace Council Tax an Abolition of Council Tax Bill somehow that created a fairer tax is something to be ashamed off, or at least the name Local Income Tax. Maybe she should check out the Abolition of Slavery Act (1807), Wages Attachment (Abolition) Act (1870) [relating to poor law loopholes], the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act (1965), Grand Jury (Abolition) Act (Northern Ireland) (1969) just as some examples and tell what were people scared of in any og those. Mind you please wake me upon when any of the Labour Holyrood group leadership contenders instead of disparaging the council tax come up with any substantial, and then i may pay attention if it is anywhere near as far a replacement both to payers and Local Authorities expenditure plans than a locally set LIT based on ability to pay.

Cathy also fails to see that a fairer local tax is the least we can do after the poorest in our country have become more heavily taxed than at any point in our nations taxation history. I think instead of arguing the old erroneous song of Labour that LIT makes us the highest taxed part of the UK they should wake up to reality. The fact is if Labour's aim really is to best serve the hard working poor that LIT is one hell of a assistance to them after Gordon's various pulls on their meagre wages.

While a National Scottish Income Tax distributed evenly may well have damaging effect of local services in some areas what harm can the generation old local taxation level setting for local expenditure cause harm. Smarter fairer taxes are something that Labour have failed to deliver from Westminster and it seems that their Scottish counterparts are none the wiser.

Local Income Tax May be Coming to a Council Near You

Well the SNP are talking of maneuvering on their position on Local Income Tax after objections from Westminster that setting the rate centrally may well be illegal. They are to open discussions with the Lib Dems about moving the policy forward with the local authorities in Scotland setting the rate for their area rather than Holyrood.

All three Lib Dem leadership candidates have stated correctly that replacing the Council Tax with a fairer tax based on ability to pay is still party policy. So a real question for them at the hustings tomorrow will be in light of the SNP looking to negotiate will they enter negotiations in order to get one of our key election pledges from last year through? If we are truly looking to ensure a liberal democratic Scotland we must not be afraid of working with a party with a similar policy to our own (especially if it looked like it was lifted lock, stock and barrel originally with a few key elements changed) and I would welcome any move to get this through.

One worrying sign of the SNPs willingness to move to get this through against and antagonistic Labour controlled Westminster is there still is some assertion to maintain a national rate for at least a couple of years.

"The source added that ministers might be prepared to accept a locally-set tax
after the national tax has been allowed to "bed in" for a few years.accept a
locally-set tax after the national tax has been allowed to "bed in" for a few
years."

Be done with that if Labour in London are objecting to that remove the obstacle. Also I notice that Colin Borland, from the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland, is making the most non-sensical argument against LIT as opposed to council tax:

"The big fear is over the cost of bureaucracy. It will be bad enough with one
rate for the entire country, but there could be 32 different rates.

"If you have a business in Glasgow you could have three employees, one from
Glasgow, one from Renfrewshire and one from East Renfrewshire. That's three
different sets of paperwork."

Well for starters there are currently 8 council tax bands per Authority so that is 256 rates across the entire country. Also as far as employees wage packets are concerned I've had all sorts of additional extras taken out (sports association membership, union fees etc) of my pay, or overtime added on at an individual level through the years, different month on month. Most employees will only have to set up the LIT payments at the start of the tax year when the new rates are announced and only adjust should the employee stay employed but move council area. Hardly the most strenuous additional amount of over time for any employer in a small business or payroll officer in a larger concern. Sounds like just an excuse for the sake of keeping up making excuses as the tide shifts and not very well thought through.

Of course there are concerns that Vince Cable may make LIT a policy of the past at federal level for the Lib Dems. However, our MSPs and MPs are all currently elected seeking to implement LIT and if a change cmae to implement it our MSPs should jump at it and get rid of the unfair Council Tax system we have at present.

So locally set rates for a Local Income Tax may well be coming to a local authority near you (apologies to Welsh and English readers of this blog) soon. I for one hope discussion is entered into and both parties can get this sorted out and passed into law.

Two Immovable Objects Affect Fairness in Taxes

Look I know a week is a long time in politics but wasn't it just about 48 hours ago that the Nats were still saying they promised to axe the Council Tax? Indeed it is still on their party's website. Only for this morning's Scotland on Sunday to declare that they are to ditch Local Income Tax (LIT) one of their key election pledges of only last May.

It brings us to have to look at who is to blame for the failure of bringing in a fairer local tax system, which was to have been based on the ability to pay it. My conclusion is that both Labour and the SNP are too busy playing politics with each other to actual achieve something for the benefit of people who will gain most.

Now I have had elected Labour representatives agree with me in confidence that the Council Tax is far from fair, of course when talking to me they also add the caveat that they fell LIT is far from perfect as well. However, they also fail to provide anything that is radical and fair as an alternative and are happy to tinker around with the Council Tax. Labour in Westminster have backed up this by threatening to withhold the £400m grant payable to local authorities to offset bills for the lowest paid families, if the council tax was replaced with the LIT. Now surely that £400 million is needed to help provide the services that Scots need or else Westminster would not be offering it in the first place. Even with LIT to help lift the poorest out of paying that grant would still be required. So Labour are holding the Nats plans over a barrel.

However, the SNP may only have themselves to blame. As has been mentioned here before the Nats scheme was to set the level of LIT centrally at Holyrood, removing the tax level setting power from the local authorities who have to spend it. This caused the Labour administration at Westminster to make the threat to withdraw the grant as mentioned above. Now I'm in favour of LIT as over the lifetime of a local income tax payer it will spread the burden of their lifetime payments to when they can afford to pay it, and the majority of people will be better off under it. However, the Nats when they saw a good policy originating from the Liberal Democrats had to tinker with it to make it seem like their own, hence the setting of one level across Scotland set centrally.

Their refusal to budge on this is as much to blame for Scots looking to retain an unfair Tax as Labour refusing to budge on a different local tax system in another part of the UK, ignoring Northern Ireland. As said elsewhere in SoS by Kenny Farquharson Salmond is happy being in "government and opposition at the same time" however in so doing so and refusing to budge in his opposition to Westminster having any sway to get things through in Government is he costing Scotland a chance to change. More and more of his policies are coming up against a brick wall being concurrently built by the Nats on one side and Labour on the other. Maybe the magic of the juggling act of being opposition whilst being First Minister is starting to fade and the public's eyes are starting to open to the slight of hand for what it is a cheat, a scam, a slight of hand and mouth.

Wobbly Wednesday for the Nats

Alex Salmond may well have been jealous of Gordon Brown yesterday. Sure the Tim'rous Beastie of Downing Street has had his trouble but they haven't hit three main policy threads on the same day to quite the same devastating effect.

Yesterday it was Alex's turn to miscalculate, face tax problems and be attack whilst on the U-Turn. The Nats have been quick to attack Labour on the illegality of donations and awards for donations, yet seem content to draw a fine line over what legally they themselves can do, under the powers vested in them.

The miscalculation comes in education, which must be an embarrassment, especially for a former Economist like Alex. The SNP had set aside £40 million to reduce class sizes in primary 1 through 3 to 18. It now appears that the figure they told us was undersold in Holyrood building size proportions as just over a year later we find it is actually going to cost £420 million.

Now where is this revenue going to come from? I did hint yesterday that the Finance Minister was looking for help from the Unionist Parties on that one. He'd better first of all sort out local government taxation. The SNP seem set to carry on regardless with their centrally set rate for Local Income Tax to replace the Council Tax. However, Alan Page a professor of public law at Dundee University has warned that because of the legality issues arising out of what is allowed under the Scotland act it could become another Poll Tax scenario. People may end up refusing to pay stating that the Scottish Parliament does not have the right to do what they are attempting.

Finally the whole PFI-lite, sorry Scottish Futures Trust debacle also reached the floor of Holyrood. The plans to remove the PFI funding mechanism and the £150 million a year that raises looks like being replaced by a plan that is awfully similar if less clear. John Swinney made a statement which failed to reassure MSPs when he said the SFT was of the 'PFI Family' and that he would be using the local councils as the borrowing mechanism to raise the Private investment in their projects, again something that the administration has no legal powers to do.

So while Wendy's House on the opposition benches does teeter, Alex's foundations also look far from secure.

May I Offer a Couple of Suggestions Mr Salmond

Oh dear the SNP's palns to set their 'local' income tax LIT centrally at Holyrood has run into the buffers at the Treasury.

Apparently the SNP trying to control the ammount set central as well as using the Inland Revenue to collect the taxation throws it outwith the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

Of course there are alternatives. One is to maintiain the local link by allowing council to set their own rate of LIT. This is of course one of the key differences between Liberal Democrat proposals and those that the Nats took up once they realised it was a pretty neat idea. It would maintain the local level, the collection issue is probably less of an issue for the Treasury than the loss of setting the rate.

So I'm offering Alex Salmond and his Finance Minister John Swinney, these sage pieces of advice. First take on the Lib Dem local accountability element for LIT and not set it from your offices in Holyrood, local taxes have always been set by the local authorities who need to fund their spending from that revenue. Second if you don't want to do that you're more that welcome to join the other parties to get more power and greater fiscal autonomy by revisiting the Scotland Act.

Labour Still Ignoring Whole Picture

Apparently Gordon Brown is going to carry on the Labour trend of picking out fictions about Local Income Tax rather that looking at the whole picture when he address the Scottish Labour conference in Aviemore this afternoon.

Even the press are picking up that Labour are using fictional figures. Nothing new there is was a tactic I first came across in the 2005 Genreal Election, then it really came to a head in the Livingston by-election and every election in Scotland I've been involved in since. Labour pick at random one set of people who will be affected at this moment by Local Income Tax and ignore the vast majority who will either benefit or not be affected.

At least not as much as they have been by 11 years of Labour Chancellors.

Labour Barking Up Wrong Tree of LIT

Oh boy those guys at Labour never seem to learn as regards local income tax. They are now branding it unfair to adult workers who stay at home with their parents. Heaven forbid those of us who have spent most of our adult lives paying Poll Tax (based on the ability to breathe) and Council Tax (based on the ability to buy or rent property). Especially the later where the living alone discount is 25% therefore I've been paying considerable more than the couple of wage earners living in the flat next door.

Local Income Tax is based on the ability to pay. Therefore through lives cycle there will be times at present when you could get away with paying a local tax that you will pay it, ie when you are earning money and living in a household full of adults. Then there will also be times when you benefit, at times when you may find yourself out of work, or when you retire, when the current burden of council tax is too much to bear.

But of course Labour have failed to see just how unfair Council Tax has been to so many people and now that the SNP and Liberal Democrats are trying to get local taxation based on individuals ability to pay they are taking umbridge. The party of the ordinary people has long since lost that tag, they are cut off from reality and are merely putting the frighteners up people instead of looking at the wider picture.

Even accountants KPMG seem to have missed an important piece of the LIT plans of a cap on the maximum Local Income Tax bill. Labour are accusing LIT which will create savings to people on low or medium incomes who are being hit by the hike of fuel prices, food prices, various stealth tax rises introduced over the last 11 years. They are clearly forgetting that those on the lowest incomes are now pay a considerably higher proportion of their earnings in tax and the bear necessities of life now than when Blair breezed into Downing Street. They are only siding with the Tories to protect their nouveau riche supporters base and not the average family.