Jump to content

The Holyrood Election thread


DoofersDad

Recommended Posts

Good to know you are enthusiastic and raring to go.

It is exciting, isn't it?  For years Scots have been complaining about austerity and cuts to public services, but now Holyrood has tax raising powers which will allow our politicians to raise more revenue for protecting and developing our public services.  I trust you are voting for one of the parties that is keen to use these new powers and invest in education and the Health service etc.  It would be such a shame to waste your votes and carry on with the same old programme of austerity with the Tories and the SNP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17 April 2016 at 2:42 PM, Charles Bannerman said:

Do they need a manifesto? After all, they only have one policy which everybody knows about already.

Well they've finally produced something. 30,000 words, 31 photos of Nicola Sturgeon - and all launched under the banner of a wish list containing the only statement that means anything to them at all. Despite having been told in 2014 to do one on this issue, they still want another separation vote within the next 5 years. What a wonderful set of priorities for the group likely still to be in charge of our ailing economy, struggling schools and moribund NHS.

Burns..... Rome.......Fiddling.....

  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Well they've finally produced something. 30,000 words, 31 photos of Nicola Sturgeon - and all launched under the banner of a wish list containing the only statement that means anything to them at all. Despite having been told in 2014 to do one on this issue, they still want another separation vote within the next 5 years. What a wonderful set of priorities for the group likely still to be in charge of our ailing economy, struggling schools and moribund NHS.

Burns..... Rome.......Fiddling.....

Don't let the truth get in the way of a bit of repetitive invective will you.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that the SNP has finally published their manifesto I have downloaded it and skimmed through it.  It's a well presented and lengthy document which contains lots of things that I am sure we would all like to see them deliver on.  Who could say "no" to an extra £2bn for the NHS or 100% coverage for super-fast broadband by the end of the next term of office?  But where is the money to pay for all this coming from?

The manifesto, in truth, is a glossy wish list to bribe the people.  It is full of commitments for new investment across the board, but there is not a cat in hell's chance of delivering them all.  I promise to vote SNP next time if they do!  I think the reality is that the SNP recognise that if they can't build a case for independence in the next parliamentary term, then it really will be no further referendum for a generation at least.  This is the last chance saloon, and with support for independence continuing to lag behind opposition to independence, the SNP are desperate to do all they can to win people over.

Hence the detailed wish list and a lack of detail of where the money is coming from.  On taxation their position is as previously stated. Despite the fact that no taxes are going up but some tax thresholds will increase (thereby reducing tax), the manifesto claims this will raise £1.2bn!    Can somebody please explain that?  Even if the SNP's modest tax cuts did actually raise £1.2bn, that would only pay for slightly more than half of what is pledged for the NHS.  Where is the rest of the money for the NHS and all the money for everything else going to come from?

One area where there will be more money is, of course through the Barnet formula and the continuing subsidy that the UK gives to the Scottish economy.  If the next SNP Government cannot use that subsidy and the new devolved powers to increase economic activity in Scotland and to significantly reduce the Scottish budget deficit, then the arguments for remaining in the UK should finally be clear to most of the minority of Scots who voted to leave the UK. 

  • Agree 2
  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

images.jpg

 

I can't help but be reminded of the approach to election taken in 3rd world countries where, due to poor education and illiteracy, political messages use pictures and are kept very simple. Surely, even after 9 years of the SNP running our education system, things aren't that bad here!

  • Agree 2
  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

images.jpg

 

I can't help but be reminded of the approach to election taken in 3rd world countries where, due to poor education and illiteracy, political messages use pictures and are kept very simple. Surely, even after 9 years of the SNP running our education system, things aren't that bad here!

Brilliant! Trouble is, I thought they had most of these votes already so the "31 pictures of Nicola Sturgeon" approach may only have a limited future.

After May 5th though, examine the back of everybody's hand for the indelible ink stain which will tell you whether or not they have voted!

  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yngwie said:

images.jpg

 

I can't help but be reminded of the approach to election taken in 3rd world countries where, due to poor education and illiteracy, political messages use pictures and are kept very simple. Surely, even after 9 years of the SNP running our education system, things aren't that bad here!

The other thought that come to mind is that what she is holding up has the words "RE-ELECT" in large captials and a photo of Nicola Sturgeon. So, to the SNP, who or what is this election about re-electing? The SNP as the party of government or the person of Nicola Sturgeon?

History has shown that it's not a great idea when Nationalist parties begin to conflate the state, the party and the leader.

  • Disagree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She can't be re-elected to the post of First Minister because she only became First Minister during the course of the last Parliament when Salmond stood down.  She can, of course, be re-elected to represent her constituency.  If she is only elected for that, then that would be a great but somewhat unlikely outcome.  It would mean she wouldn't have to worry about where the money was coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

She can't be re-elected to the post of First Minister because she only became First Minister during the course of the last Parliament when Salmond stood down.  She can, of course, be re-elected to represent her constituency.  If she is only elected for that, then that would be a great but somewhat unlikely outcome.  It would mean she wouldn't have to worry about where the money was coming from.

On a pedantic note, she was elected First Minister by her fellow MSPs following the resignation of the previous holder of that post. Unlike the UK Prime Minister, the post of First Minister of Scotland is an elected position although it will, of course as a matter of fact, go to the leader of the majority party or the party with the largest number of MSPs in any coalition government

If memory serves me right it was even a contested election with Ruth Davidson standing against her.

Edited by Kingsmills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kingsmills said:

On a pedantic note, she was elected First Minister by her fellow MSPs following the resignation of the previous holder of that post. Unlike the UK Prime Minister, the post of First Minister of Scotland is an elected position although it will, of course as a matter of fact, go to the leader of the majority party or the party with the largest number of MSPs in any coalition government

If memory serves me right it was even a contested election with Ruth Davidson standing against her.

Fair point.  But are you able to answer my question about where the money is coming from for this re-election wish list?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I agree with you that the SNP's taxation position, whilst yielding more than simply echoing the stance of George Osborne, as favoured by the Tories, is not nearly bold or progressive enough. John Swinney is an extremely capable finance minister but I do suspect, and indeed hope ,that there will be an increase in the basic level of income tax probably a year into the new parliament. I support the SNP but don't believe them to be infallible. They have made mistakes in their years in power ,most notably the establishment of a single police force but all executives do and I believe that they are mistaken now by being rather too timid on the matter of income tax.. I do believe that unless the economy and the tax take increase grows by at least 2% a year over the next two years there will be a shortfall between spending and income roughly equivalent to 1% on the basic rate of income tax hence the reason for modest increase of 1% on the basic rate a year or two into the new parliament.

Not that it is guaranteed that the SNP will have an outright majority again come 6th May. I know all the pundits and pollsters predict such but the voting system was designed to stop any single party gaining a majority of seats and specifically to stop the SNP having such a majority. It might be a surprise but I would not be altogether astonished to find the SNP  just short of an outright majority and entering into some sort of confidence and supply arrangement with either the Greens or the Lib Dems each of which are likely to have half a dozen or so seats and each of whom would happily agree to such a modest tax increase.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may expect an increase in the basic rate of income tax in the next parliament but the SNP in their manifesto explicitly rule this out saying that it will be frozen throughout the next parliament.  

Their manifesto states that they will raise at least an additional £1.2bn through income tax in the next parliament.  Clearly none of this is going to come from an increased basic rate.

They confirm that they will implement the Tories' proposal to raise the basic rate threshold and will extend that in the last year of the Scottish Parliament term (that's one year beyond the Tory term of office).  This measure actually takes some people out of paying tax altogether whilst reducing the amount of tax everybody else will pay.  This means that in order to raise an additional £1.2bn in total, they will need to raise even more than £1.2bn from higher rate tax bands.

They are not going to implement the Tory policy of raising the higher rate tax threshold to £45,000 but it is important to recognise that the Tory proposal is a tax cut.  Not implementing it does not raise any additional money.  What the SNP are proposing is to increase the threshold for the higher rate in line with inflation at most.  This should keep the proportion of people paying tax at the higher rate stable and therefore should be revenue neutral.

The SNP have stated that they will not use the new tax powers to put up the additional rate of tax in the first year of the parliament but they do not rule out raising it to 50p in subsequent years.  What they say is "While the Scottish Government does not control the rules on income tax avoidance, there is a risk that an increase in the Additional Rate in Scotland could put revenue at risk. Accordingly, we will not raise the Additional Rate in 2017/18. However, we will ask the Council of Economic Advisers to consider how and to what extent this risk can be mitigated and if we are sufficiently assured that it can be, we will consider raising the additional rate from 45p to 50p from 2018/19 onwards."

Of course, Sturgeon has already said that their research has demonstrated that increasing the rate to 50% would cause large numbers of additional rate tax payers to either move or move their money South.  She has stated that as a result, increasing the rate might actual result in reduced tax income and has described the proposal to increase rates to 50% as "daft". 

Having given a pledge to freeze the basic rate, the ability of the SNP to raise their promised "at least £1.2bn" from income tax therefore appears to rely on a policy which they are themselves currently describing as "daft"!  What makes it even dafter is that even if none of the additional rate payers moved or moved their money, a 5% rise in additional band rate would only raise £0.11bn per annum. 

Interestingly, the manifesto says absolutely nothing about the rates for the rather larger number of higher rate tax payers.  Given that a policy they themselves say is daft could only at best,raise a third of the promised additional revenue, the only option is to increase the rate for the 400,000 or so higher rate tax payers.  Whilst I would actually support such a rise, the fact that the SNP are not being honest about this in their manifesto is really quite disgraceful.  Of course, an increase in the higher rate would, by definition, result in additional tax on at least £100,000 of income of additional rate payers and therefore one wonders to what extent raising the higher rate band will also be seen as "daft".

Sorry that this is so long, but finally, please bear in mind that even if they did raise £1.2bn in this way, that will pay for just over half of the promised additional revenue for the NHS.  Where is the other £0.8bn coming from and where is the money coming from for all the other spending pledges?  This is a manifesto which does not remotely add up.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting and informative analysis (as ever) DD.  If only BBC Scotland and the rest of the particularly weak Scottish media would scrutinise things in this way and ask challenging questions of our government!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media (particularly the BBC) does seem to be particularly scared of doing any critical analysis these days for fear of being accused of bias.  But what I find most concerning is the absolute ineptitude of all the other political parties who seem totally incapable of challenging the SNP on the massive financial black hole at the heart of the SNP manifesto.  There is no doubt which party has the most astute politicians.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dare not to intervene, since I know little about the matter

Except that turmoil reigns and I know even less about the issue and just review the natter

So I look to Charlie for his patter, inspiration and education

Yet still I remain a-working on his word conflate-ion.

What does this mean my good teacher lad, although I  know that con means "with"?

Foreby, otherwise Chas, you might as well be taking the pith.

Eureka moment:-  it means opinions expressed  with-flatulence ,  I do declare.

i.e. Or plainly put,.........more political hot air.:notworthy:

 

 

  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No takers on trying to explain the apparent massive financial black hole in the SNP manifesto then?  

This, remember, is the same party which during the Independence campaign wowed the voters with the promise of between £6.8 and £7.9bn of oil tax revenues in 2016/17.  The reality is that last year the net oil tax revenues were just £35 million and this year the forecast is that support from Government to the oil industry will exceed tax receipts.  In other words, far from having the multi billion windfall from offshore oil and gas which the SNP promised, the industry is being kept alive as a result of Government subsidy.  

Thank goodness the people of Scotland had the sense to vote "NO", but why, oh why are people being taken in again by the SNP's fantasy economics?  

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎23‎/‎04‎/‎2016 at 8:17 AM, Yngwie said:

Interesting and informative analysis (as ever) DD.  If only BBC Scotland and the rest of the particularly weak Scottish media would scrutinise things in this way and ask challenging questions of our government!

Interesting yes, informative only in so far as the figures quoted by DD are predicated on zero growth in the Scottish economy over the five years of the next parliament. Assuming a 2% annual growth in GDP for each of the five years and thus tax take, the sums in the SNP manifesto add up almost perfectly and it is far from outrageous and par for the course for parties seeking re election to be optimistic in their forecasts.

Personally, I think the true picture will be somewhere in between and as a result there may well be a 1% increase in the basic rate of income tax either one, two or three years into the parliament to fund the modest difference.

As a believer in progressive taxation and the fact that those of us fortunate enough to have a bit more should contribute a bit more especially in difficult times I am perfectly happy with that.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

As much as that????

Well, mustn't grumble I suppose.... it could have been predicated on $113 a barrel (albeit not from DD.)

For one who constantly sneers at the level of ignorance of your fellow electorate that post betrays a considerable level of ignorance of your own.

As recently as 16th March Pricewaterhouse Cooper published a detailed report projecting a level of growth of 1.8% in the Scottish economy for 2016 as a whole. That notwithstanding the current downturn in the oil and gas sector. PcW are not exactly renowned for being cheerleaders for the cause of independence.

I would post a link but my own ignorance precludes me from doing so.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kingsmills is right to point out that the growth in the economy will lead to more tax being paid and that growth is forecast to be around 2% in coming years.  But that does not equate necessarily to a similar increase in tax income.  For several years, the growth in wages has been lagging behind growth in the economy and inflation.  This is particularly true in the private sector which is crucial because it is growth in the private sector which funds the public sector.  This reduces the tax take but increases the pressures on public services which are subject to inflationary pressures (e.g drug costs in the NHS).  In addition, regular above inflation increases in the threshold for paying tax have taken large numbers of folk out of paying tax altogether whilst other tax payers pay less. Other factors also come into play.  For instance, increased productivity can mean increased industrial output by employing less people leading to more growth but less income tax. 

To do more than simply stand still and increase NHS funding in line with inflation, economic growth needs to result in either or both of wage rises in the private sector significantly above inflation or significantly more people employed in well paid jobs in the private sector.  It may do neither.  But, without that, we will not see an increase in tax income in real terms.  The relationships between the various factors are extremely complex, but one thing is clear.  The SNP, who are not raising income tax rates are are proposing a more extensive programme of public spending than the two parties that are.  That's a pretty clear indication that their figures don't add up.

It would appear that people are going to vote for what they want to hear rather than for parties who are honest about the need to generate additional revenue to address the problems left by years of SNP rule.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-36130871  The link from BBC news today is just the latest example of how the austerity measures imposed on local councils in Scotland have taken us backward rather than forward.  We've had 9 years of a Government that has shirked responsibility and blamed the Tories.  What we need now is a Government that takes responsibility and uses devolved powers to raise the revenue needed to sort out the problems of the SNP legacy and starts moving Scotland forward again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎17‎/‎04‎/‎2016 at 9:48 AM, Yngwie said:

I was thinking the same thing, wondering if I had somehow missed it.  Postal votes are already being cast!

....and yet we have the Labour manifesto published only today a full week after some postal votes have been cast but as it doesn't come within the #SNP Bad script I daresay that will escape adverse comment.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kingsmills said:

 the #SNP Bad script 

Yes I know. Terrible, isn't it? People painting with such a negative brush a fine, upstanding bunch of people like the SNP who would never think of vilifying anyone or stooping to..... well for instance something awful like "#Tories Bad". 

  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy