X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Blogs

John Swinney misses a trick - Spectator Blogs

21 September 2012

2:20 AM

21 September 2012

2:20 AM

There are days when Scottish independence seems a more than decent idea. Budget day at Holyrood is always one of them. I say budget day but it’s really faux-budget day because, at least until now, it’s always been only half a budget. A parliament that may spend but cannot tax is only half a parliament.

So, if not independence then proper fiscal autonomy at least. That would make Holyrood a better, bigger, more responsible place. It might also provide incentives for better public policy. Might being the operative word, obviously.

Nevertheless the reaction to the so-called budget John Swinney delivered yesterday has been encouraging. That is, the public sector unions are unhappy. This is often a useful indicator and this reaction is no exception to that telling general rule.

They are disgruntled because John Swinney – the capable Finance Secretary – announced that those public sector workers whose pay he has the power to control will receive just a 1% pay increase this coming year. According to one Union leader this makes Mr Swinney “[George] Osborne in a kilt“.

Aye well, them’s the breaks. Even so, it should be noted that Swinney’s nugatory pay award only applies to fewer than 10% of government-paid workers (those earning less than £21,000 a year have not been subject to previous pay freezes and many others, including police and teachers, will have their pay awarded through separate settlements).

Swinney’s options were in any case limited. This is a consequence of the present economic climate and of the constitutional arrangements that hamstring his options. His budget is an exercise in shifting funds from one department to another. In the absence of proper responsibility it can hardly be any different. It makes Scottish politics a child0like world in which everything can be spent but nothing need be raised. This is a recipe for bad politics and even worse policy.

[Alt-Text]


Swinney is a good and decent fellow but there was little in his faux-budget that could not have been announced by a Labour Finance Minister. Sure, there might have been a mild difference of emphasis in that case but not, alas, in any broader approach.

I expect little from Labour – still, frankly, the party that needs slaying – but I suppose I hope for a little more from the SNP. (I’ve pretty much given up on the Scottish Tories and know there’s no point in ever hoping for much from the Liberal [sic] Democrats.)

Swinney did his best to make the case for this being a “stimulus” budget and he has shifted some spending from the resource budget to capital spending. That’s all fine, I guess. But since he operates within the parameters of a block grant this is, as he must know himself, little more than tinkering.

Which is why it remains disappointing the SNP has not sought to use the tax-varying powers it already at least putatively enjoys. Putatively, I say, because the Scottish government has not decided to ensure it could ever actually use those powers.

It is true that ever since the (unpopular) 1999 “Penny for Scotland” campaign in which the SNP promised to raise taxes that the idea of using these powers has fallen from favour. Iain Macwhirter explained the consensus a couple of years ago at a time when it became apparent that the government was not inclined to pay the Inland Revenue the money it wanted to keep this a feasible notion :

The Scottish government merely took the decision that it wasn’t worth spending £7m to upgrade the machinery for collecting the SVR or Tartan Tax since there was no foreseeable prospect of it being used.  The SNP’s own election manifesto in 2007 specifically ruled out using the tax as did everyone else’s, apart from the Scottish Greens.

As a member of the Great and Good (though he’d dispute that membership I’m sure!) Iain both regretted this and presumed that the parliament’s tax-varying powers should only ever be used to increase taxation rates.

That was then and this is noo. The case for increasing the standard rate of income tax payable in Scotland is as weak as it ever was. That is, weaker than a Bash Street Kid. The case for reducing the standard rate of income tax payable in Scotland is stronger than ever. Alas, it has not been made. Not even by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party. Shame on them.

Swinney announced yesterday that amidst much freezing of budgets the NHS would still receive extra funds. Some £263m to be precise. I suppose it is possible this will actually have some beneficial effect but, all things being equal, it seems likely to produce only marginal benefits and even those are liable to be distributed unevenly.

A 1p – that is 5% – cut in the standard rate of income tax however would have been a different thing. It would have given every taxpayer in Scotland a windfall (and permitted a total freeze on public sector pay, incidentally) at the price of what Swinney has splashed on the NHS. I suspect a cost-benefit analysis would favour the tax-cut ahead of more money for an already insufficiently efficient health service. More importantly, cutting tax would be a stimulus for all tax-payers.

But what about the English backlash? Well hooey to that. But, viewed from a nationalist perspective, any such “backlash” could be strategically useful. If the block grant is reduced one might expect a backlash against that. This is so even if the arguments for reducing the block grant are less than reprehensible.

So I think Swinney missed an opportunity. Alex Salmond would like corporation tax to be lower in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom (or what remains of it) so why not lower income tax too? Comparative advantages are still comparative advantages even when they’re measured in terms of individuals not companies.

 

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close