Lord Young, the Pope and Scottish Taxation

Scottish Taxation powers

It has been widely reported here in Scotland that the current SNP Scottish Executive has allowed Scottish tax powers to lapse by failing to fund the various complex databases required for HMRC to be able to levy the variable Scottish income tax. This power was granted following the second question in the Scottish devolution referendum, allowing the parliament to vary income tax on Scottish-linked citizens by 3% in either direction.

This is nonsense. The power to render the tax is still very much valid; indeed, the only problem now is a technical one. Creating a new tax always takes time, the Scottish Executive has, by its actions, simply prolonged that period of time. If it genuinely believes that it can find better use for its funds than maintaining a database which - let's face it - is unlikely to be used, then I see little problem with that.

The central question seems to be one of accountability, which is raised in an excellent article in the Herald by Ian Bell. There are issues over whether anyone, the Finance Secretary included, even realised this situation had developed before announced by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Moreover, as taxation is a power of the Scottish Parliament, not the Executive, one wonders why this was not subject to parliamentary approval, or at least consultation, back in 2007.

Lord Young

It appears Lord Young has his defenders, albeit from an unlikely corner. As with so many things in politics, his comments have been a matter of interpretation: what was insensitive was no so much the sentiment, but its application to the 'vast majority' of people. Huge numbers of people, particularly the least well off and most effected by the economic downturn, are not home owners who are sure that they will still have a secure job in a few months.

Whether it was intended or not, Lord Young's comments seemed to marginalise the least fortune, and for that it is perfectly reasonable that he be told to clarify his remarks or apologise. He should not, however, have been hauled before the public in sackcloth and mocked relentlessly. In a specific area, he was accurate - and he is not the only one who is frustrated with the endless cynicism which seems to have become attached to our economic problems.

The Pope and Condoms

Whilst not a Roman Catholic, the Pope's comments justifying the use of condoms in certain situations has perked my interest from a theological perspective. To illustrate the situation, the Pope commented on male prostitution, suggesting that condom use in this area would be sensible.

This is not a matter of faith, but one of science: it certainly is sensible in such circumstances to take measures to prevent infection. This much ought to have been accepted by the Roman Catholic Church a long time ago. However, from a moral angle, it is still very questionable: prostitution is still considered immoral by Catholics, as indeed is any form of sleeping around.

I cannot fathom why the Pope would believe that people who had chosen to reject his church's teachings on sexual activity would then care a damn about his church's teachings on contraception. Are we seriously to believe there are Roman Catholic male prostitutes out there who forego the use of a condom on religious grounds?

Combined with its prohibition of extra-marital sex, the church's position on contraceptives was perfectly acceptable except when they strayed into technical areas: apocryphal stories of priests suggesting that condoms simply do not work are widespread. In that regard, there is no particularly need for clarification, but perhaps a reminder that faith involves a holistic, not selective, approach to morality.

Referendums and Ulster Unionists

One hates to be overly partisan, yet cannot help but be utterly baffled by the 'running scared' rhetoric which the SNP utilised against the Unionist parties in Scotland, before apparently running scared from their own independence referendum bill.

The subtext to this accusation is that Nationalists understood, however unlikely it seemed to the rest of us, that Unionists believed they may lose in such a referendum. With the SNP poised to lose the vote on their Referendum Bill, however, did they not 'run scared' from introducing it to the Scottish Parliament? Was utter confidence in the persuasiveness of their position not the bar which the SNP set for the other parties?

Perhaps now Nicola Sturgeon et al will acknowledge that politics is a tactical game, where it is frankly odd to accuse a party of operating at a tactical disadvantage. In this case, I do not believe that is what the Scottish Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties were attempting - but that is, quite evidently, what the SNP have now done. The embarrassment here is not simply that they did not introduce a referendum bill - it would be a foolish waste of time, resources and party morale if they did not stand a chance of winning - but rather that the party hierarchy lacked the foresight and perspective to see this, and foolishly pledged repeatedly to introduce the bill.

A learning-curve in terms of political tactics, certainly, but one which will not go down well with the fundamentalist wing of their grassroots support. But there is an underlying issue here: the SNP cannot and should not expect the pro-Union parties to further their ambitions without first making a Unionist case for an independence referendum. Whilst this humble correspondent rejects the idea that such a case can be made, the SNP should not be excused by Nationalists for their failure to try.

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

To keep up a thin facade of balance in this article, I feel obliged to also put the boot into the Unionist cause somewhat. To this end, I draw attention to Mr Tom Elliott MLA - the new leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, who was elected on the 23rd of September with virtually no-one on the mainland noticing.

I had already heard it noted that Mr Elliott was a regressive step to the old community-based Unionism of the past, a market already saturated by the DUP, but nothing could prepare me for just how utterly boring and uninspiring this man is.

Elsewhere: UUP on life support as party goes down traditional route - from the Irish Independent.

A retort

[Post temporarily removed]

The Al Megrahi Position

Submitting to those dark conformist tendancies within the human soul, I feel obliged to provide at least an overview of my position on the Al Megrahi situation considering every other vaguely political blogger in Britain seems to have weighed-in.

Firstly, it is certainly an important decision with heavy repercussions internationally; it is also almost undoubtedly Kenny MacAskill's fifteen minutes of fame on the world stage. I can perhaps then forgive him for milking it with spectacular aplomb in his televised statement on the issue, and offer him sincere pity that the one truly important act in his life has brought him, and the Scottish Executive, so much unpopularity from so many corners. The Minister o' the Kirk pontificating (if that is not a contradiction in terms) was, however, cringeworthy in the extreme -

one half-expected every pause to be broken with a softly spoken 'let us pray'.

I will however commend the man if he has done as he claimed: considered the issue of compassion properly and without pressure from external influences. I am very much on the fence over the decision: I respect the quality of compassion, yet acknowledge what many seem to have lost sight of - that Al Megrahi was the worst criminal in Scottish history, murdering hundreds of people. I suppose I would most likely support compassion-lite, investigating possibilities short of full release. I certainly don't envy the Minister his position.

This leads me to my central complaint on the issue: is this not an inherently judicial decision? The idea of a minister and politician making such judgements does not sit easily with me, notwithstanding the fact that the powers Mr MacAskill are exercising were conferred by an Act of Parliament created under a Tory government. Whilst I could understand a Minister effectively signing off on recommendations, the idea of actively deliberating the issue crosses the line away from executive authority

Compassion is very often a difficult choice to make; politicians are very often not very good at making difficult choices, particularly when the benefits are so etherial and the potential for condemnation quite so pronounced.

The last refuge of a scoundrel

I cannot help but read anything other than desperation into the Health Secretary's attack on now-infamous Tory MEP Daniel Hannan today. To accuse a politician of being 'unpatriotic' for refusing to adhere to a certain political view point or defend certain politicised institutions must truly be seen as the very worst sort of mindless nationalism. How far, I wonder, does this government-sponsored appeal to ignore logic or opinion for the greater glory of the country go.

A Hannanite I am not, although I do identify as being broadly within the liberal wing of the Conservative Party. Whilst I cannot be as strident as Hannan in calling the NHS a 'sixty year mistake', I can certainly see significant flaws not only with delivery but the model on which the service is based that should be addressed. We do not have the best healthcare system in the world, and the presumption that it should not be improved for fear of upsetting the lieges is nothing short of arrogance. Whether you agree with them or not, Mr Hannan's views on health are far from half-baked: they are consistent, well thought-out and very adequately defended in his blog response to the media hoolah.

The nationalistic angle, however, is rather new - at least to London. In Scotland we have unfortunately been faced with a governing party who accuse others, including the UK Government, of being unpatriotic and even actively 'anti-Scottish' at the drop of a hat. Mike Weir MP tell us that raising the pension age is anti-Scottish because of the marginally lower life expectancy in Scotland; the same insult is trotted out for Ken Livingstone when he dares to suggest that London subsidises Scotland - before Mr Weir goes on to suggest Scottish oil subsidises the rest of the UK! Pete Wishart MP applies the same epithet to the Conservative immigration spokesman for suggesting Scotland is not the most attractive place in the UK for immigrants to settle, whilst Bill Kidd MSP takes it one step further calling the entire Conservative Party 'fundamentally anti-Scottish', with John Swinney capping it all off by stating that the same is true of all 'London-based parties'. Alex Salmond too wades in, applying it to the European Union for cutting UK fishing quotas, and restates Pete Wishart's attack on London's former mayor; although the impact is somewhat lessened by his accusation that the measures would also be 'anti-fish'. SNP's CND group calls trident anti-Scottish too; an SNP councillor uses the same accusation against a Scottish local authority for flying its own flag on most days of the year.

This sort of nonsense is completely unworthy of anyone with half a mind and should be dispensed with from British politics immediately.

The Demon Drink

It has been an interesting few years for the drinks industry in Scotland. An abundance of headlines and television reports make it seem that the raising of the wrist, that most ancient of sports, has slipped out of fashion as political parties vie to obliterate Britain's 'booze culture'. In reality, our relationship our private relationship with alcohol has changed little in the past decade, in spite of all levels of officialdom uniting to regulate its consumption beyond all recognition.

David McLetchie's latest offering is, however, wrong - and counterproductive. The Scottish Executive's proposals for minimum drinks pricing will not materially affect the Scotch whisky industry: whisky is simply not that cheap. What Conservatives, and anyone else with a remotely liberal mindset, should be attacking is the very substance of this proposal, and indeed the continuing Labour/SNP moral panic over alcohol.

Let us first dismiss the health argument against alcohol. Volenti non fit injuria - to he who consents, no harm is done - is a fundamental precept of human liberty. The government has no standing in a free society to justify force against a reasonable person 'for his own good'. The issue of crime, disorder and, to use the modern terminology, anti-social behaviour relating to alcohol is rather more complex, and a matter with which the public is legitimately concerned.

In its most literal sense, these proposals are prejudicial. Alcohol pricing does not significantly affect the wealthy, so the question must surely arise - why target the less well off in society? Why should a person's financial standing determine their standing to drink? Perhaps I am a bitter old idealist, but I consider alcohol an ordinary part of my weekly shopping budget. As a result, I am generally of the opinion that low prices are a positive thing. No doubt defenders of this policy will suggest it is aimed at young people, rather than bluntly suggesting that the poor are somehow unable to hold their wine. Putting aside the ridiculous fallacy, which causes a great deal of our country's social problems, that the youth of Britain are a bunch of potential hooligans, it simply fails to add up. This is the same group of people who the local, Scottish and UK governments have already gone to extremes to prevent having any access to an alcoholic drinks - local licensing boards insure that shops and bars are incredibly strict not only on selling to underagers, but selling to anyone who has the slightest chance of then passing alcohol to underagers.

Yet still, even the underage drinker is no great threat to anyone: I should imagine most cabinet ministers enjoyed a drink or two with their friends before reaching their majority. Arriving as I did at university aged a mere 17, I certainly did - and I, like the vast majority of today's young people, managed to consume without feeling the need to assault anyone or damage private property. Indeed, on balance I would say that drinking is a positive thing: of course, some people overdo it on occasion, but even the average binge-drinker (that most derided of creatures) ends his evening with buying a kebab, stumbling into a taxi without causing a riot and returning home to bed without committing some gross act of domestic violence en route. Guess what - they will probably have enjoyed themselves too, hangovers notwithstanding.

The truth that dare not speak its name is that the Scottish Executive, and the UK Government, don't much care for individual liberty. Since they have both failed miserably to make a dent on crime in this country, being seen to do something, anything, is the next best thing for their electoral prospects. Resorting to the age-old collectivist thinking that suggests people should be vilified for their lifestyle, age and income, and that the freedom of the many should be sacrificed to control the criminality of the few is to prejudge them, to penalise the innocent as an act of desperation because the truly guilty cannot be controlled.

But of course, they can be controlled. Violent criminals belong in prison, something

our society seems to have forgotten. 'Common' assault tends to earn an offender - who, of course, most often is not caught - a police caution or a fine of a lesser sum than that handed down to someone who failed to pay his TV licence. Violent offenders, particularly those who attack victims at random, are serious criminals and must be seriously dealt with. You can almost certainly wager that it is the same tiny minority of criminals who are committing these same offences every weekend, and who will continue to do so with increasing brutality until someone ends up seriously ill or dead unless the State intervenes.

My conclusion, therefore, is simple: punish criminals, don't criminalise the innocent.

In defence of the Calman remit

The Calman Commission is one of those fairly good ideas that politicians seem inexplicably terrible at defending. Devolution is the settled will of the Scottish Parliament and, more importantly in legal terms, the Parliament of the United Kingdom; save for some cataclysmic political event, that is a constant. The idea of pro-Union parties voting for an independence referendum has been dismissed, the debate has moved on. Since our parliamentary processes both in Holyrood and Westminster have opted for devolution, it is perfectly sensible to gain expert evidence on how it should best function.

Those who demand a debate on the wider constitutional future of Scotland, including independence (and presumably, although far lessconsidered, abolition of the Scottish Parliament!) would not be satisified by the report of an independent commission, instead demanding a vote of the people. If Calman had the sort of remit they suggest, and produced a similar report, would the SNP back it? Of course not.

Where I will diverge from the cosy consensus is in terms of Jim Murphy's remarks that the Calman Report cannot be 'cherry picked' and must be implemented as a whole. How many independent reports has a government ever fully implemented without question? Few, I suspect. By making this statement, our Secretary of State has raised Calman and his commissioners' status to that of de facto legislators with their report, rather than the duly constituted representatives of the people and the state, having the final word on the constitution. That is improper. Moreover, it sets up a convenient cop-out for our elected representatives - it is easy to imagine them distancing themselves from any failures incidental to the proposals. Luckily I believe blaming Sir Kenneth will not satisfy the electorate should that eventuality arise.

But who is to take that responsibility? With a Labour government very much on the way out, will the Conservatives be expected to implement the report? Will David Cameron be criticised by Labour, the SNP and possibly even the Lib Dems should they decide that they will indeed 'cherry pick'? Will this form a pseudo-patriotic battle ground for Scottish Labour and an incoming Tory government? A potential minefield awaits...

UPDATE: And so it begins... more commentary to follow, after I overcome the shame of being behind on the news. Blame the good weather.