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.

The Last Days of Labour

A lot of details seem to be spilling out regarding the final days of the last Labour government. One of Gordon Brown's last acts, it seems, was to give David Cameron a paycut - a politically childish act of the highest order. The salary of the Prime Minister was reduced from £194,000 to £150,000 - just £5,480 more than every other cabinet minister, and indeed the Leader of the Opposition who is paid an official salary for his position. As the Conservatives had pledged paycuts for ministers in their manifesto, the salary was then reduced further to its present level of £142,500, lower than David Cameron's former salary as opposition leader. Still, Conservative PMs have a good history of cutting their cloth: Margaret Thatcher only drew the salary of an ordinary cabinet minister in a vain attempt to encourage others to take lower salaries in order to save jobs and fight inflation.

Today we discover, via Lord Mandelson's soon-t0-be-released memoirs, that Nick Clegg informed the former Prime Minister to his face that he could no longer continue in office should any sort of coalition deal be considered. It was Nick Clegg's position that to retain Gordon Brown following an election defeat would have been unacceptable to the British public. Tony Blair, of all people, apparently supported this position in private discussions with Brown.

In true fashion, the former Prime Minister did not give a response to Mr Clegg, but soon after hopped in this car and went off to resign. He is quoted by Lord Mandelson as saying "I have been humiliated enough".

This particular line sums up for me the problem with Gordon Brown's premiership: that he was always on the defensive. He was portrayed as doing little more than begging Tony Blair to pass the job on to him in the later days, and when he received it the suggested General Election to add a little legitimacy to his appointment was taken firmly off the agenda. Since then, virtually every innovation and change contained the faint whiff of compromise, of attempting to appeal to someone: when he decided to smile more on camera, it was perceived as a weak act quite simply because he felt he had to. Whether he did in reality or not, Gordon Brown seemed to lack courage in his convictions and even the most basic courage to display his own personality; in a Nixonesque manner, he seemed incapable of realising that he was now in the highest office in the land, that he could enjoy having satisfied his ambition. All slightly ironic for a man who authored a book on the subject of courage a mere few years earlier: one supposes his fascination with the subject must have been that of a detached observer.

I do not seek to criticise the former PM unduly; I certainly think he was a fine and decent man, yet it seem to me that he failed to ever truly become 'Prime Ministerial material'. Following the election, his departure was dignified: now, it seems, he has disappeared into obscurity. One cannot help but wonder what comes next for a man who cannot help but see himself as having failed at a job he was never quite suited to.

Partners in Europe

Perhaps if David Miliband is so disgusted with the Conservatives being in the same political bloc as the Latvian Fatherland and Freedom Party, he should first consider his own partners in the European Socialists group which includes its own delightful splattering of racists, homophobes, ex-terrorists, conspiracy theorists and neo-Nazis.

Of course, that isn't how things work in Europe. Probably for the reasonably noble purpose of fostering at least some pan-European political feeling, there are massive benefits to being part of one of the European Parliament's political blocs. Being a diverse and interesting place, inevitably Europeans do elect a fairly large number of oddball politicians to the European Parliament - not to mention our latest additions - which creates a problem. We either work with them as best we can, or cast ourselves into European political obscurity.

Either way, it is a constitutional matter for the EU, not an issue of petty British political oneupsmanship.

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.