91热爆

Doing the sums

• Brian Taylor
• 20 Apr 07, 06:33 PM

You know when you鈥檝e been Wendied. I recall a lunch with Wendy Alexander (erstwhile Scottish Cabinet Minister.)

She proceeded to cover the paper tablecloth in a myriad of figures and little notes as she expounded her views to me on life, the universe and the Barnett formula.

Today she was flying in top gear as she counter-briefed re the SNP鈥檚 publication of a pamphlet on the Scottish economy.

鈥淔undamentally dishonest鈥�. 鈥淐hicanery鈥�. 鈥淭hey just can鈥檛 be allowed to get away with this.鈥�

She wasn鈥檛 alone. Jack McConnell, seeking to be returned as first minister, weighed in.

Her brother Douglas, the Scottish Secretary, believes the SNP are essentially weak on finance.

Behind and above it all, of course, the Chancellor. Gordon Brown believes Labour has uncovered the soft underbelly of the Nationalist campaign.

So what鈥檚 it all about? The Nationalist document sets a growth target for Scotland for the first time, aiming to match UK ambitions over a four-year term (presently 2.5 to 3%) 鈥� but promising to do better under subsequent independence.

The pamphlet then restates the aim of finding around 拢3bn from efficiency savings at the executive, diverting this to tax cuts and frontline spending.

It also restates the policy of replacing the council tax with a 3p tax on earned income. You鈥檇 pay 3p wherever you stay.

So here are the claims and counter-claims. Labour says Scotland is in deficit, even taking North Sea oil into account and even on the SNP鈥檚 own sums.

That鈥檚 because they鈥檝e factored new Budget estimates for oil into the SNP鈥檚 previously published calculations.

The SNP say they鈥檒l update their figures in July - when new spending data is published and they receive further analysis of the GERS exercise. (Nothing to do with Ibrox: it stands for Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland.)

Labour says that鈥檚 unacceptable - the Nationalists want the Barnett Formula consequentials for Scotland but also want the oil money.

The SNP say they鈥檙e led by the timetable for the publication of spending statistics. They say further that oil revenues are set to rise. Maybe so, say Labour, but not as much as anticipated - and it won鈥檛 last.

Secondly, Labour says the Nationalists are in denial over the true state of Scottish spending and revenue.

They say Scotland gains substantially from the UK - the 鈥淯nion dividend鈥�. Nationalists say Labour overstates the gains and underestimates Scottish wealth.

To micro matters. Labour says the SNP plans for a 3p fixed rate Local Income Tax would be disastrous. They would penalise earned income and act as a deterrent to employment.

They wouldn鈥檛 cover income from savings or share dividends.

The SNP says that pensioners would gain (they generally don鈥檛 pay income tax) 鈥� and that, on average, only the top tenth of earners would lose out. (Mark that word 鈥渁verage鈥�, though. It implies there would be at least some losers further down the ranks.)

Labour says that double income couples would, potentially, suffer from this change. The SNP says only if they鈥檙e earning, jointly, more than 拢66,000.

But that鈥檚 based on a couple living in a Band F property which currently attracts a relatively high council tax.

The jump-off point would be lower for those in lower bands. The SNP insists most would still gain.

And there鈥檚 more. Under independence, say Labour, what would be the interest rate, monetary and fiscal policies. When and how would Scotland join the Euro?

Nationalists say they鈥檇 retain sterling post-independence until Scotland was ready to join the single European currency.

In any case, they say, this election is primarily about a programme for devolved government.

Fine, say Labour, but you鈥檇 agitate for independence from day one. These are legitimate questions, insist Labour鈥︹��

Just thought you鈥檇 like to know. Wish I鈥檇 kept that tablecloth. Maybe I could have sold it on ebay.

• Permalink
• Comments (26)