Taxing your brain

There has been rather a lot of ink spilt and blogs filled with righteous anger at the proposal of the government in relation to tax.

But, wait a minute, what short memories we all have.   The PM’s forward promise to move the 40% threshold up to £50,000 means that the rate will kick in at the boundary level last seen in 2009/10 under, yes, him, Gordon Brown.  

Let's look at the details. In 2009 the 40% rate kicked in after £37,400 of taxable income.  Under a Conservative government in 2020 after a decade in office it would kick in at £37,500 (£50,000 – £12,500). A move in the right direction of £100… 

Confused?  

Well the threshold drag has been a hard-to-headline stealthy massive tax hike by this government. With no other deductions and no change in the N.I. rate (which surely will be abolished in a final Lawsonian type reform towards which George Osborne is ideologically inclined)  the net take home figure would only be improved by some £2,100 for a £50,000 earner in 2020 compared to 2010 – a 4.2% relief. 

Whereas someone on minimum wages making £12,500 in 2020 compared to 2010 will see nearly a 100% improvement in their net take home pay…

And how are you going to vote in May 2015 if you are not in the higher wage bracket?  Bit of a no brainer really.

What would £420 million buy?

This is quite extraordinary.  

Today in the Scottish Parliament the First Minster announced that he was introducing legislation that was not in his manifesto and therefore, to paraphrase the SNPs words when referring to Westminster, no one voted for, to stop a properly constituted and statutory legal authority from going about its lawful tasks.  Indeed, it is not just a lawful task, it is their duty.

To what am I referring?  Well, there has been a bit of a stooshie now people have realised that there are responsibilities that go with voting.  Paying your fair share of tax being one of them.  No taxation without representation and all that.  It is a two way street.  Don’t pay your lawful taxes and you really shouldn’t be having a say on how taxpayers money is used.

It seems that many people applied to vote in the recent Referendum who haven’t been contributing their fair share over the years.  May be some couldn’t afford to.  That’s a different debate.  Let’s take a car.  You need to be insured to drive it.  So if you get caught without insurance you pay the penalty.  And there is good reason for that.  Uninsured people cause you to pay £33 more every year on your insurance.  However, it’s more than just the financial cost that counts.  As James Dalton from the Association of British Insurers says, “the cost of crashes caused by uninsured drivers pushes up the insurance premiums of honest motorists, as well as being a danger on the roads.”   Uninsured drivers have been shown to be more likely to have an accident and are more likely to be driving an un-roadworthy car.  These drivers kill 160 people every year and cause 23,000 injuries, all without any means of compensating their victims or paying for the cost of living with their injuries.

And my point is?  It’s not the wrongdoer who pays.  It’s you and I.  And so it is with money to local authorities.  Those that don’t pay are making those who do pay pay more. £420m unpaid at the last count.

I can understand for political reasons the bogey man of the Community Charge (aka the poll tax) being wielded out to try and stop local authorities rightfully reclaiming money from that period. 

"However, the relevance of information from the current electoral register to the position of debts from 25 years ago is difficult to fathom, except through some misguided political intention."  So said the first Minster. 

I'm really not sure what planet he is on.  The law is the law.  If people broke it they will eventually have to pay up.  Now is that time.  It’s a slippery slope he is going down.  What else can we look back 25 years and say we are not going to follow up and pursue some other wrong doing?  

Revisionism is creeping in.  People will say, the Community Charge was different.  It wasn’t.  It was a piece of legislation approved by Parliament.  Like it or not (and I don’t), the UK was and remains the parliament for the whole UK.  Until the day Scotland is a nation again, I’m afraid we have to bow to the legislative chamber of the UK.

I suspect I will not be alone in asking the  Scottish Government for moneys that I had to pay to subsidise those who refused to pay repaid to me.  Sounds fair.  Or are we seriously going to allow the Scottish Government to pass a bill that effectively endorses wrongdoing? 

A tarnished vote

A good friend of mine summed up very nicely what has happend.

"The game was muddied over the last couple of weeks so that ultimately I don’t think many people (apart from the resolute yes or no people) knew really what they were voting for … hence a reversion by many (in my opinion) to traditional party political values.  ‘Job done’ by the Westminster trio + Brown!

The white paper was in circulation for many months and allowed scrutiny on every level by both proponents and opponents of independence.  Better Together could choose their targets (as it was never going to be a perfect manifesto with all the answers), and batter away at it.  The late intervention and “Vow” was never given that same level of scrutiny – it came after purdah, and there weren’t actually any tangible elements to it!

In this sense, while democracy may have been a winner on many levels (85% voter turnout etc), it feels rather tarnished that such an intervention could have been such an apparently crucial game-changer."

I think my friend has got it 100% right.  Mind you, he is my accountant so I'm rather pleased his sums add up.

Who decides what kind of devolution

English votes for English laws.  Has a certain ring to about it. 

I’m assuming all these MPs representing English constituencies will therefore not take part in a debate and vote on what form more devolution to Scotland should take.   

That surely will mean that only those representing Scottish constituencies in Westminster will be able to vote on which of the many and very different options of more devolution for Scotland is selected.

Or will it be imposed by the English MPs?

What actually did we vote for?

Well, it’s the morning after….

Two weeks ago we had one question on the ballot paper.  Should Scotland be an independent country. Yes or No.  That was till two weeks ago.  It was nice straight forward and simple.  Yes or No.

But that actually was not what people were voting on yesterday.  If people think it was, they need to think again.  The status quo was not an option according to the three party leaders and the shadow of Gordon Brown.  What we ended up with was should Scotland be an independent country or do you want Labours vision of Devo, or the Conservative vision of Devo, or the LibDems vision of Devo, or Patrick Harvey’s vision of Devo.  Or indeed, the SNPs vision of Devo.  All very very different.  Then there is the Plaid Cymru version of they want for Wales in this new Devo friendly world.  And the Cornish version.  And the English regions.  

Are we going to be given another vote to decide the options of Devo that Westminster is going to offer us.  It would hardly be fair of have one version which few may support being implemented while another version many would support stays in the sidings. Or will they just impose it.

Oh what a foolish thing the three party leaders and the shadow of Gordon Brown did by intervening. One rogue poll.  They panicked. Showed amazing lack of judgement. They made promises that broke the Edinburgh Agreement.  And they made promises that have now saddled the UK with one massive problem.  All the more remarkable as there was only one of the polls that suggested a No vote. I think most of us expected a very close, but ultimately No vote.  They have given away, or more accurately, have said they will give away, more powers from Westminster. It’s going to be an interesting time.

So if someone tells me they voted No, I will remind them that voting No actually did not mean the status quo.  So which version of Devo did they vote for?

It is quite ludicrous.  There were probably many people who voted No but certainly don’t want Devo anything.  As I head one person say, I just want things to be the same.  Where is their voice in all this?  

I think we can safely say, since the intervention of the three leaders, not only will it never be the same in Scotland, they have dragged the whole UK into this and now it will never be the same for them either.

And a closing thought for those of you who think any of the Devo proposals will sail through Westminster without he Barnett formula ending in tatters, think again. 

11 hours to go

Well, the days have turned to hours.  At 7am the voting starts.  And I gather the polling stations will accept people in the doors up till 10pm and allow them to vote even if it's past the hour when they actually cast their vote.  Just don't risk it though!  With over 4,285,323 people - 97% of the electorate of the nation registered to vote, it is going to be some turn out.  

So time for a few last minute thoughts.  

Health.  UK faces increasing NHS privatisation and there is little Scotland can do if we remain in union.  So said Harry Burns in the Sunday Herald.  Harry of course isn’t an ordinary person like you and I.  Professor of global public health at University of Strathclyde, and the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland from September 2005 to April 2014, I would think he knows what he is taking about.  Indeed, I think he is one of the most trusted people to have contributed to this debate.   If what he says is true, surely there can be only one way to vote.  

Economy.  And what of the economy?  Well, I always tend to put a bit more credence on the views of people who have put their money where their mouth is.  Unlike political parties who put our money where their mouth is.  So when Martin Gilbert, Chief Executive of Aberdeen Asset Management (including Scottish Widows Investment Partnership), backs the economy of an independent Scotland to be a success, I know the economy of an independent Scotland will not be at risk.  The entrepreneur, who co-founded the company in 1983 company which is one of the largest business organisations in Scotland with substantial holdings of over £350 billion, said to the BBC that “An independent Scotland would be a great success.”  Add Sir Brian Souter, Chairman of Stagecoach plc; Ralph Topping who retired last month as CEO of William Hill plc; Sandy Orr OBE, Founder of Mint Hotels; Jim McColl OBE, Chairman and CEO of Clyde Blowers plc; Mohammed Ramzan, Chairman, United Wholesale Grocers, alongside leading finance sector figures like Jim Spowart, Founder, Standard Life Bank and Intelligent Finance and Sir George Mathewson, Chairman, Toscafund.   I’m happy with them to know what’s best for our economy.

Shipbuilding.  Apparently  rUK won’t buy ships in a “foreign” country.  Well, perhaps someone better tell the USA that.  The UK buys US-built  Trident missile system and other assorted weaponry, vehicles and aircraft stateside. They will be disappointed to know the rUK orders are being cancelled.

Borders.  Well, there won’t really be any.  Look at the UK Ireland border.  A change in tarmac colour suffices.  The only way it could be an issue is if it’s made an issue by rUK.  

We could go on.  But afford me one more observation.

The Campaign.  Bad behaviour on both sides, of that there is no doubt.  The mindless vandalism of the people who painted out the No posters.  And the arm up the back tactics from Downing street to business leaders.  Let’s condemn them all.   But as Dr Tim Stanley said in today’s Telegraph, it was the No campaign’s grinding negativity and inability to look anything other than establishment orientated that was its failure.  "The message coming out of the No campaign has been far too focused on what Scotland is incapable of doing by itself (an insult to regional sic pride) and far too obsessed with wheeling out big international names to make its cause (Bill Clinton? Seriously?!)". The No campaign just never came out with a  positive vision, a point echoed by Andy Murray.  Better together is not exactly inspiring.  It just says, lets change nothing.

So will I vote with my head or my heart?  Well, put it this way, I wouldn’t want to wake up on Friday morning and find the Nation had voted Yes and then discover we couldn’t do it.  So hopefully this blog has shown some of the home work I’ve done.  It's been fun.  So now, draw your own conclusions.  

But for me, the Ayes have it, the Ayes have it.

What a mess they've got us into

A good friend of mine last night concluded he was going to vote No.  I was sad as I have failed to help him catch the vision of what could be.  At times it felt like I was listening to an old scratched gramophone record, the same old excuses and scare stories were trotted out for a No.  Almost like a Lamont Davidson duet.  

The refrain, of "too many unanswered questions" became somewhat tiring.  It became a bit like Nick Robinson who gets an answer from the First Minster but decided it doesn't work as an answer for him so says big Ek never answered him. Ludicrous, but there you go.

What my good friend doesn’t seem to appreciate is if we vote Yes we will have some sort of certainty.  If we vote No, the gloves are off.  All this stuff about the Vow is utterly meaningless.   Plaid Cymru, Labour and Conservative MPs are now queuing up to express a view that there is a good chance they won’t be supporting the Vow.  And you can understand their position, not least in Wales, if they want to get re-elected by constituents who must think the three party leaders are off their heads. 

Just picture it.  A constituent asks, “so you are giving the Scots more power?”.  Yes.  “And allow them to keep an enhanced Barnett formula?”  Yes.  “So what you doing for me?”  Now I may be wrong but I really don’t think English and Welsh MPs are going to run with this Vow without pretty massive concessions.

You know, until the three leaders and the shadow of Brown turned up, the vote was very simple.  I actually think it may well have been No.  But they turned up and broke the Edinburgh Agreement.  They introduced things that were specifically agreed would not be on the table.  They have created this new mess that will unfold if it’s a No vote.

The polls opening 22 hours from now.  And with all this spin, gloom and undeliverable promises from the Westminster leaders I’m not so sure the Scottish people will be taken in.  All the intervention of the Westminster four has done is make it worse for Scotland in the longer term.  England will make sure it gets at least its fair share of the cake, if not more. And you can understand why.  Our meagre 59 MPs will be out voted at every turn at Westminster from here on in by MPs more interested in their own survival than the interests of Scotland.

So, tomorrow, as my friend goes to the ballot box, he will have to think of two futures.  Will he chose the one that will be good for him and the generations to come, both here and across the border? Will the tide have turned for him?  I hope so.

The No campaign slogan is Better Together.  Really?  Better together is what we have now.  Is that really the best aspiration the people of Scotland have today?  I hope not.

Along comes another bus

You wait for half an hour.  Then five buses come at once.  Ever been there?

A few days ago my post "The World's about to end", we looked at the credibility of Deutsche Bank and their projections.  And what do you know, along comes another German bank.  Except this time they take a bit of a different slant on things.  Commerzbank reckons such speculation has been overdone.  Indeed, the bank’s economists declared today that “some of the worst case scenarios painted in recent days appear exaggerated”, and provided evidence that Scottish shares have actually outperformed those of the UK as a whole this year, rather than registered any major collapse.  Not sure I’ve really heard that reported in many London based news outlets.

I not sure what this proves except different people and different organisations can produce differing figures and analysis.  Which is good and healthy.

What isn't good and healthy is, rather than taking figures and presenting them to us and leaving it for us to decide, we have those who singularly churn out doom and gloom irrespective of the differing reams of information.

This strategy of gloom and doom has somewhat backfired.  Why? Because, according Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp, Chief Executive of Business for Scotland, “it invites a clear comparison between the London based Westminster-connected business people who fear positive change for Scotland and those major business people who have come out for YES who are Scottish based and care most for Scotland”.  He then lists Sir Brian Souter, Chairman of Stagecoach plc, Jim McColl OBE, Chairman and CEO of Clyde Blowers plc, Mohammed Ramzan, Chairman of United Wholesale Grocers, Marie Macklin, Chief Executive of Klin Group, Doug Duguid, CEO of EnerMech and most recently former Tory donor John McGlynn, Founder and Chairman of Airlink Group.  All Scottish wealth and job creators, some on a grand international scale.  

So, in whom will you place your trust on Thursday?  Those who are happy to spend our wealth?  Or those who create the wealth?   Bit of a no brainer really.