The Smith Commission on Further Devolution

In relation to further powers for the Scottish Parliament, I wrote to my SNP MSP recently. Feel free to reuse, share etc.

Smith Commission on Further Devolution

I would like you to note, as my constituency MSP the following views in relation to the Smith Commission

That the Scottish Government, the SNP and the respective leaders of the Labour Party, Liberal Democrat Party and Conservative Party both at UK level and in Scotland accept the people of Scotland are sovereign over their own affairs. There are numerous additional references to this, ranging from the Wings over Scotland blog http://wingsoverscotland.com/weekend-sovereignty-for-dummies/ and the Claim of Right 1989 signed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention.

It is fundamental as part of recognising Scottish sovereignty that recognition is also given to what territory we are sovereign over, ie. what constitutes Scotland. This is not only important as a basic principle, but will become of increasing importance in terms of legislation as further powers come under the remit of the Scottish parliament. In 1999, approximately 6000 square miles of what was formerly Scottish sea was redesignated as English under the Westminster Act, the Scottish Adjacent Boundaries Order (1999). This was passed into law the night before the Scottish parliament reconvened after a 292 year postponement and was not openly debated in the House of Commons.

As a sovereign nation, the Scottish boundary should not be moved without consulting with the Scottish people. This was not done, therefore I am writing to ask that you personally support the reinstatement of the pre-1999 Scottish sea boundary and feed it into the Smith Commission negotiations.

Secondly and in recognition of the existing and further political devolution which is coming to Scotland it is essential that we receive devolution of political and news content from the BBC for which Scots pay a licence fee to ensure there is a proper amount of airtime to examine Scottish political issues. This would mean at least the following:

1) The realignment of the Scottish and UK news so that editorial control over the entire unified slot is in Scotland and stories from Scotland, the UK and abroad are covered and broadcast in a manner which reflects the importance and interest to the people of Scotland. This would replace the current arrangement which is UK and international news first followed by a Scottish slot at the end. The current arrangement not only gives undue prominence to England only stories but also insufficient time to cover Scottish specific stories in depth. This is the argument raised when a "Scottish Six" was discussed although I am calling for this change in all news bulletins.

2) That the political impartiality of broadcasters in Scotland is overseen by an independent body which reports back to the Scottish Parliament on matters of political impartiality, in a similar way to the role of the Scottish electoral commission and Scottish elections.

I am writing to ask that you personally support this move towards devolved political and news coverage in Scotland and feed it into the Smith Commission negotiations.

I look forward to hearing from you on these matters.

Craig Cockburn

Scotland and the Olympics

I am a bit fed up with the highly successful London 2012 Olympics being used as a political football to justify that Scotland should not be independent.

Let me put the Olympics into context. The Olympians and Paralympians, no matter what part of the UK they were from did an outstanding job. As a nationalist I was supporting Team GB. I would have preferred to support Team Scotland but I accepted the rules. I was particularly pleased to see Scottish athletes do so well and as a lad from Dunblane myself I particularly supported Andy Murray.

Turning now to the analogy which is often made between TeamGB in Sport and TeamUK in politics, let us remind ourselves of a few facts. During the period 1928 to 1996 TeamGB competed at the summer Olympics and yes we had The Union of 1707 backing us. During that period in which London hosted the games in 1948 the best gold total we managed was 6 in any of them. Better together? 16 Olympic games and as recently as 1996 we got ONE yes ONE gold medal. All this under The Union and "Better Together". We had stunning athletes - Sally Gunnell, Denise Lewis, Tessa Sanderson, Liz McColgan, Chris Boardman but just one Gold from 300 competitors and we had the Union and Better Together. None of it made any difference. One Gold. This year, 29 Golds. Same Union. Tories in power in 1996, Tories in power in 2012. The Union clearly made no difference. Where was it for our athletes between 1928 and 1996?

What made a difference was the National Lottery as a vehicle for raising money for sport and a ruthless focus on sports we were good at and likely to win medals at. You could say the union gave us the national lottery but I would argue this was not a prerequisite for raising money for sport - euromillions could do the same or shock horror the government could decide to fund sport adequately so that not only do we produce world class athletes but we encourage children to be interested in sport as part of an active healthy lifestyle rather than a diet of fish and chips and watching overpaid footballers on TV. What made a difference wasn't the union, it was there all during 1928 to 1996, it was putting an appropriate amount of money towards sport. Just as we had great athletes during those fallow years but poor facilities and funding holding them back, we have the same situation in Scotland now. Oil money wasted in England. Scotland's wealth wasted on Trident. Scotland's energy wealth having to fund illegal wars rather than investing in the Scottish economy, Scotland's future and Scotland's sport.

Scotland is predominately a left of centre political country, we have a different ethic than the predominantly right of centre England. This causes conflicts of priorities and holds us back, like the Team GB athletes were held back for 60+ years under the so called Better Together Union. It wasn't better for them then , it isn't better for us now. Scotland has its own priorities - an oil fund like Norway, renewable energy, a health service and educational system that is free. England has different priorities. Sure we have things in common, but together we are pulling in different directions and pulling us both down. That is why better together is a myth. Just as team GB turned itself around from one gold medal, Scotland and England will politically grow after separation and become more apart than they will achieve together. If there is one lesson from the Olympics it is not that the union made us stronger, it is that a proper sense of priorities and vision to bring them about made us achieve more. I believe Scotland has the right priorities - social justice, equality, opportunity, culture, economic growth and democracy. Only with independence can we take full advantage of these priorities and achieve our full potential and our vision. There is no vision coming from "Better Together" other than more of the same. More of the same isn't good enough, we can do more if we believe in better.

Support Yes Scotland. Play your part in taking Scotland forward as a confident nation and achieve something worthwhile to be proud of and tell your children and grandchildren about.

Craig

Independence argument

Suppose the Act of Union had never happened, Scotland was still an independent country and the vote we were taking in two years' time was not on whether we should leave the Union but on whether we should join it.

"In that scenario, what would be the case for the Union? Your main Parliament will move hundreds of miles away and your MPs will be in a small minority. You will have a Government you didn't vote for.

"You will hand over all your oil and gas revenues to the London Treasury. The biggest nuclear arsenal in western Europe will be based on the River Clyde, 30 miles from your largest city.

"An austerity budget will be imposed from London, cutting jobs and threatening public services, instead of Scotland being responsible for raising and spending its own taxes. You will join a country whose health and education services are rapidly being privatised." -- Blair Jenkins OBE, CEO of Yes Scotland

Yes Scotland multilingual logo

An alternative, multilingual unofficial logo I put together for the Yes Scotland campaign

The Gaelic is pronounced "smah-shin" and means "that is good". There is no single word in Gaelic for "Yes", this phrase is the origin of the English word "smashing" meaning "good" or "I agree".

Manifesto for a modern society

It's been a while since I posted to this blog. Have moved to London, worked for Directgov, moved the blog to a new plaform, changed my main site hosting provider, changed the hosting provider for a site for No10, worked for News International. Well there's been a lot going on. In the meantime I've just found some notes I made a while back at the time of the Labour Leadership contest. Hope you enjoy them.


Manifesto for a modern nation
1.    Withdraw over time the state funding of religious schools. The state should support religious buildings but not the religious education of children. The state’s inspectors should be able to inspect all aspects of religious teaching.  The study of religion in historical context and understanding of the world is important, but religious studies should be optional
2.    The health service should be free. This means eye tests, prescriptions for all and essential dentistry including check ups. Why make the middle classes pay for prescriptions yet rich people get heart operations for free. This inconsistency dates from how well dentists and opticians lobbied in the days the NHS was set up and really has no place in the 21st century.
3.    Abolish ‘Sunday’ laws. We live in a country where some people are non-religious and others observe days other than a Sunday. There is no logical reason why shops and the sale of alcohol should vary on a Sunday just because it is a Sunday; we want a modern nation where one religion should not dictate terms to all irrespective of their religious background. Personally I also find it annoying in England that I can't go out for the day and enjoy myself in the countryside then do the shopping when I come home. The big shops shut at 5pm.
4.    Abolish discrimination of all kinds. As an employer, I cannot hire on the basis of age. That is illegal and justly so, yet if I wish to go into self-employment , there are grants available for young people. This simply disadvantages older people with commitments and makes it harder for experienced people to set up in business. This inconsistency and others like it must end if we want to live in a fair society. Why have one rule for employers but another for government grants?
5.    Encourage a culture where going to the pub is seen as a social family occasion, including children. This culture works well on the continent. By all means ban drinking to those under age, but children should be able to see adults drinking responsibly and growing up with that good example.
6.    Ban the inclusion of service charges in restaurant bills.  If I want to leave a tip it should be optional, not mandatory. This will allow fair and transparent pricing.
7.    Require all call centres to have a maximum queue time of 1 minute and allow the person to request a call back after this time. Too much time in this nation is being wasted hanging on hold listening to hold music rather than being productive. The contact centre industry has deemed it acceptable that people can be waiting for 20+ minutes plus to get a call answered. This is a totally inefficient use of everyone’s time. How are we supposed to get anything done if we're stuck on hold listening to "your call is important to us". Well if it was, you wouldn't need the message because you would have already picked up the phone.
8.    In a modern digital society where paying electronically is increasingly the norm, all prices regardless of the means of payment must be the same and there will be no minimum charge or extra fees for using electronic payment methods. The banks to get their acts together to reduce the charges passed onto merchants accordingly. If I can do micropayments or buy a song on itunes for less than a pound, there is no possible justification whatsoever for a £5 charge to buy an airline flight other than “everyone else is doing it”.
9.    The study of British customs and traditions to be encouraged to give people a sense of identity.  Welsh to be available in all Welsh schools, Irish in all Northern Irish schools and Scots Gaelic or Scots in all Scottish schools, local culture and history in English schools. This isn't a political statement, Northern Ireland needs to look to the rest of the UK to see it's not a political statement in Scotland or Wales. Having children grow up not knowing about their own local placenames and history is totally inexcusable for a modern educational system (my local school banned Gaelic for instance and my children’s school taught about the Chinese new year but couldn’t teach about pagan Hallowe’en). What sort of education is this?
10.    Repeal the act of settlement. The monarch should be free to marry a person of any faith or none. In the event that the monarch themselves is non Anglican, the head of the Anglican church to pass temporarily to the next in line to the throne or someone who works in the church full time (e.g. Archbishop of Canterbury or similar). Scotland manages on the basis of having an annually elected head, perhaps a lesson here for England?
11.    Create a democracy act that allows the views of the people to overcome political self-interests. Should it be clear that 30% of the electorate wish to express their views on a subject in a formal referendum, then that referendum shall be held and political parties free to campaign for whatever position they prefer.  Not holding the referendum is an insult to democracy (e.g. the lack of a referendum on a Scottish parliament whilst the Conservatives were in power 1992-1997).
12.    The Royal Family should be taxed the same as everyone else but considered as a company. The company income includes income from crown lands, and tourism effect of the royal family. Add this up, take off corporation tax and the rest is theirs to live off.  I think they would in fact be better off under this arrangement, which seems fair enough. This isn’t a pro or anti royalist move, merely that I think the present system of funding is unfair and doesn't reflect their true value.
13.    Recognise that England and Wales together do not in any sense form a nation. Thus “The national curriculum” “the national trust” being only entities that refer to England and Wales should be properly renamed to reflect a correct sense of identity.
14.    Upon leaving public service, the prime minister to pay for any security arrangements required as a result of their activities from their own funds. There is no reason why current tax payers should foot the bill for famous former public servants to become even richer via signings, etc.
15.    Where the government undertakes the random examination of tax affairs or the random selection of businesses to complete forms for the government’s benefit, the government to reimburse accordingly. Same applies for jury service. Noone should be out of pocket for fulfilling a mandatory public duty by random selection, this is an “unlottery”.
16.    Following a general election, the party which has won the most seats is given the first opportunity to form a government, as in Scotland.
17.    Members of the House of Commons to refer to each other by their common name and not their job title. It is the House of Commons after all, not the house of jobtitles
18.    There should be some leeway for young children to be able to cycle on the pavement. Seems like common sense. Equally cycles in London to be fitted with number plates. I see almost total disregard for traffic lights in London from cyclists. Time they followed the rules of the road, as a pedestrian I'm fed up having to avoid cyclists that ignore red lights.
19.    Give notice that all leaseholds on properties to be abolished following a suitably long timescale. The idea of buying a property only for it to revert back to someone else’s ownership eventually is little better than feudalism, leaseholds are comparatively rare in Scotland compared to England, time for England to reform and keep up.
20.    Allow parents to make the choice between themselves who takes time off work to care for a child. It should be the parent’s choice, not the state expressing an assumption the mother might take up to a year but the father has to return after 2 weeks.
21.    Require all organisations to take due care with personal data. This includes but is not necessarily limited to the fact that companies house publishes directors names and dates of birth online at minimal charge and freely available to anyone. Completely unacceptable
22.    Make opting out of junk mail the default on the electoral register
23.    The government to invest in startups so that is sees a return on its money. It works for universities.
24.    Prostitution to be taxed and legalised so that it can be controlled and policed more effectively. The revenue to be used to protect those forced into it against their will. I don't like it, I don't want it happening, but accepting the reality that it happens allows both people to be protected and taxes to be raised.
25.    Marrying your cousin to be made illegal
26.    People to be allowed to register at a GP of their own convenience (ie near their work) if their own local GP does not offer evening or weekend appointments.
27.    The BBC licence fee to be abolished and raised from income tax. Far too much time and money is wasted on collection and non payers.
28.    Vehicle licence duty to be abolished and a visible MOT disc/ insurance disc to be shown instead to visibly show if the vehicle is safe and legal. The lost revenue to be transferred to the cost of having the MOT done. This works in Ireland.
29.    Hereditary and religious peers to be abolished. Religion and accident of birth should have no place in objective lawmaking.
30.    If 16 is legal to marry and have children, then it should also be old enough to vote.
31.    If having a ranked voting system is good enough for selecting the Labour Leader, it is good enough to also vote MPs into office.
32.    Laws on musical performance are inconsistent and badly implemented. If a football crowd in pub sings “You’ll never walk alone” (a copyrighted song) no one seems to care. Yet if a guy in the corner with a guitar sings his own material, the venue needs a performance licence. Surely we can legislate better than this?
33.    Airline security to be consistent. If we are trying to defeat terrorists then being able to walk onto a BA flight without photo ID yet requiring a passport to do the same flight on Ryanair is wholly inconsistent
34.    If a person goes bankrupt in their private life, this should not affect them being a company director provided that the said company has no debt facilities. After all, being a company director might be the person’s quickest route to paying off their debt. Forcing them to work for someone else could well lower their ability to earn and pay their debts back.
35.    The creation of a universal contactless payment method for businesses and a tie up with major payment providers. Millions of hours are wasted maintaining manual accounts each year, mistakes are made in accounts and in tax calculations. It should be possible to tie up a payment method directly with a business’ accounts such that the transaction in the high street is filed correctly automatically (including VAT), reducing the capacity for fraud and error
36.    Smoking in cars to be made illegal. First off it is at least as distracting as using a phone, secondly the smoke film builds up inside the car increasing glare at dusk and reducing visibility and thirdly stats have shown that smokers as a group are more comfortable with higher levels of risk. Car insurance companies to ask people if they are smokers and then premiums adjusted accordingly.
37.    Smoking in a car with children in the car to be made illegal, smoking within a home where there are children to be illegal, fines to be increased for dropping fag ends on the pavement. It causes cancer. If you inflicted cancer on your children via other means you'd be locked up. Why should smoking be any different?
38.    National Insurance. Why? Get rid of it and roll it into income tax. Tax system in this country is far too complicated.

UK General Election

Today Gordon Brown is predicted to call the general election.

Here's a few more predictions

In 2006 I said an uninspired Labour would feed into the hands of the SNP in Scotland and the Tories in England. Within a year, the SNP was in government in Scotland and in 2010 the Tories are leading in the polls UK wide.

In 2007 I predicted the resignation of Tony Blair, the SNP winning the Scottish elections and the Tories winning the UK elections in 2010.

In 2008, I predicted on the BBC website that 2010 would see Labour lose and Gordon Brown off to a well paid job in the City and the SNP a good 10 points in front.

In 2010, we see the SNP a good 10 points in front, and of course the Tories in the lead UK wide.

The polls have been wrong before - hopefully the number crunchers will have taken 1992 into account - but the predictions are looking good so far. I'm not much of a fan of the Tories, including the lack of help in sorting out the red tape I got from my then MP Alistair Darling, but anything has to be better than another 5 years of Labour.

Craig

Diomhair- The BBC documentary on independence for Scotland

Diomhair Part 1, Diomhair Part 2, Diomhair Part 3, Diomhair Part 4, Diomhair Part 5, Diomhair Part 6

Diomhair is Gaelic for "Secret"

Diomhair on iPlayer (no longer available)

This is a major eyeopener. Congratulations indeed to the BBC for broadcasting it. This story demands global coverage.

-original message-
Subject: Diomhair- The Secrets Out
From: David McCann <david.mccann24@btopenworld.com>
Date: 06/04/2009 17:59
Read my blog, make your comments, get the links to Youtube, and pass to all
in your address book.
http://www.scottishindependenceconvention.org/
David McCann
Secretary Scottish Independence Convention
24 Paton Street
Alloa
FK10 2DY
Tel 01259 211335

http://www.scottishindependenceconvention.org/

Barack Obama and Arnie's land of opportunity

I was pleased to read that Barack Obama is to be America's first black president (although as someone half white he is technically as much white as black). Nonetheless this is a huge leap forward in terms of equal rights. In his own words

PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA: If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

However, one barrier remains. America still requires the President to have been born in the US. Only a land of equal opportunity if you happen to have been born there. Factors such as skin colour which is something your are born with and have no control over should not be a barrier to becoming President. Neither for the same reason should be the place of your birth, it should be up to the people of America to decide whether a candidate and US citizen is fit to lead them and not some rule which says no After all, he's already leading 12% of Americans.

I'm glad to say that some in America are taking this discrimination seriously and perhaps Arnie is the one person of charisma and ability who can lead a campaign with as much emphasis on the land of opportunity as Barack Obama, and certainly a lot more stylish than boring John McCain.

Why do countries insist on state sponsored discrimination?

UK Government big thinking. National Insurance

The present government is accused by Tony Blair of having no policies.

Here's a policy which someone who has been chancellor for 11 years should be able to sort out.

Simplify the tax system and make it accountable.

Here's an example - look at what National Insurance is for on the direct gov website.

Then use that explanation to explain why EMPLOYERS who derive only a minuscule benefit from National Insurance need to pay more NI than employees. Employers do not get the pension benefit, employers get only a tiny benefit from sick pay. Employers still have to pay the majority of maternity pay and employers get no benefit towards unemployment benefit through this tax. Indeed as a self employed person in a Ltd company, you end up paying approx 24% in National Insurance even though you CANNOT CLAIM UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT BETWEEN CONTRACTS because "looking for work" whilst out of work is deemed to be paid employment even though you are not being paid whilst doing it.

This nonsense is little better than the equally bureaucratic mess inherited from the Tories. I took my case in 1996 to my MP who now happens to be Chancellor of the Exchequer (i.e. Alistair Darling). This was around the time of Harriet Harman's "send my kids to private school" story:

Letter in The Herald 5-Feb-96
This was published in full as their main letter of the day
Poverty trap bound by red tape

The disproportionate publicity given to a Labour MP's decision to send her child to a grant maintained school is causing the real issues affecting millions of people to be quietly brushed aside by the Conservatives. Here is an example of a "customers" experience of the disastrous state the Welfare system is in after nearly 17 years of Tory rule. They only have themselves to blame. As a "Customer" my response is that the Welfare state is a mass of red tape and I'd like to shop elsewhere, if I could.

Last year I was made unemployed and I registered as such with the unemployment office. It turns out, that despite a 500 a month mortgage, approx. 100 a month in bills and a requirement to buy food to live, I am not eligible for any state aid. I am disqualified from receiving any unemployment because during the year 93/94 I was on the Government's Employment Training initiative and only being credited with National Insurance, not paying it. My other 7 full years of actual contributions count for nothing. I couldn't even get the Welfare State to pay my £70 train fare for an interview because the initial contract was for less than 12 months.

I am disqualified from Social Security as I live with my fiancée and she works 25 hours a week. It apparently doesn't matter that her monthly wage is the same as my mortgage. It costs about 600 a month minimum plus food for us to exist and every month we are going more overdrawn because of the lack of the welfare state. The government defines "full time employment" as 16 hours or week or over and if one of a couple is working this, the other is not eligible for social security or housing benefit no matter what their income is. This definition of "full time employment" is patently ridiculous. If I put on my job applications that I would work 16 hours full time, I'd get laughed at. If I put I'd only work 16 hours a week on my signing on card, I would not get full unemployment benefit. The Government clearly has it both ways.

The "Employment Service" fully accept this problem and numerous people at the Employment service have said "I shouldn't say this but you would be a lot better off if your fiancée gave up her job or moved out". Is it really the Conservative party which believes in "family values" which has created this appalling system - forcing people out of work or splitting up families so that they can afford to eat?

Taking the Conservative philosophy of choice to its conclusion - I believe my paying National Insurance is like obtaining an insurance policy for myself and for the benefit of others. My experience of this system is that the rules are obscure and complex. It eliminates people who need money whilst giving money to those who may be out of work but well off. I would like to opt out of this mess, as I can with a pension scheme, and pay towards a scheme which has clear, easy to understand rules which pays out when I need it. Looking at private redundancy schemes, this is what they offer.

What this country really needs though is a simple system for the unemployed and low paid of adding your income, subtracting reasonable outgoings and then paying all or some of the difference, at a level which gives a guaranteed minimum income but is an incentive to go back to work. No exclusion clauses based on one person's 16 hours work expected to fund a couple. No exclusion clauses based on what happened in the tax year years ago and no automatic benefit for the wealthy whilst genuinely poor people are trying to make ends meet.

The issues surrounding one child's schooling pale into insignificance next to the millions caught in a poverty trap by Conservative Red Tape.

So over 12 years later we still have a state system which means that people out of work can end up being disqualified from receiving any state aid whatsoever because of red tape. Zero income was the sort of thing that national insurance was supposed to eliminate so that people did not end up in poor houses. Zero income does not pay bills. Zero income fuels the credit crunch. In a credit crunch, we need an accountable and fair tax system which ensures that when someone is out of work they are entitled to a minimum benefit, just as when they are in work they are entitled to a minimum wage.

So no more paying 24% national insurance contributions and then excluding people from the very benefits that national insurance was set up to provide. Have a flat rate of NI for all. Abolish employers NI contributions and if necessary adjust the income tax rate accordingly to ensure no employees are worse off. This would result in a fairer and more open tax system. The present alternative of taking a 24% insurance premium and then refusing to pay out for the benefits of that scheme is little better than state theft.

Craig

Sorting out UK Government data privacy

Please view this idea I posted on the Better Regulation website to attempt to sort out the conflicts in UK privacy laws. Comments welcome. Following my posting here, this letter was published in this week's computing magazine.

Craig

Company directors at high risk of ID theft due to government data loss

Letter to Computing:

Following the recent string of data losses by HM Government, no-one seems to have taken on board the institutionalised data leaks which HM Government practices as part of its statutory liability and the implication for openly publishing tens of thousands of names, addresses and dates of birth free of charge on the Internet for any ID thief to easily pick up on and make use of.

If this was the general public there would be a national scandal, as there was with the HMRC data loss. If the general public had their names, addresses and dates of birth openly accessible online with no restrictions on who could access them, no payment required and no traceability on who had downloaded them then heads would roll.

Yet this is the exact practice which goes on at Companies House if you are a company director, something that increasing numbers of people are doing to find work as contractors in a shrinking employment market. Whilst it may be a statutory duty to gather such information and whilst it may be perfectly valid to have such information to validate people's IDs in the same way the same information is used to apply for credit cards, I can see no compelling reason why the entire database needs to be dumped uncontrolled for anyone on the web to access unrestricted. We need to move to a model where such private and confidential data is treated the same way irrespective of whether it is a private individual's data on the HMRC computer or a Company Director's data at Company's House - it's the same data after all. The forthcoming changes in the Companies Act only allow the address to be withheld, so even after these changes the director's full name and date of birth will be public and can still easily be tied up with historic electoral registers before the edited versions were introduced. Simply publishing the age is also not enough since the data of birth can be deduced by querying the site once per day for a year, a task easily automated.

You reported on 3rd July, front page, that one person had accessed the name, address and phone number of another businesses' details on-line at the PAYE site. The scale of openly publishing the private details of the directors of 2 million limited companies in the UK is surely much more significant.

Company Directors are not immune from ID theft, yet the government does nothing to protect the ID of over 2 million company directors. Why not?

Independent Scotland: £4Bn budget surplus

SOARING oil prices would give an independent Scotland a £4.4 billion budget surplus, making it one of Europe's richest countries, according to a new study.

The surplus would allow Alex Salmond to maintain existing levels of public spending, while cutting corporation tax from 28% to 12.5%, reducing income tax by 5p in the pound and still having £2 billion every year to invest in a Norwegian-style oil fund to safeguard Scotland against a future decline in North Sea oil revenue.

The study, based on Treasury oil revenue forecasts and official spending figures, has calculated that, without money from the taxation of oil and gas, an independent Scotland would have an underlying deficit of £7.8billion. But when £12.2billion of oil and gas revenues are included, Scotland would have a surplus of more than £4billion.

See the link for more info

Labour's fortunes

As if things weren't already bad enough for Gordon Brown, this week sees revelations from both Cherie Blair and John Prescott which are entirely unhelpful for Gordon Brown's image and popularity. It's also looking like Labour will also lose the forthcoming by-election, previously a safe Labour seat.

For a government that was so obsessed with spin and image whilst Tony Blair was in power, the publication of these memoirs is clearly something that serves the interests of the authors and who clearly also appreciates the damage it will do to the party as they seek a record breaking 4th successive term.

Clearly they have their own financial interests ahead of such an achievement for the Labour party and would rather be doing their bit to get the Tories elected in 2010 than hold off for a couple of years. An author's fortune or Labour's fortunes?

Coming in 2010. My years with Tony Blair and how my muck raking in 2008 led to Labour's defeat at the polls.

Somehow I don't think that'll be a best seller, unless published by Conservative central office

Craig

Bring it on

In three unprepared words in a throwaway phrase, Labour has removed the biggest obstacle to democratic choice in Scotland: Whether the Scots should be allowed to decided whether or not to remain part of the UK

With those three words, the political process to make the biggest change to the UK for 300+ years really begins in earnest. A process which could see a large portion of the Scottish cabinet lose their seats post 2011, if the Tories haven't done the job first in 2010.

Bring it on indeed.

Scotland's bridges are all toll free

The BBC reports that as of just over an hour ago Scotland no longer has any bridge tolls

It took a Labour government to sit on this suggestion for nearly 10 years and an SNP government less than 10 months to make it a reality. See my proposal for banning bridge tolls as they simply penalised the communities they serve.

This suggestion was made to the Labour government in November 1997. SNP, time for change. If only all governments were this effective.

Government consultation on income shifting

The UK government is currently consulting on income shifting. This is a consequence of losing the Arctic Systems case last year, the government didn't get its way so decides to change the law to suit its needs. Nice job if you can get it eh? Nonetheless, together with IR35 this is yet another tax on the self employed (e.g. IT contractors) many of whom have family members contributing to the success of the business but will be penalised if income shifting legislation is drawn up. The Professional Contractors group has a useful resource page on this for more information and is calling for people to sign the petition to scrap the proposed legislation.

Here is a summary of the Professional Contractors Group (PCG) position for more information. Incidentally, although Scotland has 10% of the UK population, 17% of the PCG membership is in Scotland, indicating that such legislation may have a disproportionate effect in Scotland versus the rest of the UK.

Introduction

The Government has issued draft legislation, intended for inclusion in the Finance Bill 2008, to place a new tax on what it calls “income shifting”. The result will be significant tax increases for hundreds of thousands of small family businesses.

At present, a business owned jointly by a married (and civil partner) couple can distribute profits equally to each: this allows them to use up their tax allowances efficiently, and can create a tax saving. This is a consequence of the independent taxation of spouses that was recognised and accepted by Parliament when it was introduced in the 1980s. Now the Government wishes to impose a tax increase on everyone who has set up a business in this way.

PCG believes that the proposals are unfair

• The Government seems to think there is something wrong with spouses setting up “non-commercial” arrangements and wants to penalise them: in the real world, married couples enter into financial arrangements on the basis of being married to each other and it is wholly inappropriate to expect them to enter into “commercial arrangements”.
• Profits are distributed as a return on risk: the Government fails to recognise that married couples are jointly exposed to the risk of their business failing, and is seeking to deny them a joint share in the rewards if they succeed.
• For years the Government advised people to set up businesses jointly when possible: now they are to be penalised for following the Government’s advice.
• The proposals clearly and directly discriminate against small business and in favour of big business: if a consultant is hired out by a large company, he will be paid for the work and the rest of the fee will go to the company as profit, which can then be distributed to shareholders in the usual manner. If a consultant took exactly the same contract with exactly the same client for exactly the same payment, but the consultancy happened to be one he owned with his wife, the dividends would be taxed more heavily than the dividends of the large company.

PCG believes that the proposals are unworkable

• The proposed measure will make it impossible for businesses to self-assess their tax bills. How can they value every single contribution made to a business accurately and with confidence? Businesses will be left perpetually looking over their shoulder in fear of an aggressive investigation by HMRC, in which they will have to prove that they have done nothing wrong.
• The Government claims that the new rules will not cost businesses anything to administer, and not cost HMRC anything to enforce: this cannot possibly be the case for such a complex and subjective set of rules.

PCG believes that the proposals are inconsistent with other areas of law

• Spouses are entitled to equal shares in the value of a jointly-owned business in a divorce.
• Spouses are entitled to equal shares in the proceeds, under Capital Gains Tax rules, in the event that a jointly-owned business is sold.
• Under the proposals, spouses will not be entitled to equal shares in the profits of a jointly owned business while it is operational.

PCG believes that the proposals are not justified by the consultation paper

Ever since the independent taxation of spouses was introduced in the 1980s, it has been common practice for married couples who go into business to set up the business jointly; the consultation paper fails to show that anything has changed since then to justify the new rules.

Why Silicon Glen isn't Silicon Valley

I came across this interesting report from 2004 covering the Scottish investment scene and it goes a long way to explain why Scotland isn't home to as many successful startups as it deserves. Not much has changed in 4 years and to put some figures on it, we are apparently we are only working at 20% of our economy's potential:

A 1993 MORI poll in Scotland estimated that there were over 90,000 latent, or would-be, entrepreneurs and business owners in Scotland, who were frustrated in their ability to act on their aspirations by a range of factors, including the absence of role models, difficulties (actual and perceived) in accessing resources, particularly finance, and lack of knowledge about the process of business formation. Based on figures from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitoring (GEM) research programme around 5% of the Scottish adult population is actively engaged in business ownership or in activities being undertaken with a view to entering business ownership. This is around one half of the level experienced in the US and around one-third the level in other small open dynamic economies such as New Zealand.
Actually achieving this increased level of entrepreneurial activity will require a quantum shift in culture and attitudes in Scotland, which may only be achievable over a generation: as the experience of the business birth rate strategy in Scotland has demonstrated, this is not a ‘quick fix’ option. Specifically, access to finance is consistently cited as the prime obstacle to entrepreneurial activity in the GEM reports, and also in our research and contact with potential entrepreneurs. As it is, at present Scotland is working at perhaps 20% of its entrepreneurial potential.

Next time I have a decent idea, I'm off down to London. We have some of the brightest ideas in Scotland, some of the best graduates and even some of the world's largest banks. Yet we struggle at 20% of our potential. Why should I as an entrepreneur waste my time with a funding sector that isn't fit for purpose?

Our view is that the 90,000 “frustrated entrepreneurs” identified by a 1993 MORI poll (a figure consistent with the GEM data for Scotland a decade later) do not become active entrepreneurs largely because the funding landscape is not only too empty, but is also perceived as empty by those looking to enter it. While market participants respond (with some accuracy) that it is in fact not empty, and that sensible ideas well advised can usually find a funder, this accurate opinion is not helpful to an individual who is in full-time employment during normal working hours, has few or no contacts with the market, has little understanding of how it works, has little spare time to find out, and has a perception that entrepreneurial success relies on unique and specific skills that they may not have and may not be able to acquire.
A Darwinian approach to entrepreneurship would demand that these 90,000 aspiring entrepreneurs be left to live or die on their merits – let the fit survive and the rest remain in employment. Such Darwinism is, however, founded on the false premise (a) that this process will ‘weed out’ weak ideas and businesses, which is economically efficient, and (b) that entrepreneurship ought by definition to be hard and difficult, not least because today’s successful entrepreneurs and investors did indeed have to face harsh and difficult environments, and associate success with difficulty.
This Darwinian approach to the creation of an entrepreneurial economy is flawed, as can be seen from the failure of the Scottish economy to significantly raise the level of new business starts and the rate of formation and growth of high-potential companies over the past decade. A funding landscape that was visibly and obviously rich in sources of risk capital for businesses of every kind would remove a major constraint (real and perceived) on the formation of new entrepreneurial ventures. As such, it would provide an environment for the successful transformation of the culture of the Scottish economy into one in which entrepreneurial activity is seen as a legitimate career option and economic role.

Welcome to Scotland

The Scottish Government has just spent £100,000 apparently to come up with a new slogan for Scotland to replace "The best small country in the world". The new slogan is to be "Welcome to Scotland" with the Gaelic translation of "Failte gu Alba" as you can see from the picture in the BBC article.

100K pah, I could have done it for a fraction of that figure. Oh, I already did.

See the comment dated 9:11pm 27 Aug 2006.

The comment was obviously far too ahead of its time and didn't take full account of inflation either.

Aye, right

Craig

Labour and the Lib Dems have lost the plot in Scotland

Iain MacWhirter writes an excellent article in The Guardian about Labour and the Lib Dems have lost the plot in Scotland. Perhaps the SNP will call another general election in 2 years and consign the squabbling Labour party and the LibDems in a huff even more to the political wilderness. The infighting over Jack McConnell's successor has already started.

Regardless of mere party politics, one paragraph written in this London based newspaper stood out.

After Wednesday, Alex Salmond First Minister "..will be off to see the Queen to inform Her Majesty that the United Kingdom has changed forever".

At Westminster, Tony Blair has to ask for permission to dissolve Parliament. In Scotland, we just go down to London and tell the Queen how it's going to be.

No longer New Labour, New Britain but New Democracy, New Scotland.

Welcome to "A new time" for Scotland, the day that the UK has its first Nationalist leading a UK country.

The month that changed the UK

30th April: Northern Ireland gets smoking ban. The island of Ireland is smoke free and England remains the last part of the UK without a smoking ban in place, highlighting the democratic deficit in England.

2nd May: the 10th anniversary of Labour coming to power. This will intentionally be a low key affair given their unpopularity in the polls.

3rd May: Scotland goes to the polls. The SNP are widely tipped to win and significant steps towards Scotland becoming an independent country, ending 300 years of union will ensue. Like Wales, the SNP are proposing abolishing prescription charges. How long will England remain socially and politically behind the rest of the former UK?

Labour are expected to lose control of the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and do badly in the English council elections, all on 3rd May with their support approaching a 20 year low.

Tony Blair is expected to resign shortly after the polls, realising that the disastrous showing of Labour UK wide and the loss of devolved control in Scotland and Wales is largely down to continued resentment over Iraq, cash for honours sleaze and it is time for a fresh start. Sources indicate 31st May as the favoured date, but in practice a poor showing in the polls would bring this forward significantly.

Prime minister in waiting Gordon Brown has his own problems to deal with though. On 10th May, the Bank of England raises interest rates again. Normally set on the first
Thursday of the month, the Bank of England which was allegedly set free from political control is curiously meeting on the 10th, rather than the day most of the UK goes to the polls. Higher than expected inflation and a strong pound will hit the manufacturing sector and the balance of payments. The economic joy ride that Gordon Brown has enjoyed is coming to an end and the Tories are riding high in the English polls. Whilst the Dow Jones is now at an all time high, the FTSE100 is still some way off the level reached in 1999.


8th May: The devolution picture completes. With the Scottish and Welsh results in a few days ago, today see the Northern Ireland assembly assumes full powers and a nationalist party, Sinn Fein, sharing power. A struggling Labour government has at most three years to recover from a disastrous showing in the polls. Behind the scenes the Labour government has to discourage prominent Labour MPs from Scotland for seeking election to English constituencies as the SNP seeks to hold an independence poll in 2010 and remove Scottish MPs from Westminster. The UK looks to be on course for a SNP government in Scotland confronting a Conservative government in Westminster from 2010 elected almost entirely from English constituencies.
Such a prospect not only favours the SNP but also sees Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein increase in popularity.

The UK, heading for part of one island (England and Wales) and part of another island (Northern Ireland) needs a clear rethink of its structure as the nationalist movements in Northern Ireland and Wales look to Scotland and the previous negative arguments levelled at Scottish independence fail to hold much ground as Scotland heads towards being a sovereign nation.

From the end of April to the end of May, it will be an interesting month with reprocussions for years to come.