Battles looming
And another thing. Where might the really big conflict arise between Holyrood and Westminster? Follow the money - and Europe.
If the new executive team is serious about recouping the money retained by Whitehall in attendance allowance when free personal care was introduced in Scotland, that could be a battle.
If the new executive can get Local Income Tax past Holyrood, replacing Council Tax - then Whitehall will undoubtedly seek to retain Council Tax benefit on the (arguably not unreasonable) grounds that a benefit cannot be paid to compensate for a tax which no longer exists. That will be a battle.
I can’t instantly see either cause being particularly easy for the executive to pursue - but fight it would.
However I think, and have always thought, that the big battle ground will be over Europe - because the issue of relations with the European Union was quite deliberately muddied in the original Scotland White Paper.
In the Scotland Act, external relations - including with Europe - are reserved.
But the White Paper provided that the UK Government would consult with the devolved territories over forming, and pursuing, a common UK position.
I have always regarded this as a convenient fiction - just about sustainable with good will and a lot of blind eye turning on all sides.
Say the good will goes.
Say the SNP executive wants, for example, to lead in EU talks over fisheries, pursuing primarily the interests of the Scottish fleet.
Say there is simply no common UK position available.
Say the UK Government then asserts, entirely legitimately, its power under the Scotland Act to conduct negotiations on behalf of the entire UK.
Now that would be a real fight.
I'm 
Comments
You stated:
" ...on the (arguably not unreasonable) grounds that a benefit cannot be paid to compensate for a tax which no longer exists."
This is a totally correct point of view and I doubt if anyone in Scotland would still wish any benefit to be paid if Council Tax had been abolished.
However, the point in question is the total sum of money paid to Scotland in whatever form. The question is who should benefit from that money in the event that Council Tax is abolished?
The choices are (1) everyone in the UK (if it were equally distributed) OR (2) everyone resident in Scotland.
We are talking about money which currently benefits Scottish Council Tax payers so it entirely logical that the equivalent sum should be paid to the Scottish government since otherwise taxpayers in Scotland would end up subsidising other parts of the UK.
The issue of negotiations over fishing quotas is an interesting one. Scottish fishermen have I understand often crticised the UK govt for not gaining sufficient fishing quota for Scottish fishermen.
Given that the NE is an SNP stronghold and also represents a sgnificant amount of Scotlands fishing interests I would assume that the SNP would be likely to press for greater quotas for Scottish fishermen.
But how would they do this? By arguing for an increase in the total catch? Hardly sensible given the dire warnings from marine scientists about stock levels (particularly for cod).
So presumably any increase for Scotland would need to be at the expense of someone else's quota.
Again the SNP get to stir it up and sit back. Other european countries wont want their quotas reduced simply because one part of the UK wants its increased. They will argue forceably that it should come from a rrebalancing of UK quotas. The UK govt would of course resist that. End result - the BIG FISH gets to blame the UK govt for standing in the way of Scotlands interests again.
So the BIG FISH stirs it up and again benefits from creating division with the rest of the UK.
Not something I claim to know a lot about - but interesting speculation.
I think this is the heart of any independence arguement; that Scotland should have the right to decide for itself, how it wishes deal with matters that affect Scotland.
This of course is a prime example (and certainly not the only one) that has the potential to cause conflict between Westminster and Holyrood - and thats even before the possibility that the Tories get in at the next UK election!
Interestingly however, this example of the UK over-riding the will of Scotland, has a parallel argument running in England just now - over Scottish MPs exerting too much influence.
I would be interested to hear how Brian perceives the rather obvious change in English politics with regards Westminster and its relationship with the devolved Scottish Parliament. Has he noticed the change that has seen the 'West-Lothian Question' become the 'England question' as i have heard some commentators state it?
Brian
As regards Council Tax Benfit I think if Whitehall was being fair the money should be handed over to the Scottish Executive as they will still be collecting a roughly similar amount (in a vastly more reliable fashion).
If taxes were ringfenced for the area in which they were collected would we be paying 94p for a litre of petrol or £2 odds for a pint of beer ? So if whitehall were to say that they would withdraw the refund because the cash is being collected in a different manner that would be very petty. It is still going to be raised from the same people and spent in the same place.
Finally I think that some of the commentators have got it wrong about who will be picking the fights. As the SNP has very little sway in the mainstream media - particularly the tabloids - any fight that develops is unlikely to be spun in there favour. I believe wee Eck has recognised this and has already got a strategy to combat it. I think he is going to avoid taking on whitehall politicians directly and instead concentrate on the civil service. When I saw Alex being interviewed about the Council Tax Refund he talked about negotiating with the "Treasury" rather Gordon Brown or Alistair Darling. This way he can point out the iniquities of the current constitutional arrangement with some added benefits. The benefits being a limited ability for for whitehall to fight back through the media (civil servants should be impartial) and any whitehall politician that steps in can be accused of interfering in the normal business of the devolved parliament.
Brian,
In my comment on your introductory post, I neglected to add to the welcome and appreciation offered by others; I do so now.
Yours Aye
ed
There will be attempts from Westminster to moderate the current SNP Government, however this has to be clearly balanced with reality; whilst this clearly is a minority Government, the Labour and Conservative establishment know they have to be cautious and not themselves be creators of a majority SNP Government.
What will have to be found is that illusive middle ground; neither side will wish to be accused of being intransigent, nevertheless it is clear that it is the two Unionist parties that stand to loose more than the SNP.
If the SNP fall back in 2011, they will always be ready to ‘fight again’ whereas if the Unionist parties loose out in 2011 there could be no Union or battle ground for them to defend; this may seem somewhat simplistic nonetheless it is the Unionist parties at Westminster who have to tread the path of eggshells, if they are seen to deride the views of the Scottish electorate this could provide the catalyst that initiates the very backlash they will wish to prevent.
Labour and Conservatives throughout the country, but more especially at Westminster must avoid the major error that was made by Jack McConnell, that of arrogant complacency; there will never again be an automatic return to a Scottish Labour majority; if such a status is to return, it will have to be earned.
Where there are clear Scottish interests being negotiated at the European level it would be folly to ignore Scottish politicians and the views of the Scottish electorate; the errors of the last administration of trading off Scottish interests hopefully will prove to be the policy of the past.
Jack McConnell proved to be one of the best SNP recruiting sergeants in the 2007 elections; will there be lessons learned?
I wouldn't say that the SNP were 'stirring' when they try arguing for a redistribution of the fishing quotas. This isn't an issue where they are simply picking a fight with Westminster in order to make trouble.
The truth is that the SNP is particularly strong in the North East precisely because fishing has been central to their agenda for at least 35 years. If they don't deliver, or at least if they look likely to compromise on this issue, then they will lose their core support.
I remember a document, written roughly 1975 on behalf of the fishermen, sent to Westminster (I was only 8 years old at the time, so I don't remember the details of who had written it or precisely where it was going), which pointed out that the Heath government had been able to argue for British sovereignty over British waters for oil. Therefore, in principle, they could have done so for fishing. The fact that they did not do so demonstrated the contempt that they had for the fishermen; fishermen were expendable.
This, historically, really has been a key card for the SNP. This is why they are popular in the North East. It has nothing to do with nationalist sentiment; it has everything to do with fishing. If the SNP don't pursue the issue vigorously now, then they lose their heartland. If they don't pursue this item vigorously, then they are a dead party. If they are successful, then they may well obtain their ultimate goal of independence. This issue is key.
It's hard to see what justification there could be for holding back council tax benefit in the event of a local income tax being introduced.
After all, why should money intended to relieve the tax burden on Scotland's poorest pensioners and families, be removed from the equation simply because the form the taxation takes is changed?
Brian,
Thank God we have informed debate and clear information being offered by way of your blog. Keep up the good work!
³§±ôà ¾±²Ô³Ù±ð!
A very interesting blog. Money always generates the biggest political arguments. From now on it will be hard to maintain the present devolution finance arrangements.
But Stephen Farrell (#3) is right about the reappearance of the West Lothian question. Holyrood/Scottish Executive abolishes bridge tolls while Westminster/Douglas Alexander introduces congestion charges into England. Holyrood/Scottish Executive says no new nuclear power stations in Scotland while Westminster/Alexander Darling gets ready to build them in England.
Brian,
the issue of the EU is the elephant in the room that none of our political elite - be they nationalist or unionist - want to talk about.
Linda Fabiani`s failure will be equal to that of her predecsessor Ross Finnie in attempting the pretence of protecting what`s left of Scotland`s fishing industry.
Far from watching the SNP picking fights with London, I`m much more interested in seeing what`s going to happen whan A Salmond esq attends his first meeeting of the Committee of the Regions With Legislative Powers. That`s where the real sparks will fly as Wee Eck realises just how little power his Executive really has against the big boys in Brussels.
And with a European Parliament Election due in 2009, how long before the issue of Real Independence starts to feature in your ´óÏó´«Ã½ reports?
Bryan
Sven (6),
I believe the bulk of 'oily fish', we are advised to consume goes to feed pigs. No wonder pigs are so intelligent with all those Omega fats! Anybody noticed bacon with a fishy taste?
;-)
ed
The interests of Scotland have often in the past conflicted with those of the United Kingdom at large. The difference is that now Scotland is in a position to ensure its interests are taken seriously.
For the independentists, this is a win-win situation. If London agrees to transfer power then it will only serve to give Scotland more confidence in herself, and lets her take a further step forward towards independence. If London disagrees, then independentists can rightly claim that the UK government are still not taking Scotland's interest seriously. Either way, independence gets ever closer.
The issue with council tax benefit is that it is a subsidy to be paid by central government to local authorities on behalf of individuals who cannot pay their council tax.
At present the ammount of council tax required is based on the number of council tax residents. An unemployed person who cannot pay would be subsidised by central government for the shortfall towards the overall total bill.
i.e - Total required £40
Unemployed council tax due - £0
Employed council tax due - £20
Council tax benefit - £20
Under a local income tax a total amount would be calculated and each individuals payment will be based on their ability to pay towrds the total amount. This would mean that an unemployed persons shortfall would be made up by someone else who could afford to pay more.
i.e - Total required - £40
Local tax unemployed - £0
Local tax employed - £40
So my understanding is that under the current scheme central government pick up the shortfall. But under a local income tax scheme it will be those "better off" that will pick up any shortfall.
Therefore if Westminster handed over any subsidy would it be given to local tax payers as tax rebates or kept by the administration as a nice bit of extra income?
If tax rebates how would they calculate who got what?
Have i missed something here or does it start to get very messy?
Surely any benefit should be attached to the services themselves rather than the levying mechanism?
In response to Bryan McC (11.48):
I am not sure precisely how much control Brussels actually has. It appears to me that any time the politicians want something unpleasant passed, which would not receive popular support, they blame it on Brussels. They go to Brussels, ask them to do the dirty work and Brussels is a convenient scape goat to take all the blame.
I remember back in 1974, my cousin (who was a fisherman back then) noted with very great interest that Britain retained its waters for the purposes of oil, but had surrendered them to Europe for purposes of fishing.
This proved that surrendering British waters was NOT a necessary requirement for entering the Common Market.
It was therefore the British government and nobody else who was to blame. It is always with legislation that the politicians actually want, but they show breathtaking leadership cowardice and do not have the guts to take responsibility for it.
I therefore always have a sneaky suspicion in the back of my head that it is the same with everything that seems to get surrendered to the EU.
So every time 'Wee Eck' finds his powers limited by Brussels, I have a sneaky suspicion that it is really Westminster who have curtailed his powers, but they have done it in such a way that they can conveniently blame it on the EU.
The SNP, of course, wants independence within Europe. An independent Scottish government may well be able to negotiate a reasonable deal. But to prevent this happening, the main card the unionists will play is to blame all bad things on the EU and convince us that we need to retain the UK to fight against the excesses of the EU.
Was not but a month or so ago that the UK Fisheries minister traded a chunk of the Scottish prawn quota for Kent white fish in a deal with the Germans?
Where was Joke McConnell then?
Until the current dishonesty over tax income from Scotland to the Exchequer in all its forms is resolved who knows what the reality of the fiscal position really is. At one end you have GERS which most Scots believe to be a parcel of half truths and lies and the other independent research that says the total opposite.
What is the truth?
Are we in Scotland subsidy junkies or are we simply getting the tax money returned to us in a fair and equable manner?
If the latter any move by Westminster to go off in a huff over LIT and telling us Scots to blame Wee Eck for loosing council tax benefit monies will surely back fire. It will make Brown and his successor at the Exchequer look petty and small in the eyes of Scottish voters and that is not going to help improve Labour's fortunes in 2009 - is it?
The Committee of the Regions has no power whatsoever. It has no budgetary powers and it cannot amend, far less reject, EU legislation.
Labour members from Scotland like to pretend it has a role, but it is merely a consultative forum for local councillors.
The most constructive thing which Alex Salmond can do is send local councillors to it. McConnell went because he did not have the first idea of how Brussels works.
As the leaked paper from the Executive's office in Brussels showed Scottish impact on the development of the UK position on any EU matter has thus far been nil.
Salmond should develop lines of communication to the Commission, state a clear Scottish position in private and public and try to use Scottish MEPs. Wasting time with the Committee of the Regions would simply indicate naivety
>Now that would be a real fight.
Until that one starts, let's hear your thoughts Brian on the proposed scrapping of tolls.
Will the opposition parties join in the dancing? Or will they be wallflowers?
Why would Scotland still get the benfit for a tax that they do not pay. If local income tax was brought in then the people that needed their council paided would not be paying anything anyway, so would not need the help.
Finial point, when Scotland puts more money into the UK then it gets back then it would be reasonble to say you should get it anyway.
Independence-why not? We are either a nation or not. What is a country without it's indepedence?
England's empire was built on Scotsmen's backs,would England like to have been ruled from Edinburgh for the last 300years? I think not.
You might have to had the poll tax tried out on you a year before we did.