Let’s be fair, it could happen to anyone who doesn’t check their leaflets!


OK, Anas. Let’s be fair, we all know it’s a typo, someone putting it together got it the wrong ways round. Maybe, though, it would be an idea to ensure a bit more careful proofreading of your leaflets. There is a certain carelessness in your team over that!


I’ve heard of singing from the same hymn sheet, but goodness me, a word for word endorsement. It’s almost like you wrote it yourself!


But, in any case, I don’t want to put you down at the moment. I really, really hope that you get the job.

Although you almost certainly won’t do the tax thing, whatever it is, because you have very little power to do anything at all with taxes, I have to agree with the sentiments behind it. Tax is a mess. It favours the rich. It needs reform.

The trouble is that I can quite honestly see that at least some in your party would love to be able to do it. But when the reshaping of the responsibilities of the Scottish parliament was being discussed, you guys in Labour did nothing to push for a wider range of tax-raising powers to be devolved…as was the case with so many other powers, including minimum wage (we think we have your measure on that). Even the Tories were prepared to devolve more than you were. You guys were pretty much against all of it.


So tax raising remains largely the prerogative of Philip Hammond, a Tory, and a rather rich one, who sees no need to change the system which massively favours the rich…ie him and his mates.

We all know that the Scottish parliament can increase income tax… indeed they already announced that, although they were not going to do that, they were going to resist the UK decision to take some tax off those earning over £45,000, described as the largest tax reduction since the time of Mrs Thatcher. So not a rise, but not a decrease for the well off either. And we’re pretty much hobbled every other way.

Alas, tax-free thresholds are not within the remit of the Scottish government or parliament, because that could make a huge difference to the worst off people. A tax-free allowance of maybe £16,000 a year would make a huge difference to those on poverty wages.

Of course, a country can be bold with tax reform, but it absolutely has to have a wide range of tax powers within which to work, to balance the need for spending, with the absolute right for people to keep as much of what they earn as possible. Of course, if folk earned a bit more and shareholders took rather less, that would help too.

In 1979, Mrs Thatcher made huge changes to the rate of income tax. Massive cuts for the rich, and small but noticeable cuts for the poor. The reforms reduced the income tax take by a massive amount.

But, of course, the money that was lost had to be found elsewhere. Hospitals still need running, schools have to operate. And Mrs Thatcher chose to almost double VAT to make up her shortfall. So VAT rose from 8% to 15%, a massive blow to people who had only the compensation of a few pence extra in their pay packets.

Income tax, VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty, tobacco tax make vast sums of money. It is important to have the range of powers to be able to balance the needs of every member of our society.


I’m sure you’ll agree with that. I’m sure that you regret that your party was against almost every single proposal to devolve responsibility for taxes. And I’m sure that you will press the UK government for more freedom to make changes in the future.

As I said, I wholeheartedly wish you the very best of luck in your attempt to become branch leader.




  1. tbf the Milk Snatcher also had billions of £s of North Sea Oil revenues coming in despite selling the rights off cheaply. She didn’t need to increase indirect taxes but it might have been more noticeable how much NSO was worth and want would have been the point of burying the McCrone report then?

    But yeah Anas – a Freudian slip the many to the few.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes. It’s true, that despite almost giving the oil away (compared with other countries) she did have a vast amount of money coming in which allowed her to pay for the massive mills, factories, mines, mills closures and the 3 million unemployed that she had on her books.


  2. Last photo, they look like a couple of people who haven’t a clue how to do a ‘live long and prosper’ Vulcan salute. In fact, they look a bit silly.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Not quite sure what Gordo was up to there…

      Maybe he was surrendering (to David Cameron’s will). Maybe he was showing this Mrs that he had washed his hands and was ready to eat lunch?


    1. Read a bit more there and I have a question, Aucheorn.

      All the rest of it seems to make good sense, but, whilst wanting to encourage the productive use of land ( and encourage incoming business), what about our wilderness?

      I’d not want to see people encouraged to “make use” of that land, to its detriment, so they afford the land tax.

      This is not a criticism. I’m sure there’s an explanation. I just can’t see it.


      1. I think that’s where the 0.003 ppm2 comes in 1/100 of the agricultural rate. Where I live there is a lot of wilderness land (about 15,000 acres) but it’s retained for “envirionmemtal reasons” (Grouse shooting)

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Point taken, it was the merely idiotic, perhaps pathetic Gordon Brown, yet another unelected leader in the House of Commons, followed by Theresa May, who run a coach and horses through democracy.

    Or he could have been pretending that his hands were ‘always’ clean.

    I often wonder just how stupid we have to be to permit the change at the top of a government without democratic intervention.

    I know, I know, Godwin and all of that, but that wee laddy, Hitler, did not take power, he was given power.

    Sometimes it is our failures as human beings, that lead us onto the slippy, slidey downward path. We believe in miraculous politicians and never reflect on the question. The question being whether they represent themselves or us.

    It seems to me, correct me if I am wrong, that quite a lot of politicians view their electorate as cannon fodder. But, there is no certainty among the voters. They could turn on a sixpence.

    I like to think that a majority of voters are good.

    We shall see.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I suppose in theory a change of leader doesn’t need to mean an election.

      But becasue they are so strong, a de facto president, maybe upon a change, there should always be an election.

      Having said that, who in their right minds would call the Maybot “strong”.


  4. Conan,

    I hope that passes.


    You and I are on similar but not exactly identical tracks. Which is why I think this is probably the best independence orientated blog on t’internet.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.