A Half Full Toolbox: The Common Weal, 2014 and Tax Reform

On Sunday, in an exclusive in The National newspaper, the Common Weal think tank founder, Robin McAlpine outlined a strategy – three years in development – for achieving Scottish independence. He states that various independence groups need to “put aside our bickering” and concentrate on “[dragging] the UK to the negotiating table.”

[you can read the full report DIRECTION here ]

If I’m being honest, I don’t fully understand the detail of what McAlpine proposes, but he has some very interesting ideas especially around the garnering of support via peer-to-peer campaigning. Ultimately, through that route and more traditional methodologies he seeks to reach a 60% Yes vote which, he says, will “create the political story that Scotland’s settled will has changed” in favour of independence.

Most of the comments below the article confirm that we do indeed need to put aside our bickering, but the final one is worth repeating here: 

The problem that his plan, and all our plans, face is that, in my opinion, a line was crossed since the Johnson / Truss years, possibly starting under May, that the old norms of democratic behaviour no longer apply. I genuinely think now that we could poll 90% every week for a decade and they still wouldn’t move. 

So, there’s that. 

But the other difficulty, as I see it, is that while Scotland may not be in a unique position, it is an unusual one. We are a country with a parliament which has considerable powers at its disposal, but with the two parties currently in government – the SNP and the Scottish Greens – being the voices calling for independence. Throughout history, calls for independence have generally come from the outside. What we have is almost a conflict of interests.

In the summer of 2014, I was undecided as to how I was going to vote in the independence referendum, I would almost go as far as to say I was uninterested. Or maybe disinterested, I don’t even know if there’s a difference between the two. Put it this way, it wasn’t top of my agenda.

A chance meeting with an old friend and his mother enjoying the sunshine in George Square Gardens in early August changed that. Both were alarmed at my lack of concern about Scotland’s future, and although I can’t now recall what was discussed that afternoon, it was certainly thanks to them that I voted Yes on 14th September.

I was even inspired to do some rogue campaigning in the village where I lived at the time. This consisted of knocking on doors and asking people if they would like to talk about the referendum. Generally folk were OK about this and invited me in for a cup of tea, before asking me what currency would we use post-independence. It was analogue peer-to-peer campaigning.

Why did the Yes campaign fail in 2014? I wonder now if the thrust of it was too simplistic, just voting for “independence” with no clear idea of what that represented. If you’re pro-independence to start with, that’s fine, otherwise it’s a bit of a leap into the unknown.

Robin McAlpine addresses this in a short paper on the Common Weal’s website. He says that “we win or lose by persuading people who don’t currently support independence to change their mind” and he estimates that there is 20% of the population that can be won over. These people are

… telling us that we need to make independence represent a positive change in their lives as those lives are lived now if they are to be motivated to change their view. But even more, they are telling us that they broadly like the ‘better Scotland’ we talk about but they don’t think we’re prepared to create it. They think we’re bluffing. They do not have sufficient confidence in us. We cannot increase this confidence with slogans or by making independence ‘less exciting’, we can only do it by putting in the work to persuade them we actually are ready to create and independent nation.

Tax Reform Scotland

Three weeks ago IPPR Scotland, Oxfam Scotland, the Poverty Alliance and several other organisations published a briefing, The case for fair tax reform in Scotland, setting out a series of progressive options to reform the Scottish tax system using devolved powers.

It is a tremendous piece of research, well presented, with the suggestion of four fully costed changes to the existing taxation framework:

• An additional 45 per cent rate on earnings above £58,285 – earnings that would put someone in the 90th percentile for full-time gross earnings in Scotland. This could raise an additional £260 million annually.
• Replace the existing Council Tax with a new percentage of value tax set at 0.75 per cent of a home’s value. (£350 million)
• A local inheritance tax charged on estates worth between £36,000 and £325,000 that do not pay UK-wide inheritance tax. (£300 million)
• A new local payroll tax on low pay employers. (£600 million) 

The main reason for these proposals is the redirection of wealth via taxation to alleviate poverty; as the report states “it is particularly indefensible that almost one in four children in Scotland face the injustice of poverty.” It goes on to say:

By fairly using tax to invest in the delivery of key national priorities, we will boost individual and collective wellbeing, and lay the foundations for a fairer, more successful, and more sustainable economy.

This is where the First Minister, Humza Yousaf could take advantage of that conflict of interests I talked about earlier. Instead of continuing to tinker with the Scottish tax system, make big changes. At the Scottish Budget in December, take on board the suggests of the IPPR, and through a revitalised taxation system, “lay the foundations for a fairer, more successful, and more sustainable economy.”

And by doing that he can speak to the 20% of the population yet to be won over, the ones who don’t yet have sufficient confidence in independence: “Look, this is what we – our country – can do with a half full toolbox borrowed from our neighbour, imagine what we can do together if we could choose and buy our ain tools.” 

 

Photo by Susan Holt Simpson on Unsplash