In full: Willie Rennie's speech in Holyrood independence referendum debate - Scotland is unique and the stakes are high

Willie Rennie and the recently ennobled Jeremy Purvis wer ein fine form today.  Jeremy whipped Pete Wishart's backside on Politics Scotland this afternoon, pointing out that it isn't that long since the SNP were talking about banishing all vestiges of the British state. Of course, in order not to scare too many horses, they are pledging to keep the pound and the Queen now.

Purvis added that the only differences between the National Conversation document produced a few years ago and the White Paper is where the SNP disagrees with its previous position, for example on membership of NATO.

He simply asked why we would want to create barriers in a union that was working and in which we were playing our part. 

And then Willie Rennie just knocked Alex Salmond out of the park in the independence debate at Holyrood this afternoon. 

It's not that Alistair Darling has done a bad job or said anything particularly wrong over the past 24 hours. He can't help it if he comes across a bit like a head-teacher who's moonlighting as an undertaker. The pro-UK case needs smiles and optimism and normal language and humour and passion to go alongside the boring bits. Purvis and Rennie delivered all of that today. Here's Willie's opening speech from the debate in full. 

It is day two of the happy clappy sect – nationalists for the white paper. Starry eyed optimism.  Worshipping the god of positivity. Alex Salmond – the patron saint of blind optimism.

I loved the optimism on childcare.  It’s what I have been asking the First Minister to endorse week after week after week after week.  But only when it can aid his campaign for independence does he listen.

They are letting down a generation of young people if they don’t act now with the powers of devolution
they once trumpeted but now deride.

The childcare package was one part of a wider offer that insisted there would be no downsides to
independence.

In the white paper there was not one single example of anything that may even be slightly difficult.

This omission is quite striking.

It makes you wonder why all states in the world are not immediately breaking up based on the compelling
case put forward yesterday. Perhaps now the white paper is out the independence revolution will engulf the world.

I can’t think of any examples of modern, successful countries that have broken themselves up.

The former soviet bloc nations or the war torn countries of Africa were hardly modern, successful countries with much to lose. Hardly examples for a modern, successful Scotland to follow.

The Scottish independence movement is not normal.

So Scotland is unique and the stakes are high.




And yesterday’s white paper didn’t move us on.  It didn’t reduce the risk. It didn’t help answer the serious questions raised about this colossal step.

The First Minister said that Scotland is better prepared for independence than any other country in the
world.




But being prepared normally means being prepared for all eventualities.

So let’s look at some of the possibilities.  I want to establish if the SNP have even considered what happens if their assertions about what will happen – don’t.

What if the remainder of the UK says we can’t use the pound as part of a currency union?  Is there a back up plan?




What happens if we form a fiscal pact with the UK but they insist we can’t borrow or spend any more?

What happens to the Clyde if the MOD orders go elsewhere?

What happens to funding of our Universities if the UK funding dries up?

What happens if the UK doesn’t want to buy our energy? 

These are serious and reasonable questions that most people would have hoped the SNP would answer in the white paper. But none of these reasonable options have even been considered – and
they are not sharing them with us.

The SNP believe they are right on everything and everyone else is wrong. 

It’s based on an assumption that the UK will agree to every single demand from a newly independent Scotland.

The SNP believe that people in the UK will take orders from us even though we will have spent three years
condemning them before declaring we want to be independent from them.




If we slam the door in their face they may just lock it from the other side.

And that is just the UK.

The SNP expect other countries of the EU and NATO will take our instructions too. It seems as if Scotland will be a new super power.

At least the SNP have admitted that membership of the European Union will not be automatic. But that opens up many more questions:




What if other EU countries make it difficult to join?  We know that many have their own separatist movements that they oppose.

I am not sure if putative Foreign Secretary Angus Robertson has delivered his instructions to Germany, Spain, Italy or France.

And whether he or any of the Government’s ministers has had any answers, views or responses to those orders.

So what if just one of the 27 countries of the EU says we can join the EU but that there will be no rebate?

What if just one insists that we join Schengen and have open borders with the EU?

What if one says we can join but only if we start on the path to the Euro?

It just takes one to say no and Scotland could be out in the cold or forced to agree to conditions they have
previously rejected.

Because independence is a colossal step that is not normal we need the answers to these serious but
reasonable questions.




Perhaps the SNP can use today to start answering.

Greens’ Land Value Tax will hit pensioners, single parents and students hard #sp11

The Greens, who launched their manifesto today, have spent the campaign so far telling us all that if they were in power, there just wouldn’t be any cuts. Any cuts in services are a great wickedness that would never happen if they ruled the world.

Given that even Patrick Harvie can’t make money grow on trees, there is only one other possible way this can happen. To raise more in tax. The first part of their plans is to raise income tax for us all by half a percent. How are they going to do that when we aren’t going to have the tax raising powers for most of this coming Parliament thanks to  John Swinney letting the power lapse without telling us?

They also propose a Land Value Tax which they say will basically give us everything we could ever wish for which won’t affect ordinary people because the it’ll be the rich who will suffer. What’s not to love about that? Well, I know that there are many Liberal Democrats who think that a Land Value Tax is a good idea and they may be right. However, the Greens’ proposals show that their variant of LVT could well cause problems for the most vulnerable.

     They say they will raise £1bn more in tax and 85% of households will be better off.  How can that be when the Greens intend to abolish the single person discount for Council Tax meaning that many more households will be worse off.  Bear in mind that, yes, some single person households are young, affluent professionals, but many more are struggling single parents.

     They are talking about some properties attracting 5 times the level of Council Tax in Land Value Taxation. Presumably they mean in city centres. So what happens if you are a student in Marchmont, or you are not particularly well off? You’ll end up with a tax hike which will force you out of the city, leaving city centres as the preserve of the very rich.

      Single pensioners will be hit hard: a “retired person living alone in a big house…would be allowed to put payment off by amortising the cost and securing it against the house value”.  So, money that they would have now to pay for things that they need to make their lives independent and comfortable would be handed over in tax instead?

      People renting will also be hit and they won’t be helped by the Greens who take an extreme free-market view of rents: “rents may well increase…but the rental market is a function of supply and demand, however, and rents cannot increase to a level where people cannot afford them”. That is bad news, once again, for less well-off people and students in city centres.  I spent four years listening to the terrible problems people faced because of a lack of affordable housing. Current private sector rents are not affordable for less well off families. They can barely afford to pay them and have even a basic standard of  living. Their plight will be very much worse unless Patrick Harvie can somehow conjure up, in Fife alone, another 12,000 affordable homes.

AlAll of the above was written this morning at around 7:30. I might have known that Jeremy Purvis, who is a smart boy after all, would notice the same thing. He said today:

"People on low and middle incomes will pay more under the Greens. "The Green Party have admitted their plans for Land Value Tax will hit students, single people and pensioners. "Their income tax increase will be paid by pensioners and the low paid." 

Sunday Herald calls Jeremy Purvis "smart, humorous and feisty" #sp11

Yesterday’s Sunday Herald carried a profile of the Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale constituency where the brains behind the Scottish Liberal Democrat manifesto, Jeremy Purvis, faces a challenging battle to hold his seat against the SNP’s Edinburgh based candidate. The thing is, every battle Jeremy’s had to fight this seat has been challenging and he’s been written off on every occasion so far, and has so far held on.

I think that people in the Borders will be very concerned about things like the SNP plans to centralise the Police and fire service. They will also be dissatisfied with the progress on the Borders Rail link, championed by Jeremy from the start, since the SNP has been in power.

Jeremy is one of the first people I ever approved as a parliamentary candidate and I think he’s more than justified my faith in him over the past 8 years.  I particularly like the policy he’s come up with on the Council Tax – to ensure that no pensioner with an income of less than £10,000 will have to pay Council Tax.

I’ve been really impressed with his tenacity, intelligence and liberalism over the years.   There is a tendency at the Herald stable to dip keyboards in poison before writing about the Liberal Democrats so to see him being described as “smart, humorous and feisty” is high praise indeed.

Jeremy’s SNP opponent Christine Grahame, has a fall back plan – she will get in on the list if she fails to win the constituency.  The only chance the people in his constituency have to get Jeremy Purvis into Parliament is to vote for him as he is not standing on the list.

This seat will be one of the key battlegrounds on election night.  I hope that Jeremy’s tireless work over the years will be enough to see him returned to Holyrood.  

Public back Scottish Liberal Democrats' position on national police force and reject independence #sp11

The BBC has gone and asked some voters what they think of 25 of the pledges in the various parties' manifestos and it seems that it's the Liberal Democrats who are most in tune with what people want on the issue of the Police. It does seem a little strange that they have done it before the SNP has published theirs, but they have included known SNP priorities.

The idea of a single, national police force comes third from bottom, while maintaining the number of officers on the beat came second highest. The costs of creating a national force are estimated by the Scottish Government itself at £92 million and the move would threaten the jobs of 3000 to 4000 officers. This is a clear vindication of the Liberal Democrat position.

The most popular policy was reducing waiting times to see a Cancer specialist from 4 weeks to 2. I can't imagine anyone saying this should never be done - but 9 people did for some reason. Out of 1004 respondents, 830 ranked it in the 3 highest categories. 

The third highest priority was free university education, now favoured by everyone but the Conservatives. You have to remember, though, that Labour have only recently come round to this point of view, and they have serious form on this south of the border, going back on two manifesto pledges not to introduce them. Yes, yes, I know - but at least the redeeming feature of what we did down south, imperfect though it is, is that the poorest graduates will end up paying less than they currently do under Labour's system.

I have to confess I was slightly surprised that our policy of reducing the pay bill for the highest paid in the public sector  by 10% made it into the top ten. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good policy but I've said all along that I didn't think it would grab people. That'll be Jeremy Purvis 1 Caron Lindsay 0 then.

To me, the most revealing thing about the poll was its overwhelming rejection of both independence and the idea of a referendum on independence. The SNP's flagship policy could only manage 22nd place out of 25, marginally less unpopular than the idea of a national police force. Not only that, but the BBC gave three options to people about how Scotland should raise the money it spends.  More than three quarters chose the options for greater powers "the Scottish Government should have more power to decide how much it spends and more of the money it spends should come out of taxes paid by people in Scotland" or "the UK Government should continue to make nearly all the decisions about how much money the Scottish Government has to spend and the money it spends should come out of taxes paid by people across the UK".  This suggests it would be very counter-productive for the SNP to push the idea of the referendum or its raison d'etre of separation, because people just aren't feeling it. Will they now keep quiet about it? Or will the other parties mention the SNP commitment to separation at every single opportunity? The latter is not an option I favour, to be honest. I want to have serious and good quality discussion about the issues that really do matter to people.

The results of this poll, though, are very encouraging for the Liberal Democrats - it certainly shows that we are in tune with people on issues like university education, abolishing the Council Tax for poorer pensioners and the future of the Police. The thing is that we've always been about free education and decentralisation and fairness in the tax system for as long as I can remember and beyond that.  

Liberal Democrats reveal ambitious 100,000 jobs plan #sp11

The launch took place in a working factory in Innerleithen

A week or so ago, I e-mailed the Scottish Lib Dem press office and timidly asked if I might be allowed to go  to the manifesto launch today, on the grounds that if you don't ask, you don't get.  I was quite surprised to be told that I could come along and I didn't even have to promise to behave myself.

I was quite excited this morning, but it also felt a bit weird.  I was neither official party person, nor proper journalist. I was probably too tentative when it came to getting photos - I was determined to stay well and truly out of the way, not wanting to obscure anyone else's shot. When we were actually wandering round the cashmere factory following Tavish, Jeremy Purvis and Euan Robson on their tour, I was a bit worried I'd fall over or break something. You can just imagine the lifelong embarrassment of the story "Lib Dem Blogger breaks expensive machine at manifesto launch."

The event took place at Caerlees Mills in utterly gorgeous town of Innerleithen. The scenery around was so lush, green and full of the optimism of Spring, that it seemed absolutely the right place to launch a bold and ambitious plan to kickstart Scotland's economy. Tavish said that they'd deliberately chosen a business to illustrate our plans to create jobs. Basically, the mill we were in could employ more people if it could get the lending it needed.

The manifesto was, he said, a response to real problems presented by real people. He spoke of the family in Dunfermline, where the dad earned £15,000 a year in a job at Edinburgh Airport. Not only were they at their wits' end worrying about making ends meet, but they were scared about what they'd do if he lost his job.

Our plans, he said, were ambitious for Scotland. Every minister in a Liberal Democrat government would be expected to deliver on a 30 day action plan on growth and jobs. Rather than go off for the Summer, the Cabinet would continue to meet.

The centrepiece of the plans is a one off £1.5 billion windfall, which comes from making Scottish Water a public benefit corporation. It retains public ownership, but the way I understand it is that the debt it owes the taxpayer is sold off so that it pays the public purse back for the money it's borrowed. This sort of restructuring would give an immediate cash windfall of around £2.75 billion to be split between the UK and Scottish Governments.

Under Liberal Democrat plans, this one off windfall would be invested for the long term - to create 100,000 jobs, by expanding the digital economy, making sure businesses and people have access to superfast broadband to ensure they are not losing out, by investing in science, energy saving measures to reduce fuel bills and help tackle climate change, help for people to get on the property ladder and major investment in early intervention including a pupil premium to make sure poorer kids get the help they need in school.

Jeremy Purvis gave us some chilling figures - of the 600,000 10 year olds, not far off my daughter's age, 1 in 5 would reach 16 and not be in either education or employment if we carried on as we are. That's 120,000 kids. Twice the population of the town where I live. Jeremy Purvis said that investing in these kids from the start would ultimately save, according to the Scottish Government's own figures, £37,000 per child because they'd be working, paying taxes and enjoying a decent quality of life. We would allow organisations who had saved money from better outcomes to keep it and so create a virtuous cycle of reward and reinvestment..

Jeremy and Tavish faced some challenging questions from journalists which they dealt with extremely well. They came across as serious, substantial, professionals who understood the problems and what was needed to solve them.

Tavish was asked about party morale in the wake of polls and recent events. He answered that really well, saying that we want to concentrate on the issues that matter to people, not the froth whipped up by political journalists. He said it was a long campaign and he was looking forward to detailed discussion of our exciting agenda for the future.

A question about coalition red lines brought a very pithy and forthright response - basically the three points on the front of the manifesto on jobs, education and local services should provide a bit of a clue.

Another about whether Nick Clegg was a liability was met with a calm and assured list of the good things the Liberal Democrats have done in coalition, 92,000 people taken out of tax, child detention stopped at Dungavel, the pension/earnings link restored.

You can read the whole manifesto in glorious technicolor right here.

And so far I've not even touched upon localism and our opposition to a national police force. That's for another time.  Right now, my daughter's school play beckons................

Purvis' practical solutions for business illuminate economy debate

Here are three of the four particpants in the last of the four Scotland on Sunday debates which took place yesterday. John Swinney, whose elbow you can just see on the left,  Labour's Andy Kerr, Conservative Derek Brownlee and Liberal Democrat Jeremy Purvis lined up to quiz each other and take questions from the audience and online observers on the economy.

These debates have generally been useful. Held far out enough from the heat at the nucleus of the election campaign, they've been generally good humoured and good at highlighting the difference in approach between the parties. There was a bit of needle between Nicola Sturgeon and Jackie Baillie last week, and yesterday there was a whispered conversation between Andy Kerr and John Swinney after which both of them looked a bit grumpy, though.

The issue with them being so far out is that they are before the manifesto launches so parties are keeping a certain amount of their powder dry. They also don't have to answer any uncomfortable questions as to how much their plans are going to cost.

The debates were moderated by Kenny Farquharson, the editor of Scotland on Sunday, who did a really good job. He had enough needle to get them out of their comfort zones and just the right amount of menace to try to drag some skeletons out of their closets.

Like the others, yesterday's debate started with two minute opening statements, which is enough to give the highlights and not long enough for elaborate waffle. Then they each got to ask one question of each other. After that, questions from those watching both in the room and online were taken before a one minute closing statement.

Thanks to Andy Kerr's car breaking down, the thing started half an hour late. That might excuse what was a very poor performance from him. He spent his time slagging the SNP, most viciously on the cancellation of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link, which prompted the mutual grumpiness or saying not much. I must have misunderstood what he said about Labour's manifesto not being costed because there were plenty of organisations who would do it for them post publication. That attitude certainly seems typical of Labour - we've seen the financial mess they've left us to clear up at Westminster level and locally in places like Edinburgh and Fife. Bung it on the credit card and sort it out later seems to be their mantra. Lallands Peat Worrier, by the way, is wickedly and hilariously cruel about his performance, so go and have a look later.

I was quite surprised to see Tory Derek Brownlee readily agree that Scotland should be included in the consultation on Corporation Tax that the UK Government is having with Northern Ireland, saying that if these changes were possible in one part of the UK, it would be foolish to rule it out for others.

John Swinney was competent but uninspiring. He was lucky nobody reminded him, on a question about whether the "tartan tax" could be used to avoid cuts, that he was the one who had let it lapse without telling the Parliament.

I know Jeremy Purvis is one of mine, but I was really impressed with him yesterday. I was sitting there in the audience like a proud parent. Ok, so I'm not nearly old enough to be his mother but I did assess him on his candidate approval day in the run up to his election in 2003 and it do tend to beam with pride when any of my candidates do well in things, as a fair few have.

Out of all of them his language was clearest and his proposals most practical. He talked about preventing a power grab to the centre, instead providing joined up solutions at regional level. About regional development banks to give practical help to businesses. The reason for the change is simply the massive and unhelpful bureaucracy often faced by business. He illustrated his point with a real life example of a textile company passed from pillar to post round various quangos, none of which would give them the help that they actually needed. He talked about making sure Scotland had the infrastructure and things like broadband connectivity to boost business and growth and ultimately jobs.

What was interesting from him was an admission that the Council Tax is here to stay for this Parliament at least so it doesn't look like Local Income Tax will be in our manifesto this time. However he did say that we were bringing forward proposals to make the Council Tax system fairer and that its ultimate replacement would be fair and based on ability to pay.

Of the four debates so far, justice and health have been my favourites, but I guess that's not surprising as they're the subjects which interest me most. I'm going to try to go to a few more such events as the campaign hots up - if any one lets me and my serial tweeting habit in, of course.....

Scottish Liberal Democrats win support for students - and praise from NUS - in Swinney's Budget

The Scottish Liberal Democrats have reinforced their commitment to students and young people again by gaining meaningful concessions from Finance Secretary John Swinney in the lead up to today's vote on the Scottish Budget for next year. 

Measures put into the Budget because of the Liberal Democrats include:

• Additional funding for FE bursaries of £15 million, spread across 2010-2011-12 to provide additional  student support for current student numbers;
• Additional funding of £8 million in 2011-12 that would support an additional 1,200 college places and associated student support;
• 1,500 additional Modern Apprenticeships, including 500 places for the renewables sector, at a cost of £2 million;
•  2,000 additional flexible training opportunities.

That's a lot of young people who are going to benefit. Every year in this Parliament so far, the Liberal Democrats have made students and school leavers their priority when it comes to the Budget and every year have managed to get it changed for the better.

It's particularly gratifying that the Party has won the direct praise of NUS in Scotland for its efforts, with President Liam Burns saying:

“This is great news and testament to the hard work of thousands of college students across Scotland and the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Students across colleges and universities have mobilised fantastically well, with over 32,000 letters and emails sent to MSPs on this issue. To win £15m college bursaries, and £8m for college places, in a budget which is being cut is a fantastic result.  We hope this will now end the yearly ritual of college bursaries running out and end the threat of cuts to 40,000 of our poorest students.”

It's awful to think that young people going to college with plans for the future have to give up their course because the college can't afford to pay them a bursary to help with their living costs. Today's announcement means that they more of them will be able to stay on and realise their ambitions.

I'm particularly pleased to see dedicated funding for modern apprenticeships in the renewables sector. If Scotland is truly going to start creating long term, stable, skilled jobs in this area, that's vital. Tavish has been going on about the importance of colleges running courses in green technologies for ages, tackling Alex Salmond at FIrst Minister's Questions last year about issues relating to the wind technician's course at Carnegie College in Dunfermline. Here's a bit of their exchange:

Tavish Scott: Yesterday, the First Minister highlighted the importance of creating jobs in Scotland's renewable energy industry and gave a guarantee of 20,000 apprenticeships. Is the new course for wind turbine technicians at Carnegie College in Dunfermline one of those that is to be guaranteed?


The First Minister: The points are as stated: the estimate for jobs in Scotland's renewables sector is 20,000 in the fairly immediate future—some announcements coming up shortly will confirm that ambition—and the figure of 20,000 apprenticeships is, of course, also correct.


At some point, Tavish Scott will have to accept that various public bodies not only in Scotland but elsewhere are planning budget reductions. That might have something to do with the comprehensive spending review that his colleague Danny Alexander is undertaking at the present moment.

Tavish Scott: "It wasnae me" did not last long there. [Laughter.]

Tavish Scott: The German company Siemens has worked with Carnegie College to create the first-ever four-year wind energy technicians course. The company wants to triple the numbers every year and yet it is made to traipse between the Scottish Qualifications Authority, Skills Development Scotland, the responsible Government department and the Scottish funding council. On its website, the SNP says that the Government has created a "more streamlined service for the Scottish business community" and yet there is still the mess of four Government quangos and departments passing private industry from post to post. That needs to be sorted.

The First Minister needs to cut that bureaucracy. If he does not, Siemens tells me that the apprentices will be trained in Wales or Yorkshire or it will import the skills from abroad. Fife Council saved the course this year. Will the First Minister ensure ministerial time to bang heads together and get the course guaranteed for the future?

This Budget isn't perfect - but the Liberal Democrat influence has made it a whole load better. All in all, a good couple of weeks at the office for Jeremy Purvis and Tavish Scott.


I'll write more about this later - there's a young person who wants my attention at the moment, but I just wanted to dash off a quick post to tell you all the good news.


As I type, I realise Tavish Scott has sent me a punchy little e-mail about the Budget. Here are its best bits:
Today’s Scottish Budget is a major boost for students and colleges.


It has delighted the National Union of Students who have said: “The Scottish Liberal Democrats have worked very hard for students on this issue” and “This is great news”.
It will help tackle a crisis faced in Scotland’s colleges from 1st April this year. They can’t afford to wait for a new government. They need action now. As news reports in the last few days have highlighted, there are potential course closures at Elmwood, James Watt, North Highland, Dumfries & Galloway and Carnegie College and many more.

The changes we have negotiated from the Scottish Government will give thousands of students access to bursary support. That will mean they can take up their studies and find ways into work.

We have also secured funding for more than a thousand new places directly at colleges. This will help colleges who are facing severe financial pressures.

We have also secured funding for additional modern apprentices and training opportunities that rely indirectly on colleges. I raised the issue of apprenticeships in renewable energy at FMQs in the autumn. This is tackled in the Budget changes we have secured.

We are also very pleased that we have secured funding for a second year for our idea of a Post Office Diversification Fund. This benefited fifty post offices in the last year and can now benefit more this year. The fund helps post offices introduce new types of business (such as hot food or drinks). It will help them stay open, serving their communities.

Liberal Democrats highlight failures and unfairnesss of SNP's final budget

I spent much of yesterday listening to Scotland Questions, PMQs and the terrorism statement in the House of Commons yesterday, but unfortunately missed out on much of Holyrood's budget debate because I had to go out. I'm just catching up on it now. 


I was quite amused by Linda Fabiani's outraged and defensive reaction to a simple question from our Robert Brown. All he did, when she was talking about the effect of the VAT increase, and implying how evil UK taxation was, was to ask what the rate of VAT was in independent Ireland.

That is typical. When they do not like what they are hearing, they start being nasty to other nations.

For the record, it's 21% in Ireland, higher than in the UK. 


It was Robert and Jeremy Purvis who made the main speeches for the Liberal Democrats yesterday, highlighting the budget's failure to plan for economic growth, to tackle high pay in the public sector, to properly consider whether some measures such as concessionary travel, free prescriptions and free school meals for all were sustainable in the current climate and to deal with the concerns of the college sector.


For that reason, the Liberal Democrats have reserved judgement, abstaining in yesterday's stage 1 vote. In previous years our intervention has ensured more help for business and and extra 7500 college places and it's in those areas this time, as well as proper action on public sector high pay, that the party is looking to see improvements.


Jeremy Purvis outlined the key Liberal Democrat priorities:

We have set out our priorities—to create jobs, to ensure that every child gets a better and fairer start in life, to help business to grow, and to work against climate change. We have also indicated that we are prepared in the coming years to look at different choices when it comes to reforming the public sector landscape in Scotland.

Here, in some detail, is what Robert Brown and Jeremy Purvis had to say. I was particularly interested in Jeremy's rationale behind voting against the SNP's Tesco tax earlier in the day - you have to look at the whole context in which we operate, by the looks of it. We could get more money in Scotland, sure, but Tesco as a whole would end up paying less UK tax as a result and we'd all be poorer. Taxing a major company is always an option which looks attractive, to me as much as anyone, but the devil is in the detail, and you don't want to cut off your nose to spite your face. You're no better off if you rob George to pay John.

If large retailers’ profits are so huge and if their shoulders are so broad, why on earth does the SNP want to slash the corporation tax that they pay? Tesco paid £840 million in corporation tax at a 28 per cent rate in 2010. The SNP wants that rate to be 20 per cent. I do not know why on earth it wishes to give tax cuts of hundreds of millions of pounds to large retail companies.

Robert made a thoughtful contribution, drawing parallels between the Finance Secretary's job dealing with a reduced budget to our ministers finding the mess they did when they took over. He also returns to his earlier comparison with Ireland.

Without question, the budget debate takes place against a more sombre economic background than any that we have known for many years. When the United Kingdom Government came to office last May, it inherited the worst fiscal deficit since the war. It is undoubtedly true that my Liberal Democrat colleagues in London have received extraordinary abuse for the actions that they have taken in the national interest since then. More than any, we know that Opposition is an easier place than Government. We know too that the previous Labour Government, which presided over the circumstances that led to the banking crisis, ducked many of the hard choices. The total cost to the economy of the banking crisis is estimated at between £1,700 billion and £9,000 billion, according to Bank of England figures

Before the forthcoming financial year, the SNP Government has not required to make cuts because of the recession. For all the huffing and puffing about independence and fiscal autonomy, and despite their dodgy dossiers about easy and automatic growth under full fiscal autonomy, SNP ministers are—privately—hugely relieved that the UK Government had to bail out and rescue the Scottish banks and that they have the stability of the Barnett formula to buttress the Scottish budget at this difficult and volatile time.

The downside is that one could be forgiven sometimes for having the impression that the SNP lives in a parallel universe in which public debt grows on trees and does not have to be repaid and in which the recession and the banking crisis affect faraway countries of which we know little, as with independent Ireland, whose problems Jim Mather thinks are caused by an incompetent Government.

Independent Ireland, which has a large banking sector, provides a mirror for our situation. Of course, the SNP Government always drew it into evidence in previous years. Ireland does not have the critical mass of the UK’s economy and resources or a stable coalition Government to deliver a recovery plan over four or five years. It probably brings a wry smile to the cabinet secretary’s face that the Irish Government depends on a bunch of erratic and unreliable Greens. The Irish public have had public sector cuts, job losses, wage cuts, emergency tax imposts and VAT at above UK levels. They now have hugely unhelpful political turmoil and uncertainty, and the Irish fiscal crisis still threatens not only Ireland’s future but the euro zone’s stability.

Having set out the context, he then turned to the practicalities of the Budget offered by John Swinney:

My first criticism, in suggesting that the budget does not match up to the challenge, is one that the Finance Committee made. The Scottish Government rides two horses. It must ask the question that the Finance Committee asked: is the primary aim of the draft budget the protection of services, in particular universal services, or is it economic growth? I accept that there is an overlap in that regard, but the priority needs to be to grow the Scottish economy.

In that context, the Scottish Government seems to be insufficiently focused on creating skills, providing opportunities and equipping enough of our young people with what they need if they are to march forward into the future with confidence. That is particularly the case in relation to colleges.

 There is common ground between Liberal Democrats and members of other parties in the Scottish Parliament, who have been critical of the extent to which benefits such as prescription charges and free school meals have been the main direction of the Scottish Government’s policies. If we spend money on certain things we cannot spend it on other things.

Scotland’s Colleges identified a cut of £48 billion, or 10.4 per cent, in colleges’ budgets, at a time when investing in skills and young people should be central—[Interruption.] There might be issues to do with budgets, but that is what Scotland’s Colleges, which is in a position to know something about the issue, said. For Liberal Democrats the issue was a priority that we pushed with the Government in the context of last year’s budget. That resulted in funding for a further 7,500 places. The issue remains a priority and something of a litmus test for us this year. There is also a significant issue to do with stretched budgets for college bursaries.

He concluded that:

Much of the budget spend is welcome. Support for schools and young people, doctors, hospitals and the sick, and central and local government services could scarcely be anything but welcome. However, the cabinet secretary has a distance to go before stage 3 if he is to satisfy Liberal Democrats that his priorities are the right ones and his budget is a budget for Scotland and for our young people.

Jeremy was quite feisty. He can share Mike Moore's habit sometimes of being a bit too quiet and serious, but he had some fire in his belly yesterday. 

As it stands, this budget fails the test that the Government itself set, which was to grow the Scottish economy. That was supposed to be the Government’s single purpose—indeed, it added a capital P to the word “purpose” in all its literature, giving it a somewhat theological emphasis. That purpose, which we and most parties in the Parliament shared, has now gone.

The Finance Committee was clear—it could not have been clearer—that the purpose was not being met, and was not being matched by the spending priorities in the budget. The committee went further still in its report, which calls for more information before stage 3. The report also asks why the strategic priorities have changed, and whether the Government carried out an assessment of the impact of its previous priorities on its purpose before that purpose was changed to the current one.

There is no question about the fragility of the Scottish economy, or about the fact that we can look across the Irish Sea to see close at hand a situation that could potentially be replicated in Scotland if wrong decisions are made here. There is also no question but that we must tackle a structural deficit that could choke spending on public services for the next generation unless we handle it properly. We are spending as much on servicing the structural debt interest alone as it would cost to build a primary school in Scotland each day of the week.

When the Chinese delegation was in Scotland recently, it was interesting to note that the Chinese Government has bought more UK debt than the entire amount of trade deals signed with that country, not just in Scotland but across the UK, over the past year. There is no question but that our own business community has subdued confidence, and no question but that the pipeline of construction projects, which had already withered under the SNP when budgets were growing, is now in a dangerously low state.

On business anger and frustration with the SNP

The Government has tried to spin that the budget contains a revenue stream of financing that will build new infrastructure, but the same Government scrapped those schemes when it came into office. I met businesses in the construction industry recently and I do not need to make up that there are real anger and emotion, because they were palpable. One business said to me that the real crime was not that the SNP got rid of the public-private partnership approach but that nothing was put in its place. The Government accepts that the pipeline of projects has slowed. That is why the SNP is asserting that it is building as much as the previous Government, but that is clearly not the case. The growing gap between the SNP’s assertions and reality is becoming clear.

On high pay in the public sector:

We find it difficult to accept that, at a time when NHS workers who earn less than £21,000 will get an increase of just £250 and people who are on £21,000 or above will have a freeze in their pay, consultants, who are among the top-paid people in the NHS, will still be able to nominate themselves for a £70,000 annual bonus. We do not think that that is fair or appropriate. We heard the cabinet secretary mention those who have the broadest shoulders. I think that people who earn over £100,000 have broad shoulders. I do not think that it is right that, in the past year, when the Government has claimed that it has put punitive measures in place, that pay bill has gone up by £53 million. That is not fair, and it is not those with the broadest shoulders who are taking the most responsibility. We also believe that the prescribing bill in the NHS is spiralling too much, with reduced health outcomes.

Pointing out how much money the SNP had given to "broad shouldered" Tesco:

If such companies’ shoulders are so broad, I am surprised by how much the SNP Government has given Tesco in regional selective assistance grants in the past three years. It was given £1.7 million for Tesco Bank in October 2010. In Joe FitzPatrick’s area—Dundee—Tesco was given £1.25 million. The most striking grant was for the Tesco Bank headquarters in Edinburgh in June 2009. Alex Salmond opened the headquarters, which came with a £5 million RSA grant. The money that the large retail levy will raise will probably cancel out the grants that the SNP Government has given Tesco

We shall have to see if Swinney is in a listening mood, and willing to make changes before the final stage 3 debate.  Will we have the drama of 2009 or will a consenus be achieved in time?

Jeremy Purvis puts fair access to higher education at heart of Liberal Democrat thinking

Today Cabinet Secretary for Education Mike Russell outlined the proposals in his long awaited Green Paper for Higher Education. He outlined a number of various options with the aim of maintaining Scotland's reputation for world class academic excellence.

The six options under consideration are:

• the state retaining primary responsibility for funding
• the state retaining primary responsibility for funding but with a graduate contribution
• charging more for students who come to study from other parts of the UK
• increased donations and philanthropic giving
• more money from business
• efficiency savings

Basically what will happen now is that everybody will study the paper, get some magic numbers about future funding from John Swinney in January and will then draw up their own proposals to go in their manifestos for the election next year and whatever government is elected in May will act accordingly.

Liberal Democrat finance spokesman Jeremy Purvis only had a minute to respond but he used it well.  After barbed encounters with Des McNulty, Liz Smith and George Foulkes, there was a bit more reason to the exchange with Jeremy. While the others concentrated on trying (and failing) to pin Mike Russell down on whether he would rule out or rule in a graduate contribution, Jeremy's question was typically practical. I'd always expect a Liberal Democrat to look at issues of fairness and he made the point that only 20% of students in higher education came from a poorer background, even with free tuition and it was important to address that. Mike Russell actually gave quite an intelligent response, saying how you needed to tackle that issue at the school and nursery gates with early intervention. That might be an encouraging sign that the SNP might be prepared to support a pupil premium like the Liberal Democrats are bringing in south of the border.

Liberal Youth Scotland are unimpressed by Mike Russell's statement, with their President Kristian Chapman saying:

“The only concrete announcement we’ve had from this SNP Government is that they are cutting 12% from University funding, but with no answers on how this will be replaced.

“NUS research has shown that a huge number of students have thought of dropping out because of a lack of student support, and again, we still have no answers from the SNP on how they will address this.”

There's a long way to go on this. Mike Russell himself has given signs that he might be prepared to introduce a graduate contribution to pay for education. This would differ from the graduate endowment introduced by the Liberal Democrats in the first Holyrood coalition as it would actually mean graduates paid some of the cost of their education. The endowment did not pay for teaching staff or materials or lecture halls - it helped poor students go to university. So, Nicola Sturgeon, you can't take away the Liberal Democrat achievements in that first coalition. Without the Scottish Liberal Democrats,  you'd have come into office with students paying fees and top up fees and you'd have had to have found the money to get rid of them, or not...

Jeremy Purvis explains Lib Dem opposition to Budget and slams SNP Arrogance

LibDig This!