CHANCELLOR Philip Hammond’s announcement that legislation will be brought forward so that Police Scotland and Scottish Fire & Rescue will be able to secure refunds of any VAT that they might otherwise have to pay, raises some fairly fundamental issues about the state of democracy in the UK.
It is estimated that this opportunity will benefit them to the tune of £35 million a year. Prior to the change being introduced in April next year, Police Scotland and Scottish Fire & Rescue are the only such organisations in the UK who have been unable to reclaim VAT. The contention of the Conservative Party has been that the SNP knew how the VAT regulations stood in 2013 when Police Scotland and Scottish Fire & Rescue were set up, but pressed on regardless.
Since then the Westminster Government has been deaf to frequent entreaties by the Scottish Government and Scottish MPs to amend the VAT legislation to put Scottish emergency services on just the same footing as other such services elsewhere in the UK.
But now, after the election in June of 13 Conservative MPs, suddenly it is possible to amend the legislation and for our emergency services to get the same VAT break as elsewhere. It seems unlikely, and to the best of my knowledge, the Scottish Conservative MPs can hardly have put forward a substantially different case, so the only reasonable conclusion is that they were successful because they were from the same party as the Westminster Government.
What should we take from this? That Scotland will only be able to resolve such anomalies if we elect sufficient numbers of the governing party at Westminster? How otherwise, were we disadvantaged between May 2015 and June 2017, when there was only a single Scottish Conservative MP? In what ways are we continuing to be disadvantaged when there is still a majority of Scottish MPs (35) representing the SNP? Is this really democracy? Vote for the governing party if you want, not a good deal, but just the same sort of deal as everywhere else in the UK? As Tommy Sheppard tweeted even while the Chancellor was delivering his speech, “So Chancellor only listens to Scottish MPs if they are Tory. As well as insulting most of Scotland surely that's pretty near corrupt”.
This letter, no doubt, will be said by some to be “predictable” and an example of the “politics of grievance”. To those who do, might I suggest that they contemplate the proposition that if Scottish emergency services should not pay VAT from April 2018, how can it be right that they have had to pay VAT since 2013?
Alasdair Galloway,
14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.
IN 2014, David Cameron begged those intending to vote Yes to send a strong voice to Westminster instead. With the previous 56 SNP and the current non-Tory 46 being ignored, we now realise that he forgot to mention that they had to be Tory voices. So a “strong voice” means Tory – nothing to do with numbers.
Thanks for enlightening us, Mr Hammond. Wish we’d known in time.
P Davidson,
Gartcows Road, Falkirk.
WOMEN born in the 1950s who are suffering disproportionately as a result of pension age equality were deafened by the silence of the Chancellor on the issue of their state pensions. This is a massive issue for thousands of women and one which has cross-party support for mitigating measures, yet Philip Hammond did not see fit to mention it.
However, SNP parliamentary leader Ian Blackford in his reply to the Chancellor's speech gave mention as he illustrated the plight of those women, in that for every one month in age, those women are having three months added to their pension age – an outrage. Mr Blackford gave those women some hope in that a Private Member's Bill is forthcoming on this matter. With cross-party support, the Chancellor may have to re-calculate his budget.
Catriona C Clark,
52 Hawthorn Drive,
Banknock, Falkirk.
THE growing gap between our politicians and the disenfranchised (or disinterested) electors, whilst now at least recognised, can only be further deepened when the Chancellor, in his Budget, set a target of 300,000 new homes a year.
This course had already been set by the Prime Minister in a Government press release dated November 15, which stated that "Prime Minister Theresa May will pledge that it is her personal mission to ‘build more homes, more quickly’".
Whilst that press release went on, pledging money and determination before congratulating itself for what it had achieved since April 2010, it overlooks the most likely consequence of the looming Brexit.
Details taken from a presentation by Dr S Kyambi, an immigration expert at the University of Edinburgh, show that a significant number of skilled construction workers were in fact born in Europe. The percentages follow the specific classifications: construction and building trades – 17 per cent; carpenters and joiners – 12 per cent, and "elementary construction occupations" – 11 per cent.
So my question to both the Chancellor and Prime Minister is: how will you "build more homes, more quickly" when this very sizeable skilled construction industry workforce leaves the UK as a consequence of Brexit?
No wonder the electorate is losing faith with the political system – all we get are platitudes, sound bites and targets which are not achieved before an opportunity is given to yet another willing volunteer to step into the hot seat – and off we go again. It's something to akin to musical chairs, an amusing memory of my childhood but not so funny in adulthood. Remember David Cameron’s pledge to reduce immigration and reflect on the resulting mess.
Alan McKinney,
10 Beauchamp Road, Edinburgh.
TO end the dispute over whether Holyrood or Westminster gets the powers being returned from the EU after Brexit, simply start calling them "responsibilities" and not "powers".
The SNP is always demanding additional powers but appears reluctant to accept responsibility for anything.
Perhaps we should refer to governments in general as being "the party with responsibility" rather than ‘the party in power. It might just encourage a different mindset amongst some politicians.
Mark Openshaw,
42 Earlswells Road, Cults, Aberdeen.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel