The Scottish Parliament debated its second Coronavirus Bill yesterday. It was a heated debate, but I am only concerned with two amendments, which were numbers 93 and 94, both proposed by Patrick Harvie, the co-leader of the Greens in Scotland.
Amendment 93 sought to deny bailout funds to companies located in tax havens. It passed, having been worked on jointly for a week or so with the SNP.
Amendment 94 required that companies receiving bailout funds publish country-by-country reports so that it could be ensured that they were not operating in tax havens.
The acrimony of the day, which saw the SNP and Tories aligning on most measures, was reflected on this issue where the voting was as follows:
The same party lines were followed yesterday to vote through many measures that were quite oppressive.
It was not the SNP's finest hour, not least because they voted directly against their own tax policy which says:
We want the UK government to take much tougher action on tax avoidance, including:
- a moratorium and review of the closure of HMRC offices in Scotland and across the UK;
- a full and immediate response to the review into Scottish Limited Partnerships;
- enhanced protection for whistle blowers exposing tax criminality;
- simplifying the UK tax code to close exploitative loopholes such as the Mayfair Loophole;
- action to make the beneficial ownership of companies and trusts public;
- further measures to improve the transparency of tax paid by major international companies; and
- new action to tackle international tax avoidance.
If the UK government is unwilling to take the action that is required, they should devolve the powers required to the Scottish Parliament so we can act.
I have highlighted the relevant parts they ignored yesterday.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Power corrupts…….
Ought to rename the country United Knavedom it always seems capable of uniting to protect the interests of the few!
Liberals will be liberals. I use the word ‘liberal’ in the sense of political theory rather than party politics.
Smacks of petty political point scoring. Scottish Labour have a record of voting against SNP policies that you would normally expect a Social Democratic party to support…. tit for tat point scoring going on here I wonder. Also disappointingly the Greens are still talking about “taxpayer funded bailouts”… I had hoped better and have told them so.
The SNP must have some secret wealthy donors who don’t want transparancey on this issue. Just when it seemed the SNP were a fairly progressive party they have shot themselves in the foot. Lets hope they live to regret this and that the Green Party continues to hold them to account.
As well as denying grants to a person “based in” a tax haven, amendment 93 denies grants to any person who is a subsidiary of a person based in a tax haven, or has a subsidiary based in a tax haven, or has any profits subject to tax in a tax haven.
It seems a “tax haven” here is defined by reference to the EU’s list of non-cooperative jurisdictions – https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-list-of-non-cooperative-jurisdictions/ (limited to American Samoa, Cayman Islands, Fiji, Guam, Oman, Palau, Panama, Samoa, Trinidad and Tobago, US Virgin Islands, Vanuatu and Seychelles). In practice, I doubt there are many Scottish businesses based in Guam or Palau or Vanuatu, so this seems more of a virtue-signalling exercise than something intended to substantively address abuse of tax havens. For example, it does not include Switzerland, or Hong Kong, or Singapore, or Luxembourg, or UAE, or any of the Channel Islands.
Perhaps worth repeating what Michael Russell said in the debate: “to oppose an amendment does not mean opposing the desired outcome of that amendment or its principle. It means opposing amendments that are badly drafted or lodged for reasons that are entirely to do with playing to the gallery and have nothing to do with achieving a result. … We will not accept amendment 94, as we think that to do so creates difficulty…” He does not spell out what difficulty it creates, and it remains to be seen what the SNP will do to implement the principle they seem to agree with.
Does this contradict their policy statement? I must have missed the bit where it says “we will support any proposal that requires public country-by-country reports”.
I am aware that amendment 93 was weak
Amendment 94 was much stronger
And I very strongly suspect that is why one was accepted and the other was not in reality
I understand and agree with the sentiment here, but surely the practicalities are worth a mention. The amendments don’t apply where the grant application was received before the amended regulation comes into force. It would not surprise me if this is challenged on the grounds of being unfair. If there had been a framework available UK wide, it could have been applied automatically at the outset.
As we know, Companies House does not make it easy to check the matters under consideration. Amendment 94 on country-by-country reporting is particularly challenging, as the relevant affairs of every company that applies for funds would have to be checked. Surely this would only be practical if such reporting was legally required to be made available. The only other option would be to challenge every company which applies to provide evidence that they do the reporting voluntarily. That also seems impractical, especially given that some of the funding applications are processed by local authorities.
I think ticking a box and supplying a copy of accounts is not hard….
Seriously….
Accounts are required for at least some of the funds available. I would agree, if it is as simple as adding a tick box, that it should have been done at the outset. However, given the stage we are at now, perhaps my point about this being challenged applies. I might even venture to suggest that Patrick Harvie is guilty of virtue signalling by raising this after large parts of the horse have bolted.
Virtue signalling prepares the ground for change
It’s maybe that Covid-19 has just made people more wary of bringing in such changes?
There will be a rush back to normal, and a ‘grab it whilst you can’ mentality with the main concern being left behind in the melee.
Fear thwarts change. I think many countries will be worried about imposing new requirements on companies because they might threaten to leave, close down because they have enough problems with turnover and are so debt addled.
This is the dark side of using crises to bring in change. We should not have to wait for crises really – the State should be pro-actively seeking CBC reporting – when times are good. It just goes to show you why not pursuing CBC Reporting as a norm is a bad idea.
Yesterday in the town where I work, I watched people mingling in the park next door as if Covid has come and gone.
Oh dear……………………….
Hi Richard. I’m glad (at long last) to have the chance to contribute towards maintenance costs of TaxResearch.org.
Your ideas seem to be gaining some traction (again… at long last)… but you and your collaborators seldom get acknowledged.
Small detail, but could your ‘Donate’ section allow a choice of date for payment to be made? There will be a delay between my donation #XX032 today and you receiving funds when my pension gets paid. Please don’t send in the Bailiffs! Or Sheriff Officers as we call them in Scotland. *Note the profusion of ‘ff’s in both titles.
Thanks
I admit I have no idea if we can do that….sorry
But I am very grateful!
Best regards
Richard
I have recently been getting more annoyed with the SNP, think they are reverting to the Tartan Tories that they were once accused of being.
‘Source’ has mentioned a few things, especially around the issue of Care Homes.
However, the complicated situation of a devolved parliament means that in reality maybe they are doing the best they can. Certainly an independent Scotland with its own currency and government central bank, would lay the responsibility squarely with the government of the democratic parliament.
Or abolish the parliament and return all power to Westminster. This would return to Scotland being ignored though. I favour independence.
The current devolved situation leaves too many grey areas.
This situation means even if the SNP are doing a New Labour, going against the wishes of their supporter base, they know they shall still get a majority. I shall most likely still vote SNP. In an independent Scotland my voting intentions could easily change though. In an independent Scotland one problem with democracy might be that the SNP rides a wave of nostalgia to continuing power without any challenge.
Maybe this lack of challenge is part of the problem already. The leadership seem a bit divorced from the wishes of the supporter base.
The Scottish Greens are a nearly party, but there’s something missing. Especially around economics, tax, and MMT.
Both these parties could improve their acts, a lot
But the SNP seem a long way from their membership right now
I was going to bring up the “Tartan Tories” jibe. The problem the SNP have is that first and foremost their raison d’être is, or should be, to gain independence for Scotland. But having lost a referendum they now find themselves in government for almost another 6 years with no obvious way (at least not obvious to the leadership it would seem) or achieving that aim. So they have worked to govern reasonably competently, if cautiously, hamstrung as they are by the Trap of the Smith Commission and very limited financial and fiscal powers.
However, they are of course a coalition, as is every other party, but in general a left leaning one, as Political Compass indicated at the last GE. But unlike the other UK parties they propose a monumental constitutional change, not seen here since the 1920’s, which Unionists and lazy journalists characterise as “separists wanting to break up this precious union”.
Now, people are generally wary of change and are made even more wary by a media which, bar one newspaper, and including the BBC, is universally opposed to anything the SNP do or propose and work hard to find the bad news in a good news story. Even in the current crisis NS is regularly accused of “politicising” if she suggests or enacts anything different to Boris law, or as the BBC Scotland Editor put it: enjoyed the opportunity to set her own lockdown rules.
As I see it the SNP have a dilemma. They have to stay in power in order to bring about independence, but in a proportional voting system which could make that problematic, and have at the same time to maintain support for independence from a varied constituency of supporters of the project and also try to gain support from waverers and attempt to convert those opposed, some of whom come from elsewhere (in the UK and the world) and may prefer “stability”, whilst not losing those whose fervour for independence sometimes over-rides a willingness to wait “till the time is right”.
Yes, too timid by far, successes and failures. In an independent Scotland I shall vote for the most radical party which puts fairness and equity, and dare I say it, some real socialism at the heart of its manifesto. We all need something to hope for.
The SNP is heading for the most almighty bust up
Watch Cherry v Robertson to see where it will be going….
@Graham Hewitt I agree, that’s a pretty comprehensive and accurate description of the issues faced by the SNP in Government.
I might summarise the constraint on the SNP being more radical as two-fold:
1) Scotland’s options for government are not much above that of a large English council.
2) They need to be elected.
Much of the criticism by opposition parties is poorly argued, even laughable at times, because they either ignore or don’t believe item (1).
The problem I see on independence is not which party will “be more socialist”, it’s whether any of them will recognise the need for fiscal sovereignty. That immediately rules out the Conservative party, the LibDems and the Scottish Greens. Unless UK Labour stops being economically illiterate, the same will apply to the Scottish Labour sheep. The SNP, on the other hand, are split on the necessity of having a Scottish currency on independence. A significant number of the members and other supporters are onside with that, and some have at least a basic understanding of modern monetary theory; I would suggest a higher proportion than in the other parties. I believe the same is true with respect to those elected. I’d be surprised if anyone could cite a single MSP or MP representing Scotland from the other parties who would be other than disparaging of MMT. If one exists, he/she will be hiding the fact because they’d rather stay in the Union than be fiscally independent.
Our only hope is that a new party emerges after independence, and at the moment I’d bet on that being largely made up of ex-SNP politicians and members. Before the 2014 referendum, even Alex Salmond (defender of Plan A) was strongly in favour of having a Scottish currency. Sadly, he then dropped the idea. No doubt this was partly driven by the soft (tartan Tory?) wing of the party, and partly by his “internationally renowned team of economic advisors”.
I think a Joanna Cherry led party would be heavily in favour of a Scottish currency
Indeed Richard, and I know you know there are others who would support (my MP) Joanna Cherry.
They also voted with the Tories against a rent freeze and collective bargaining for care workers.
I am becoming a tad concerned about what is happening in my Party..!
You should be…
Has the SNP had a chance to explain why they voted the way they did? Perhaps there was something in the amendment that couldn’t actually be enforced? Given the current powers of the Scottish government or the current situation?
I read the same news in The National this morning, and was struck again by the fact that the SNP doesn’t seem to have been asked to explain their position on this. Considering it ‘goes against party policy’ I would be interested to know why they all voted the way they did.
I suspect we’re not getting the total picture.
I hear from sources that they did not think they’d had enough time to check the legal impact of the amendment. You’d have thought they’d have done this with their own policy
Bear in mind that this was Stage 3 of the Bill, the final stage to consider amendments.
Part of the answer is that it was a badly drafted amendment, and does not even represent what the title claims it to be –
“NATIONAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR PRIVATE SOCIAL CARE SECTOR
(1) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as practicable after the date of Royal Assent, establish a national system of negotiations for the private social care sector.
(2) The purpose of the national system is to ensure that all workers in the private social care sector benefit from consistent arrangements throughout Scotland in relation to matters of terms and conditions arising from issues relating to coronavirus.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (2), the matters include death in service payments and other payments relating to the effects of coronavirus.
(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, the “private social care sector” includes any care service within the meaning given in section 47 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, except one which is operated by a public or third sector body”
As paragraphs (2) makes clear, it would only cover matters arising from issues relating to Coronavirus, which is an undesirable constraint and unworkable in practice.
Nor am I convinced you could, or should, exclude those who work in care homes operated by a public or third sector body.
The rest of the answer is here, from Mike Russell, the cabinet minister responding to Neil Findlay’s amendment –
“What we heard from Neil Findlay is not possible; we cannot put in place a system of collective bargaining by dictation overnight, nor can we do it in a week or a month. We can do what the Scottish Government has been doing, which is to move towards that, say that we support
it, negotiate with those who are involved.”
Gordon McKendrick wrote: “The leadership seem a bit divorced from the wishes of the supporter base” and Richard commented ”…but the SNP seem a long way from their membership right now.”
This has been apparent for some time, in particular through the SNP’s clinging to the pursuit of Section 30 powers to enable it to hold a reference on independence. Since the granting of a transfer of S30 powers is entirely retained by the UK Gov’t, it’s unrealistic to imagine that happening as easily as it did in 2014, particularly as the governments of the UK’s 4 nations are preoccupied with dealing with the Covid 19 crisis. And once the worst of the Covid crisis has passed, Westminster will be too preoccupied with Brexit to give a moment’s thought to Scottish independence.
However, that seems to me to be the most opportune time for Scotland to pursue independence vigorously, but to do that requires the groundwork to be done now. Given the immediate priority of the Scottish Gov’t to deal on a day-to-day basis with Covid 19, the only way for that groundwork to be tackled is for Sturgeon to appoint someone to project-manage an independence strategy initiative and, given the silo mentality of the party (caused by the massive hostility of the Scottish and UK media to it), the appointee would have to come from the trusted inner circle of the party.
I think it’s also essential that a new strategy, other than the S30 route will be needed, and right now I can see nobody better equipped for the task than Joanna Cherry, who is emerging as the likeliest contender to succeed Nicola Sturgeon when the latter decides it’s time to stand aside from the top job. I see her being tasked by Sturgeon with delivering an independence strategy as a canny move towards eventual succession planning. If it is to be successful, the independence strategy project would have to cover a initiate planning for a wide range of additional projects: creation of organs of state, creation of a sovereign currency and central bank, a principles-based taxation and benefits system, development of a written constitution, creation of a Scottish Civil Service etc, etc. To make all this happen will require the SNP to tap into a much wider talent pool than its membership, but I contend that this needs to be done if the SNP is to have a significant role in Scottish post-independence politics.
The danger of not embracing a pro-active role in planning Scotland’s future is for an alternative pro-independence party to arise and consequentially split the pro-independence vote. If that happens, independence never will.
I agree with you Ken
See other comment here this morning though
Rationally Scotland is better off outside the Union
I find it hard to understand nationalists who are frightened to pursue that goal and look for other motives on their part, which are not hard to find
I happen to like Joanna Cherry and have enjoyed my conversations with her, but am not in any camp here
Methinks you are losing your principles and values Richard, l have endorsed and promoted your blogsite because l respected your values and enjoyed your factual blogs holding all parties to account but see you are no better than the movement you have always supported above SNP and that is Labour leaning Common Weal!
It is so obvious you are paving the way for their new party by attacking SNP and am sure this will be a pattern of putting Nicola down as well as promoting Cherry to help this party take a number of Scottish seats to oust SNP. The ruse of stating voters give ISP the 2nd vote where no doubt their followers will be voting ISP 1st and 2nd to lose SNP seats and give Scots unknown, untested, one minded gungho Indy party at all costs even though Nicola has gained a lot of trust from soft nos and unsures, a bunch of strangers who sets out to oust SNP will lose us new Indy people for sure and this is how l am seeing from the supporters of CommonWeal/ISP party like yourself, across social networking.
The abuse these so called Indy folk are spewing out is disgusting and instead of gaining folk on ISP side, they are angering many of us. I have respected your forthright blogs of past and your criticisms of ScotGov but all l see with your blogs is your contribution of helping CommonWeal/ISP try and turn Indy supporters away from Nicola towards ISP. No thanks!
We Scots are well aware that this new party who want to oust SNP and Nicola are built from your leftie friends in Common Weal/ RISE members etc and l read between the lines you are stirring the pot trying to turn SNP voters against Nicola and towards Cherry who l think her head has become so big that she would love to oust Nicola. I left Labour because they lost their principles and values decades ago, l was in party 40 years so smell a rat with your friends in new party ISP. They will lose us Indy thats for sure and majority of Indy supporters will show their wrath towards these Labour leaning, anti SNP people just showing me that some Labour folk just cannot get over their driven hate for SNP. I no longer respect you nor will l be sharing your blogs, l will be warning other Yessers that l believe you are now working to turn Scots against SNP to help this new party gain popularity. As a ex Labour activist, lastly under Brown l have seen the dirty tricks and obsessive hatred towards SNP that sickened me and forced me to leave the party l was born into and even under Labour for Indy, the same venom against SNP was there and that hrlped my decision to join SNP and after 6 years, l trust in the path Nicola is taking for our Indy, why would a woman who has gained so much respect here and worldwide commit career suicide by not fulfilling our Indy path, its bern full of obstacles such as Brexit and Covid19, no one can seriously expect Nicola to bash on with Indy like this new party wants. We are criticising Johnson bash on with Brexit, it would be hypicritical to bring up Indy when Nicola is FM for all Scotland, not just pro Indy folk, its why many No voters have crossed to Yes, Nicola has more than proved herself, far more than Cherry every has.
I have no doubt the many thousands of ex Labour who like me respect and trust Nicola & her Gov in a way we never really did latterly with Labour so we know exactly what lies beneath your Common Weal new party and its the same old leftie Labour “get rid of SNP! Majority of us support Nicola and will not help Cherry get in power nor your ISP party will get any votes from majority of Yessers and the more you and these people gun for Nicola and SNP with misleading opinions at a time when this crisis should NOT be political, Common Weal & co & their friends like you have been using the knives in Nicola’s back.
It is getting that our enemy of unionist politicians are less of an enemy as this movement behind ISP party and it makes me sick, many Scots not liking this new party play the same dirty tricks as the unionist parties to gain votes, it won’t work! I apologise for rant but l am saddened to see you latch onto what l see, promoting what is seen as the leftie sideof Yes movement in form of this new party but seem to forget there are masses of us ex Labour now SNP Yessers who have never lost of values and principles of socialism but we do not carry the same bitterness that Labour imprinted on our brains against SNP for many years, we opened our eyes and judged SNP outside the Labour controlling box.
Three things.
First, I was discussing country-by-country reporting. That was it.
Second, I am not a party politician, for the SNP or anyone else, including the ISP
Third, objectively the SNP under Sturgeon is centre right, and its plans for an independent Scotland are fatally undermined by its desire for sterlingisation and the in herent pro-austerity line within it, which would cruelly punish Scotland for trying to go it lone when currency independence if necessary for the bright future Scotland could have
If anyone is failing the SNP its leadership is – as I hear time and again from its members and deeply frustrated activists
Rev Stuart Campbell is not to everyone’s taste, but has had massive support and his frustration may be indicative
So is that of my friend Angus Brendan MacNeil
I am doing nothing bar commenting on the issues in this situation, and the SNP is making its own problems by ignoring its members, which is very New Labour indeed