Borrowing an idea from Gordon Brown

Labour Hame has reproduced an article from former Scottish Labour adviser Andrew McFadyen, which originally appeared in the Scotsman a few days ago.

His piece starts with reasonable but now eminently predictable points about how those awful Tories and Lib Dems in London are implementing the "biggest public sector cuts since the Second World War", that David Cameron's administration is "looking pretty tarnished by the phone hacking scandal", hence the Scottish electorate clearly want "border posts at Carlisle", blah blah.

And to that extent he makes a reasonable case for devolving more powers to Holryood than those emanating from the Calman process, in particular some kind of full fiscal autonomy.

Moreover, he makes the compelling point that the SNP Government wouldn't be so keen to make hay out of proposals for cuts in corporation tax and fuel duty given that a financial black hole in revenues would suddenly appear if such proposals were implemented.

Thus: "The current lack of financial responsibility encourages a culture of gripe and grievance and prevents Scotland from having a serious, grown-up debate about policy." And: "Giving the Scottish Government power to take these decisions would call Alex Salmond’s bluff."

Which would in turn play into Labour's hands, "Nye Bevan", "James Maxton", "common heritage", "progressive home rule", blah, blah.

But the latter neatly sidesteps the black hole in logic posed by the full fiscal autonomy gig - even if this did militate against Alex Salmond making his tax cutting soundbites a reality, how could the proposed cuts in Scottish public spending be avoided?

Yes, the big unmentionable - borrowing powers.

And how did the UK get into the mess necessitating the cuts in public spending Mr McFadyen complains about in the first place? Yes, the big unmentionable again - borrowing powers. To finance public spending. Gordon Brown's public spending. Labour's public spending. Gordon Brown's and Labour's financial black hole.

Moreover, his suggestion that Salmond and Co would be constrained from tax cuts by a reduction in revenue is a non sequitur when borrowing powers are brought into the equation.

But that a Scottish Government could use borrowing powers to finance tax cuts in the hope that the consequent increased economic activity would lead to increased revenue - thus making the cuts pay for themselves - is perhaps a tad optimistic, as Mr McFadyen himself says: "Even if you believe the Reaganite argument that lowering taxes would attract new companies and generate additional growth in the economy, it would take years to replace the lost revenue."

Indeed, some suggest that the SNP's proposals as regards deep cuts in corporation tax is pie in the sky in that respect, and that's not even considering EU disapproval of this kind of competition between states in relation to tax rates.

But of course we can't forget who else thought that massive public spending increases financed by borrowing could end 'boom and bust' and thus eventually pay for itself.

Until, that is, the economy runs into trouble and the whole creaking edifice of borrowing is in danger of crashing down.

Which necessitates the spending cuts to avoid the country going bankrupt, in turn bringing us back to the start of Mr McFadyen's article. A classic case of déjà vu all over again.

One of Andrew McFadyen's essential points is that full fiscal autonomy would enhance financial responsibility.

But he should have started his piece by outlining the financial irresponsibility that necessitated the spending cuts which instead he conveniently uses as a prelude to making his case.

Thus instead of "the current lack of financial responsibility encouraging a culture of gripe and grievance", his article seems to demonstrate that new Labour's lack of financial responsibility has encouraged a culture of gripe and grievance - blame others for your own Balls ups.