
'Glaswegians are sick and tired of paying more to get less in return'
In Scotland, we are taxed at a UK level but also let's not forget that the devolved parliament at Holyrood has chosen to exercise its tax powers many times.
Unsurprisingly, this has led to a situation in which ordinary hard-working Scots are taxed at a higher level than others in the UK.
I'm not talking about millionaires.
This income tax gap between Scots and their counterparts south of the border is hitting people like retail managers, tradespeople, police officers, nurses and teachers; all of whom, and more, are taxed more than their colleagues in England.
It is for the Scottish people to decide at next year's Holyrood elections if they are happy with this situation, though, in as far as I see, this extra taxation hasn't resulted in any improvement in public services such as education or health.
Glaswegians are sick and tired of paying more to get less in return.
I mention this as a segue into the explanation for my vote in favour of a visitor levy tax in Glasgow at last week's City Administration Committee.
As a Conservative, I don't like to vote for increases in taxes or, just as bad, the introduction of new ones.
However, we have a situation in Scotland where the woeful SNP administration, now nearly two decades old nationally and almost a decade in power here in Glasgow, has taxed hard-working Glaswegians to pip squeaking proportions, while at the same time delivering sub-par services and a city that looks dirty and unloved.
Only in February did the same SNP in cahoots with their far-left Green colleagues increase council tax by an eye-watering 7.5%.
The SNP government, in an attempt to mitigate their own raiding of local authority funding to pay for giveaways, has allowed such council tax increases but also has given councils powers to raise more funding of their own in order to pay for services.
The Visitor Levy is one such scheme, allowing accommodation providers to charge a 5% tax on rooms to those choosing Glasgow as a destination, with the added bonus (for local authorities at least) that the provider will be responsible for the collection and administration of this levy.
My concern has always been that already hard-pressed residents would not find themselves burdened by further taxation.
The LEZ (Low Emission Zone) is proving to be a bit of a pot of gold for this administration, with the promise of a congestion charge to come.
So, it seemed not unreasonable that visitors to Glasgow should pay a contribution to the amenities they enjoy while here.
I received assurances that small businesses would be helped with administration difficulties, and the promise that they would be able to hold on to 1.5% of the take to help cover costs (something the anti-business Greens wanted to remove after a period).
This satisfied me that the "hit" to local businesses, particularly those running small B&Bs as well as Airbnb providers, would not be significant enough to cause harm to their long-term futures with the policy being constantly reviewed.
Opportunists like Reform UK will promise Glaswegians the world but they do not have a plan about how to pay for it.
To Glasgow Conservatives like me, who live in the real world, the lesser of two evils was to vote for a levy on visitors, following the path of cities around the UK and the world.
That way I hope we can minimise some of the damage the SNP have done to our local services and protect the wallets of already way overtaxed Glaswegians.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Herald Scotland
14 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Nicola Sturgeon's legacy changed Scotland – not for the better
There are obvious reasons for that. Her electoral success as First Minister is unimpeachable (save for a slight setback in the 2017 general election). Her UK-wide popularity, which started with her role in the Brexit referendum and peaked during the Covid pandemic, was surely higher than any of us imagined a Scottish nationalist leader's could be. The breakdown in her relationship with Alex Salmond and the circumstances surrounding it constitutes a political soap opera more salacious than anything the UK has seen in my lifetime. Read More: Her own arrest and that of her husband, the latter of whose case is ongoing, was jaw-dropping. And, of course there was gender recognition legislation, hammered through the Parliament at a time where dissent was a rarity, and perhaps the clearest indicator that Ms Sturgeon's hitherto ultra-sensitive public radar had diminished. It would be easy to identify any of these areas and claim it as Ms Sturgeon's legacy, and I am certain that her supporters and detractors will do just that. Some of her fanbase, many members of which remain at the heart of government, will cite her handling of Covid as her legacy. Her opponents inside nationalism will cite her role in the defenestration of Alex Salmond, and her detractors outside the movement will more likely reference the gender recognition debacle. In the final analysis, however, her real, enduring legacy is none of those things. Her enduring legacy is something far less superficially interesting; something far less likely to make the front page of a newspaper. No, by the end of this decade we will see Nicola Sturgeon's legacy as a decisive shift in Scottish public policy to the ideological left. This strategic philosophical change has stayed with us, and has permeated into the agendas of her successors Humza Yousaf (who didn't want to change it) and John Swinney (who, with his Deputy Kate Forbes, is experiencing how difficult it is to put the egg back in the shell). Whether or not this ideological movement is good news or bad news is largely in the eye of the beholder. Those on the left of the SNP, and of course those in Ms Sturgeon's coalition partners, the Greens, will celebrate this legacy. And so they should. Centrist and centrist-right economic policy, and a public service reform agenda, have been successfully neutered. I must say, though, that this is not an opinion I share, and however laudable the policy intention, during the next term of Parliament the chickens will come home to roost in a number of areas. Take schooling. The education establishment has spent the last decade obsessed (not too strong a word) with 'closing the attainment gap'. Nobody has questioned whether more homogenous attainment is good for the country (it isn't). And more importantly everyone has looked the other way when they have seen attempts to close the attainment gap in action. In schools all over Scotland, the method of closing the gap is not to raise the level of those at the bottom, but to suppress the level of those at the top. This happens every day, in every Scottish state school, and I have been witnessing it first hand for a decade. Together with the collapse in knowledge as part of the Scottish curriculum, the rejection of an excellence agenda is having a dramatic impact. This impact is most succinctly displayed by the international PISA data, which has recorded constant absolute and relative declines in Scottish educational performance in reading, maths and science. The impact is being felt by universities, with multiple anecdotal evidence that Scottish students are having to be placed, in effect, in remedial classes to catch up with British and international peers. And the impact will be felt by Scottish employers and the Scottish economy, the future of which is the children currently at school. Education is hardly the only example. The NHS is a poor service, with poor outcomes, swallowing up an eye-watering volume of public money, all over the UK. Quietly, though, the service in England is adapting to financial and demographic inevitabilities by working much more closely with private providers to expand capacity, reduce waiting lists, and improve outcomes. This will ultimately improve public health and therefore economic productivity … in England. In Scotland, we are not working with the private sector, and appear unwilling to make the obvious arguments for so doing. This is a policy decision driven by a leftist, anti-private sector agenda. High income taxes which we know prevent high taxpayers coming to Scotland, when we need a higher tax base. Rent caps, which we know prevent investment to alleviate the housing shortage. A presumption against building out our trunk roads, which is a humiliating skeleton of a network by European standards. And of course a presumption against oil and gas, which is losing us the investment and the workers we need to exploit our renewables potential. All policy decisions, all framed by this decisive move to the left expertly executed by Ms Sturgeon. I am far from blind to Ms Sturgeon's abilities or accomplishments, or indeed her ability to make good calls. I was heartened, for instance, to read that she opposed the release of the Lockerbie bomber, which I still regard as the most reprehensible decision taken by any government since devolution. Furthermore, although bandwagons are easy to jump on, I have always liked Nicola Sturgeon in my personal interactions with her. I continue to judge her by those, and therefore my personal feelings towards her are unchanged. However she and I come from a different place on the ideological spectrum. That is how I judge her legacy now and, as should always be the case in politics, that is how history will judge her, too. Andy Maciver is Founding Director of Message Matters, and co-host of the Holyrood Sources podcast


South Wales Guardian
41 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Green leadership hopefuls set out fight for frustrated Labour supporters' votes
The party's incumbent co-leader Adrian Ramsay, who is running jointly with North Herefordshire MP Ellie Chowns, called for a 'bold and practical' strategy which puts the Greens' 'wilderness years' behind them. Challenging them, Mr Ramsay's current deputy Zack Polanski claimed 'bold messaging at the national level' had been 'missing' from his party's high offices. Green Party members began voting on August 1 and are halfway through the process, with polls closing on August 30. 'One of our top priorities, absolutely, is winning over support from people who are utterly disillusioned with Labour,' Mr Ramsay told the PA news agency. 'But there will also be people from other parts of the political spectrum who are also feeling politically homeless, deeply care about the environment, want to see our services restored. 'And in the era of politics that we're now in, there are so many people who don't think about politics in old left-right terms, and we need to be the ones that are showing what Greens stand for – for social justice and for a liveable future for people and planet.' Mr Ramsay, the Waveney Valley MP, said the Greens under his leadership would move to tackle 'inequality and poverty, the decline of our public services, the degradation of our natural environment and the threat of climate breakdown'. Mr Polanski said his party was 'here ultimately to replace the Labour Government'. The London City Hall member said: 'In the same way that Reform have really made the Tories collapse, I think there's a huge space for the Green left in this country to galvanise and to take votes away, and to say that we don't have to take second-best and actually you can have a party that's unapologetic about its values – that will stand up for migration, that will stand up for the poorest communities, and will take the fight to wealth and power.' He added: 'Alongside the Labour Government, of course, Reform are a huge issue for the entire country. 'But I think the problem is a Labour Party pretending to be that antidote to Reform whereas they're just mimicking them. 'And if people want Reform-lite policies, then they'll just vote Reform.' Under Mr Ramsay's co-leadership with Carla Denyer, with Mr Polanski as their deputy, the party gained 241 council seats in 2023, and picked up a further 74 last year. The Green Party also secured four seats at the general election. Mr Polanski pledged to 'continue' with existing efforts but added: 'What has been missing, though, is the bold messaging at the national level, and we need to make sure that before we've even knocked on a door or someone's picked up a leaflet, they already know that the Green Party stand for so much more than the environment. 'Now, the environment is really important to us, it will remain really important to us, but this is about lowering bills, rent controls, making sure that we're funding our public services and taxing the super-wealthy, all measures that are increasingly popular.' Mr Ramsay warned that Mr Polanski's language was aimed at 'the 'progressive activist' section of the public', who were already convinced by the party's messaging. He added: 'Having that credibility alongside the distinctive Green policies that we're putting forward is so crucial and it's what's taken us out of the wilderness years that the Green Party was in in my early time in the party. 'I've been in the party 27 years. People used to say, 'Well, I like what you stand for but can you really win? Can you really take on these positions and make a real impact? 'We've demonstrated that now and we've got to continue that route of continuing to build our impact and continuing to build on a record-breaking success and a record-breaking strategy.' Mr Ramsay said he was 'concerned about the Green Party going down a populist route, given that populism relies on polarising and divisiveness'. Mr Polanski said: 'The idea that eco-populism is divisive is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is I'm talking about, which is the 99% versus the 1%. 'Now that 1% are corporations who are destroying our environment, destroying our democracy and destroying our communities, so if it's divisive, it's where the division already is, which is between the super-rich and then everyone else who is working hard with their hands and their brain.' Ms Denyer, the Bristol Central MP, is not standing for a leadership role.


The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
Tax the rich more to fill black hole in public finances, Labour members tell Starmer
Sir Keir Starmer is under growing pressure to introduce a wealth tax to fill a black hole in public finances, after new polling shows almost all Labour members back the move. The prime minister has been urged to adopt a 'radical change of direction' after a survey, shared exclusively with The Independent, showed that 91 per cent of party members think the government should tax the rich more. It comes after deputy prime minister Angela Rayner pressed Rachel Reeves to consider eight wealth taxes rather than impose cuts on departments in a leaked memo earlier this year. Former shadow chancellor Anneliese Dodds also weighed in, backing a wealth tax and warning that spending cuts will not 'deliver the kind of fiscal room that is necessary'. It comes amid mounting questions over how the government will raise the money to fill the black hole in the public finances left by a series of major U-turns and spending commitments, with the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) – a leading economic think tank – last month warning the chancellor is facing a £41.2bn shortfall. Ministers have already squeezed their departmental funding in cuts unveiled at last month's spending review, meaning most expect the chancellor will have no choice but to raise taxes instead. The polling, conducted by Survation for Compass, also found 84 per cent of Labour members want the government should end the two-child benefit cap – a policy which is increasingly unpopular among Labour MPs. Former Labour MP Jon Cruddas, founder of Labour Together and a former policy coordinator for Labour minister Ed Miliband, told The Independent:"The danger now is that the leadership are way out of step with the membership and potentially the country in terms of the policies needed to head off Reform." He added: "These are exactly the ideas we tested at Labour Together and are the basis for winning and transforming the country. The leadership should be listening to members – not out-of-touch factions." Neal Lawson, director of Compass, said the polling showed that Sir Keir Starmer 's 'fence-sitting and aping of Reform's rhetoric isn't wanted'. 'The government were elected on a promise of 'a decade of national renewal' and so far they've tried to cut welfare for disabled people and suspended the whip from MPs who disagreed. 'Party members think what the general public think - that Labour offered change and now simply has to deliver on it. Without a big reset, then the keys to Number 10 are being handed to Reform and Nigel Farage', he added. Last year, just months after Labour took office, the whip was stripped from seven MPs – including former shadow chancellor John McDonnell – for voting against the cap. And in July, the prime minister also suspended Rachael Maskell, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman and Chris Hinchliff from the party for voting against the government's controversial welfare cuts. The polling indicated Sir Keir's party membership thinks he has been too heavy-handed on party discipline, with some 74 per cent believing that challenging the government on controversial legislation should not result in the suspension. It comes amid growing concern over the direction of Sir Keir's government from voters on both the left and the right, with the prime minister's approval rating hitting an all-time low last month. John McDonnell, who served as Jeremy Corbyn's shadow chancellor and lost the Labour whip last year, told The Independent that the survey 'confirms how starkly out of touch Keir Starmer is'. 'It's time for Keir not just to start listening to people beyond the Westminster bubble but also taking some decisive action. All people are saying to him is to behave like a Labour prime minister should', he added. Meanwhile, left-wing MP Rachael Maskell – who led the rebellion against the government's welfare cuts and is strongly in favour of a wealth tax – said it shows that party members are 'clearly attuned to the injustices that they see in their communities'. As Sir Keir embarks on his second year in office, Ms Maskell said the government should ensure the agenda is 'marked by progressive tax policies to be invested in public services and community priorities'. Labour MP Richard Burgon, who was stripped of the whip last year, said the party must 'urgently change course'. 'Unless the Labour leadership completely changes its approach, it will continue to lose support and will open the doors for a Reform government. 'Instead of ignoring Labour members and punishing MPs who stand up for their constituents, the Labour leadership should start listening — and urgently change course', he said. A Labour spokesperson said they do not comment on polling, but added: 'Labour's urgent task when we took office was to fix the foundations after 14 years of Tory chaos. Our next priority is to create a fairer Britain for working people.' 'Through our plan for change we have already boosted the minimum wage for three million of the lowest paid, we're rolling out free school meals, and we're delivering free breakfast clubs for primary school children. 'The stability we've brought to the economy has also seen five interest rate cuts, which means homebuyers now pay £1,000 less on their mortgage than they were a year ago. There's much more to do, but that's the change this Labour government has started to deliver after 14 years of Tory decline', the spokesperson added. The polling surveyed 1,024 party members between August 5 and 6.