Laurie Macfarlane

Andy Haldane and Will Hutton argue that we can have public control over water without public ownership. The key is to create new privately owned “public-benefit companies”. But there are some issues with this argument.🧵

The public-benefit firms probably could be designed to sit off balance sheet, but this would mean giving up most meaningful aspects of public control. It would be “public control” in name only.

Andy Haldane and Will Hutton argue that we can have public control over water without public ownership. The key is to create new privately owned “public-benefit companies”. But there are some issues with this argument.🧵

They also propose radical changes to water firm governance, constitutions, pay, etc. Again the ONS would examine these very seriously as signs of public control, particularly when combined with a golden share. And public control = public sector, even if it’s privately owned.

Andy Haldane and Will Hutton argue that we can have public control over water without public ownership. The key is to create new privately owned “public-benefit companies”. But there are some issues with this argument.🧵

One mechanism they propose is for the state to retain golden shares in the new firms. But when the ONS classifies bodies as public or private, it’s control - not ownership - that matters. The existence of a golden share is viewed as a form of public control.

Andy Haldane and Will Hutton argue that we can have public control over water without public ownership. The key is to create new privately owned “public-benefit companies”. But there are some issues with this argument.🧵

Their main argument against nationalisation is that firms won’t be run efficiently, citing post-war examples. But you don’t need to look far to see this isn’t true. Scottish Water is publicly owned and run reasonably well. Public ownership of water is the norm globally.

I’m honoured to have been appointed to Scotland’s third Just Transition Commission. Scotland stands at a critical juncture in its transition to a net zero economy, and over the next five years ambition must be matched by delivery. 🧵

Crucially, a just transition isn't just about emissions reduction – it necessitates a broader transformation to create an economy that is fairer and more sustainable by design. Climate, economic and social policy are not separate domains, but fundamentally interconnected and mutually dependent.

I recently published a critique of @danneidle.bsky.social's claim that Scotland’s 48% tax reduced revenue. Dan has now updated his analysis in response, arguing it doesn't invalidate his findings. I don’t think he resolves the central problem – here’s why. 🧵

Read the full response on the @futureeconscot.bsky.social website: www.futureeconomy.scot/posts/589-a-...

I recently published a critique of @danneidle.bsky.social's claim that Scotland’s 48% tax reduced revenue. Dan has now updated his analysis in response, arguing it doesn't invalidate his findings. I don’t think he resolves the central problem – here’s why. 🧵

At the end of the day, Dan is making the specific claim that the reforms lost £22m. The burden is therefore on him to justify the assumptions required to reach that figure. We don't need to prove a particular non-tax driver to show that the £22m loss isn't very credible.

I recently published a critique of @danneidle.bsky.social's claim that Scotland’s 48% tax reduced revenue. Dan has now updated his analysis in response, arguing it doesn't invalidate his findings. I don’t think he resolves the central problem – here’s why. 🧵

To be clear: this doesn't prove that the tax increases raised revenue. We don’t know the true division between tax drivers and other forces. But this uncertainty cuts both ways: it also means the evidence doesn't support a £22m loss – or even that there was any loss at all.

I recently published a critique of @danneidle.bsky.social's claim that Scotland’s 48% tax reduced revenue. Dan has now updated his analysis in response, arguing it doesn't invalidate his findings. I don’t think he resolves the central problem – here’s why. 🧵

We can also present this sensitivity using the tax bases implied by Dan's revenue figures. On this basis, if non-tax factors explain more than 14% of the divergence, the revenue loss vanishes. Crucially, there is only a £22m loss if we assume tax drives 100% of the divergence.

I recently published a critique of @danneidle.bsky.social's claim that Scotland’s 48% tax reduced revenue. Dan has now updated his analysis in response, arguing it doesn't invalidate his findings. I don’t think he resolves the central problem – here’s why. 🧵

Extrapolating this, the 1.2% is crudely equivalent to around 9% of the 13 point gap in top income growth between Scotland and rUK. In other words: tax could still account for c90% of the divergence and the alleged “revenue loss” would still disappear. This is the key point.

I recently published a critique of @danneidle.bsky.social's claim that Scotland’s 48% tax reduced revenue. Dan has now updated his analysis in response, arguing it doesn't invalidate his findings. I don’t think he resolves the central problem – here’s why. 🧵

Dan’s tests show that the latest divergence was statistically unusual (but only just). This strengthens the case that tax contributed. But “unusual” doesn’t mean “entirely caused by tax”. The tests don't tell us what share was caused by tax versus other factors we know exist.

I recently published a critique of @danneidle.bsky.social's claim that Scotland’s 48% tax reduced revenue. Dan has now updated his analysis in response, arguing it doesn't invalidate his findings. I don’t think he resolves the central problem – here’s why. 🧵

Dan’s £22m estimate assumes that, without Scotland’s higher tax rates, Scottish top incomes would have grown in line with rUK. He then assumes that 100% of the divergence from that counterfactual is tax-related. This is a big assumption.

I recently published a critique of @danneidle.bsky.social's claim that Scotland’s 48% tax reduced revenue. Dan has now updated his analysis in response, arguing it doesn't invalidate his findings. I don’t think he resolves the central problem – here’s why. 🧵

You can read our full response here. Before reading it, I’d recommend reading both our original critique and Dan’s constructive response (link to both in the article): His response makes several fair points – but it also subtly reframes the debate. Some key points ⬇️

ICYMI: Last week @danneidle.bsky.social made headlines by claiming that Scotland’s 48% top rate had reduced revenue. My long critique argues his analysis proves nothing of the sort 👇