Seriously, is that all it takes? Astonishing to see that the LibDems and Labour have voted to support the SNP budget, and got so very little in return.

I had hoped that the price of buying the LibDems and Labour off would have cost more than the £11million extra that the Scottish Greens were asking for over the £20million that the SNP were offering. However, it seems that you can buy the entire Scottish LibDems for not much more than wishy washy commitments to participate in the Calman Commission and a toothless financial sector review.

What do the LibDems gain from this? After the tough stance Tavish took on the 2p tax cut issue in the first round of negotiations, what was he thinking when he decided to roll over for Alex in the 2nd round? I just don't get it at all. Unless Tavish has made a secret back room deal, it seems to me that the LibDems have just made themselves even more irrelevent to Scottish politics.

At least Labour got £7million quid out the SNP for more apprenticeships. However, given the number of MSPs they have £7million quid seems like very little - albeit that the SNP have made a commitment for a further £7million next year. It at least means that Labour can claim they got something tangible out of Swinney, and I've no doubt that the 'more apprenticeships' with Labour message will play well to the core vote. However, the £7million was won at the expense of the Greens.

The Greens may have lost this battle, but who'd have thought that Labour and the LibDems would be so easily bought? I don't blame Patrick Harvie for gambling that his proposals would always be cheaper to fund than the other opposition parties.

I still think that the Greens have the most coherent response to the credit crunch, and every single person who lives in fuel poverty, or in a hard to heat home, many of whom probably live in a 'traditional Labour voting area,' should reflect on whether £7million worth of extra apprenticeships is really all that voting Labour means, when voting Green could've meant that every single household in Scotland would benefit from housing that is cheaper to heat and better for the planet.  Not to mention the jobs - and training opportunities - that would have been created by funding the Greens proposals.

Still, the Greens may have lost the battle, but in a sense they won the war because they stuck to their principles. The SNP have shown themselves up as well, more fond of the roads and house building lobbies than doing anything green when the chips are down. If there is any silver lining from this whole sorry mess, at least there is now clear 'Green water' between the Greens and any other party that may try to steal their clothes.

It's interesting to see prominent cybernats like SNP Tactical Voting and Scots and Independent both trying to rebutt the points made in this Scotsman article highlighting the problems with the SNP's LIT proposals. It is fair to say that some of the 25 points in the article aren't worth taking seriously. However, there are some very valid criticisms.

Firstly, the SNP proposals to levy a 3% tax on income uniformly throughout the country can hardly be described as local. The SNP say it is a tax to fund local services, but let's face it, it won't raise enough money to fund local services in itself, it won't be collected locally, and so people won't perceive any difference between this extra 3% taken out of their pay packets, and the proportion of income tax, VAT or NI that supports local services.

 If we must have a Local Income Tax, I'd much rather it was set locally. This is primarily because it will strengthen local democracy and accountability at local authority level. The SNP can hardly complain that they would like more tax raising/varying powers for Holyrood on one day to Westminster on the basis that they cannot serve their electorate and respond flexibly to the 'unique situation in Scotland' without these powers, and then on the next day deny that our locally elected officials would not benefit from similar powers locally. If it is 'fair' to set taxes at Holyrood, why not locally or indeed at Westminster?

In principle, Greens argue for devolution of powers and responsibilities to the most local level possible. This strengthens local democracy, and gives responsibility to local authorities and elected officials. Greens would obviously prefer a Land Value Tax set locally, rather than a Local Income Tax. 

The other big problem I have with a Local Income Tax, is that it does nothing to support 'hard working families' that most political parties claim to want to support. It may be true that 85% of people will be better off under the SNP proposals because they plan to subsidise the tax centrally. Whilst this makes me wonder what the SNP would need to cut, if they were going to implement their 3% LIT, a quick chat down the pub last night really bought it home to me who 15% who will be worse off are. 

Basically, the worse off are going to be households like mine and my pals. We all have (proportionally to our income) massive mortgages and probably negative equity, tiny flats or houses, both grown ups work in reasonable jobs, one or more children (with correspondingly high child care costs), student loans to pay back, and we are being squeezed by commodity prices rises. We don't have much flexibility to pay more tax, but we will because our households have higher than average earned incomes, even though we have high, pretty unavoidable, outgoings too. 

Now, this contrasts with an older acquaintance of mine. They have two massive homes. One in the city, one in the country. One of them works. In short they're minted. They probably have lots of unearned income. They are lovely. They would benefit massively from LIT, because they hardly have any earned income, relative to their total wealth. As they said to me the other day, 'Tax avoidance is fine and we'd be stupid not to do it. Tax evasion, now that's illegal.' LIT will be an easy tax for the rich to avoid. 

So, my assessemnt of the consequences of the SNP LIT proposals: Great for workless households, great for posh people. Terrible for the lower middle classes. 

The council tax does need to go. It is also unfair. LIT may be more equitable. However, one of the main reasons why a Land Value Tax, as proposed by the Greens, seems fairer to me, is because it would squeeze the right people. The rich would not be able to avoid LVT, because you can't hide land, or offset it, or stick it offshore somewhere.  

If I was a politician, I'd be thinking seriously about which part of the population is most inclined to vote in elections, and what proportion of them would be worse off by my tax proposals. It might make some core SNP voters think again.  

In a brilliant piece of East Glasgow scare mongering John Mason shows that he’s made of sterner moral fibre than the rest saying "I am coming from a faith community background and I am extremely unhappy about any experiments on babies or research, or anything like that."

That’s right John, evil scientists are being given the green light by Labour to experiment on the unborn children of Glasgow East, and only you can stop them. Let's not discuss how propertly regulated research could save the lives of lots of babies in Glasgow East in years to come. Rather than take the harder route of trying to explain how important scientific research is, John Mason chooses the dog whistle politics of religion. Cheap. Really Cheap. And irresponsible.

As an apathetic agnostic, I’m keen on the idea of keeping a big wide separation between the state and religion. After all, one is mumbo jumbo and the other is, er religion.

That’s why I was disappointed with Alex Salmond when he backed the idea of a state funded Muslim state school. A retrograde step, when we should be looking to close down all faith schools and merge them with the rest. They just divide us.

However, it seems there is no end to the populist opportunism of the SNP. Guided as they are by nothing else other than a single minded desire to break up the UK, it would seem that no pressure group can be ignored, even if their demands are based on superstition and hysterical fear mongering. Maybe one day the SNP will succeed in realising an independent Scotland, but if they do I wonder whether it'll be a more divided, backward looking Scotland too.

And as for what Cllr Mason says on sustainable transport....two doctors has got that covered. Whilst I'm not trying to ensure that my byelection prediction comes true by taking shots at the SNP (honest), this guy is not fit for Glasgow City Chambers, nevermind Westminster.