Post-crisis rescue
Some early Scottish reaction to Alistair Darling's PBR.
Jim Murphy, the Scottish Secretary, reckons it's worth some £2bn to Scotland from the cuts in VAT etc. He calculates that at £275 per average family.
Others, you will not be surprised to learn, are more inclined to sum up the longer term impact of higher borrowing, spending constraints and, perhaps in particular, that proposed increase of 0.5% in National Insurance.
For the SNP, John Swinney, the finance secretary in the Scottish Government, broadly welcomed the fiscal stimulus package, including the VAT move.
He also welcomed the acceleration of capital investment south of the Border, with the proviso that his administration will be able, in talks with the Treasury, to follow suit.
This, he promised, would be investigated.
But he was discomfited by the proposal to reduce spending in Whitehall through further efficiency savings - because of the potential impact on Scotland.
Budget 'con'
You see, Barnett doesn't just work one day. If English spending rises, then comparable Scottish spending also increases.
However, if English spending falls . . . well, you get the concept.
So proposals to cut £5bn from English expenditure through further efficiency savings could, Mr Swinney reckons, trim some £500m from the Scottish block in 2010/11.
The Tories in Scotland went on all-out attack, taking their line from George Osborne that this is a budget "con" which will result in hugely increased borrowing.
For the Liberal Democrats, Alistair Carmichael warned that the package would fail to restore confidence.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We are, of course, eagerly awaiting the . Perhaps we might find an alternative name for the gig.
Pre-Budget Report doesn't quite do it. Post-crisis rescue seems more appropriate.
Couple of points in advance.
Given that government ministers have repeatedly argued that the crisis is globally sourced, presumably they will not suggest the rescue can be driven by the UK alone.
To be fair, I do not expect the chancellor will follow that path. However, I also believe we require to tone down the expectations - and the rhetoric.
This IS a global crisis. One might argue over the contribution or otherwise of UK policies.
But we should be careful not to ascribe too much importance to one element of the global response.
Yes, it is vital for the UK economy to prepare itself to resist recession as much as possible.
However, there will be factors well beyond any UK fiscal stimulus affecting the longer-term health of that economy.
Secondly, it will be important to place the various anticipated measures this afternoon into the correct category.
Two biggies have been disclosed so far: first, an expected cut in VAT and a warning, revealed by my esteemed colleague Nick Robinson (nice one, Nick), that higher earners would pay more, should Labour win a subsequent UK General Election.
The first, the cut in VAT, is aimed at generating a fiscal stimulus: the hope that folk will sustain expenditure if prices in the shops are reduced.
The second is a political manoeuvre, aimed primarily at the Tories.
Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown are signalling a decisive break from Labour's previous pledge that neither basic nor upper tax rates would be increased.
They are doing so for two reasons. Firstly, that currency has already been debased.
That ship has sailed. The tax rates may not have gone up - but do people believe there has not been an increase in the overall burden of taxation, including National Insurance?
Secondly, it poses a challenge to the Tories - who had urged Labour to spell out how the interim measures would be funded in the longer term.
Mr Darling will now say: by an increase in the imposition on upper earners. Never mind that critics say this would not recoup the cost of his interim measures.
The Chancellor is inviting the public - and the Tories - to judge the package as a whole.
He is inviting the Tories to talk themselves into a position where they oppose th measures - and hence defend maintaining the present tax position of those earning the most in society.
Not, frankly, a comfortable position for any party - and particularly for a Conservative Party which is designed to shed any lingering image of supporting those with wealth and privilege.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.