MAIL COMMENT: Scotland vs England: a dangerous game

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond is playing a canny wee game by promising to scrap council tax and replace it with a local income tax north of the border.

Of course, little is likely to come of it. The LibDems, on whose support his nationalist government depends, are unlikely to back a centralising measure which would rob local authorities of control over their finances.

Meanwhile, the Treasury in Whitehall could scupper the plan at a stroke by refusing to carry on paying the  £400million it contributes to Scottish authorities through Council Tax Benefit.

But none of this matters to Machiavellian Mr Salmond. Indeed, it would suit his purposes to a T if he could blame the Government in England for frustrating what he claims are the wishes of the people of Scotland.

No. This Bill, with all the immense difficulties it would cause - particularly for hard-working middle-class couples - is not really intended to succeed.

It is meant to rattle Gordon Brown and the Labour Party - already in total disarray, both north and south of the border - and to infuriate the put-upon people of England. As usual, they'd be the ones expected to pick up the extra bills.

Isn't this what motivates almost everything Mr Salmond has done since he came to power?

Every populist measure he introduces - from free hospital parking to exemption from up-front university tuition fees - is designed to widen the differences and encourage bitterness between England and Scotland, with a view to a split.

Of course, it's easy enough to play these games while Scotland can rely on lavish subsidies from the rest of the kingdom.

But what if Mr Salmond's dream of independence were to come true? The consequences would be miserable for all of us - but most of all for the Scots.

Mr Salmond's game may be canny enough. But it's also highly dangerous - and nobody, on either side of the border, should play along.

You're right, Darling

Taxpayers should be deeply nervous of the proposal, said to be backed by Gordon Brown, that the state underwrite mortgages worth  £40billion.

The aim of breathing life into the housing market is worthy enough.

But this plan would expose every one of us to the risk of having to pay the private debts of the spendthrift. And wouldn't it encourage precisely the sort of reckless and unscrupulous lending that caused the credit crunch in the first place?

The Mail has always acknowledged Mr Brown's virtues. But we've never been slow, either, to highlight his besetting vice - his old-fashioned socialist belief that state intervention is the answer to all life's problems.

Chancellor Alistair Darling is said to be hotly opposed to the scheme. For once, he is right.

A wasted year?

Apart from massaging the jobless figures, what exactly does the Government hope to achieve by forcing today's 11-year-olds to stay in education or training until they are 17?

Not only will this increase the pressure on already hard-pressed teachers by saddling them for an extra year with their most reluctant pupils - the very ones who benefit least from education. It will also bore and irritate thousands of teenagers who would be happier looking for work.

Our education system has quite enough problems to put right for the under-16s - from illiteracy and over-examination to devalued qualifications and endless interference from target-obsessed Whitehall. It is folly to pile on more.