In the Record today:

Nicola Sturgeon can avoid paying the new higher rate of tax announced in the budget despite earning up to £300,000 from a book deal. The former First Minister set up a company to manage the income from her lucrative deal with publishers Pan Macmillan earlier this year. Sturgeon is the sole director of the firm which will be subject to just 19 per cent corporation tax on any profits it makes rather than the new 45 per cent rate set by the SNP/Green government in last week’s budget. Scottish Conservative chairman Craig Hoy MSP said: “Everyone already assumed that Nicola Sturgeon had set up a company to handle the proceeds of her book deal to avoid the taxes that she was happy to pile on hard-working Scots.
“But now that her successor Humza Yousaf has piled on yet more taxes, she looks to gain even more. Instead of the new 45 per cent rate of tax her company will only be charged at 19 per cent corporation tax on any profit. If she then pays herself via a dividend she’ll also make huge savings.

“It’s another instance of the rules applying to anyone but her. Scots will be furious that she is avoiding this liability, when the new taxes are paying for the black hole her policies created in Scotland’s finances.”

Three things.

First, that £300k would take her income up to around £367 000 so:

Companies in Scotland must pay UK Corporation Tax on profits. The main rate of Corporation Tax is 25% for companies with profits of £250,000 or more – this applies to all profits. A Small Profits Rate of 19% will exist for Companies with profits of £50,000 or less.

https://www.sdi.co.uk/business-in-scotland/setting-up-your-business/business-tax#:~:text=Find%20out%20about%20tax%20requirements,Revenue%20%26%20Customs%20(HMRC).

Second, Craig Hoy:

In 2023, he sold a flat worth £150K and has £35K in shares in Asia, dividend not declared. Does he have a wee company for that income too?

Third, the Record writer Hannah Rodger.

In 2020

Upset by twitter ‘abuse’, Herald’s Hannah Rodger petulantly insists on her right to fake the news again

Yesterday, in the Herald, Professor Bauld is headlined as saying something like this:

Scientists have ‘no idea’ where the evidence for some Scottish Government lockdown decisions is coming from.

She did say something like that but only well into the session and only after she was persuaded by the wheedling questions from Alberto Costa (Conservative), pressing her to think of just one example where the Scottish Government’s decision-making had been less transparent.

After numerous earlier statements praising the Scottish Government’s transparency by her and by the other witnesses, Professor Bauld, hesitating, came up with a concern about the timing details of particular elements of the loosening of the lock-down.

With respect, this looked to me, like a classic case of the otherwise highly intelligent and honest academic’s admirable lack of political intelligence when being probed by an experienced and devious professional.

So, while Bauld did say what Rodger chose to open with, that does not in anyway, meaningfully or accurately capture the essence of what was being said by Professor Bauld and by the other three academics, in this meeting and it is that essence that the reader should have, unless the writer has an agenda to deceive them.

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a9db3cd7-ad46-4d90-95fc-2c4221687c80

Now, I seem to remember that this has happened before, recently. In a previous example of dissembling, or bias by selection and by omission, Rodger, was attacked by some angry twitterati and complained of abusive responses.

I can find no trace of the exchange and while I condemn any such behaviour, it does seem strange that Rodger should be indulging in the same kind of dishonesty that might trigger further anger and perhaps, more inexcusable, abusive, comment. It looks like the kind of petulant, stubborn, behaviour, parents will recognise.

Or does Rodger invite abusive comment to further promote herself? It’s just business?