THERE is much to unpack from the fallout of David Cameron’s confession on Thursday night.
He told ITN news, after days of dodging and denying, that he did in fact at one point hold shares in a Panama-based offshore company owned by his late father.
Before we can even begin to tackle the morality of tax avoidance for the super rich, quite simply, Cameron misled the public.
As Jeremy Corbyn said last night: “It took five weasel-worded statements in five days for the Prime Minister to admit that he has personally profited from an undeclared Caribbean tax haven investment deal.
“Once again the message has gone out that there is one rule for the wealthy and another for the rest of us.”
Again and again, the Prime Minister was asked about his connection to offshore trusts, he dismissed it as a private matter, then he gave, what he called, “a very clear description”, before admitting to owning “stocks and shares in the past”, including the 5,000 units in his father’s company Blairmore, sold in 2010.
This morning thousands are expected to turn up at the gate to Downing Street and call for Cameron to resign.
In the House of Commons politicians from all parties, bar his own, are demanding he make a statement when parliament resumes on Monday.
If last week has taught us anything it is that tax avoidance is incredibly common place.
The ethics of this practice aren’t just about what they take away from the UK’s exchequer, but what impact they also have on other, poorer countries.
The United Nations estimates that companies using tax havens in their corporate structures cost developing countries $100bn a year.
There are 15 companies for every person living in the British Virgin Islands.
It is a murky world not far from criminality and morally and ethically uncomfortable.
The British public have lost trust in their Prime Minister, indeed Yougov say his approval ratings are now at their lowest level since July 2013 and are for the first time lower than Jeremy Corbyn’s.
He could start restoring the public’s trust by acting decisively on tax avoidance.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here