You can get The National's Real Scottish Politics newsletter free and direct to your inbox every weekday.
ANDY Burnham is in a difficult spot over his plans to change the triple lock on pensions.
The proposals, announced during his speech at the Labour conference on Tuesday as a way of funding his social care plans, drew backlash from one of the UK’s leading unions, Unite.
Sharon Graham, Unite general secretary, said that the Labour leader should be looking towards taxing the super-rich rather than axing the triple lock, going so far as to describe the move as “morally wrong”.
This presents an awkward dilemma for Burnham: If more money is needed to fund public services, why should pensioners be asked to contribute before the wealthiest in society?
That argument has long occupied a central place in Scottish politics.
For years, the debate at Holyrood has been framed around the idea that those with the broadest shoulders should carry a greater share of the burden.
Whether this is through higher and additional income tax bands, or broader discussions around progressive taxation, Holyrood has generally been more willing than recent Westminster governments to argue that ability to pay should be reflected in the tax system.
Crucially, this argument is rarely framed as a “punishment” for success. Instead, ministers have presented higher taxation as something which supports public services while also protecting those on lower incomes.
Whether voters agree with this approach is ultimately a matter of politics. What is clear is that the principle of progressive taxation is more familiar in Scottish political discourse than it is in Westminster.
Labour leaders have historically worried that progressive taxation would lead to accusations of being hostile or anti-business.
Instead of looking towards taxing wealth, Labour have turned to spending cuts or slashing benefits as a solution, which have only served to make them more unpopular in the polls.
Of course, there is only so much the Scottish Government can do within the limited powers of devolution. Holyrood cannot significantly reform capital gains tax, inheritance tax or many of the mechanisms campaigners often look towards when discussing wealth inequality.
But at least it appears as though Holyrood is willing to engage in this discussion.
Introducing a genuine tax on the super-rich could be an easy political win for Burnham, particularly as public attitudes continue to shift in favour of taxing wealth amid the housing crisis, the cost of living crisis and widening inequality.
Burnham has signalled an era of change for the Labour Party. Perhaps he should start by looking towards Scotland, where we have been having this conversation for years.
