The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

It also depends on what kind of government the people elect. An hypothetical iScotland would, on balance of probability, elect a Centre-Left coalition government to Holyrood every time using AM voting.

EDIT: iScotland's political Centre would probably be a bit further Left than where it is at the moment in UK terms.

Of course it would. Simply looking at past election results will show that.

Neil will however be along shortly to tell us that the SNP are a right wing party contrary to what all but the craziest of observer's are saying

[LJS]

Could a currency union work under such circumstances ? There would have to be built in deal breakers such as agreed deficit levels. The hypothetical iScotland might not see much social change for the first few years. Or it might. What do I know ?

Of course it could - and yes it would inevitably come with strings attached. The problem is the three UK parties are using it as a crude campaigning tool and may well box themselves into such a corner that they cannot alter their position after a yes vote.

My guess is that the average English voter hasn't given a lot of though to the pros & cons of a currency Union and it will only when they realise that it is their government that is to blame for them having to change their money before going to TITP, or the Edinburgh Festival or to visit their Granny in Falkirk that they will care much about it.

It remains my view that this is short sighted politics & may come back to bite them. They could probably have got as much political capital out of saying that a Currency Union whilst not impossible would mean some hard choices for iScotland. But it looks as though they panicked & went all out for a no, nay never approach. It doesn't appear to have worked ....as yet anyway. There is an argument that the Armageddon tactics are effective in keeping hold of current No voters & let's face it that is all they have to do - Oh & get them out the house to vote too.

In my opinion, the SNP was unwise to put all their eggs in the Poundland basket. They would have been better to keep their options open.

[Buff124]

In my opinion, the SNP was unwise to put all their eggs in the Poundland basket. They would have been better to keep their options open.

Well they are a Gradualist party, who back in 2011 seemed genuinely surprised to be in a position to call a referendum at all, after only one term in power at Holyrood.

As Gradualists, the White Paper being Devo Max Version 1.x is consistent with that approach. I don't think that rUk would find an iScotland Govt led by the SNP too difficult a partner in a CU.

But would hypothetical iScotland's Govt be led by the SNP ?

How many of Scotland's 59 Westminster MPs would stand as Holyrood candidates in a hypothetical 2016 ? Of those 59, a total of 41 are Labour, 11 Lib Dems, 6 SNP, and 1 Tory. They include a number of current and former Cabinet Ministers, and one former Prime Minister who also served 10 years as Chancellor. I don't think that rUk would find an iScotland Centre-Left Govt comprising a number of former Westminster MPs too difficult a partner in a CU either.

A Left grouping of SSP / Greens, even in single figures, would however be essential to deliver decent Welfare levels. The proposal in Parliament to abolish prescription charges came from Colin Fox for instance, as one of six Socialist MSPs elected in 1999.

So, a hyopthetical General Election in iScotland wouldn't necessarily be won by the SNP. Alex Salmond wouldn't necessarily be the first iScotland FM. A Centre-left Govt wouldn't be particularly radical, but it would be mandated to reduce poverty levels as best it can. Nothing spectacular, just get the head down and get on with it.

Still just sayin

[LJS]

Well they are a Gradualist party, who back in 2011 seemed genuinely surprised to be in a position to call a referendum at all, after only one term in power at Holyrood.

As Gradualists, the White Paper being Devo Max Version 1.x is consistent with that approach. I don't think that rUk would find an iScotland Govt led by the SNP too difficult a partner in a CU.

But would hypothetical iScotland's Govt be led by the SNP ?

How many of Scotland's 59 Westminster MPs would stand as Holyrood candidates in a hypothetical 2016 ? Of those 59, a total of 41 are Labour, 11 Lib Dems, 6 SNP, and 1 Tory. They include a number of current and former Cabinet Ministers, and one former Prime Minister who also served 10 years as Chancellor. I don't think that rUk would find an iScotland Centre-Left Govt comprising a number of former Westminster MPs too difficult a partner in a CU either.

A Left grouping of SSP / Greens, even in single figures, would however be essential to deliver decent Welfare levels. The proposal in Parliament to abolish prescription charges came from Colin Fox for instance, as one of six Socialist MSPs elected in 1999.

So, a hyopthetical General Election in iScotland wouldn't necessarily be won by the SNP. Alex Salmond wouldn't necessarily be the first iScotland FM. A Centre-left Govt wouldn't be particularly radical, but it would be mandated to reduce poverty levels as best it can. Nothing spectacular, just get the head down and get on with it.

Still just sayin

I agree with pretty much all of the above.

I have argued that independence has the power to set the Scottish Labour Party free from the shackles imposed on it by the UK Labour party's terror of frightening the (mainly) English middle classes. That there is support for this view within Scottish Labour is not open to doubt .. to quote from Labour for Independence

We believe that independence will allow the Scottish Labour Party adopt policies that are more in tune with the needs of the Scottish people and reject the neoliberal policies of Westminster. Ultimately we believe that this can lead to greater social equality and opportunities to end poverty within Scotland.

The question is how strong is that support? - in practice we are unlikely to know until after the referendum

In practice and in my opinion, any re -alignment of the Scottish Party will probably be preceded by Labour's traditional bout of infighting which may well mean they will not be a viable party of government in the first Scottish elections post Indy.

That makes an SNP victory the most likely outcome but it is not inevitable - It is not hard to imagine problems in the post referendum negotiations which would reduce the level of SNP support.

But, in the end, the identity of the winning Party in 2016 is not crucial - & this is what a lot of people just don't get - we are voting for HOW Scotland is governed for the foreseeable future NOT who governs it in 2016.

Of course the winners in 2016 will set the tone for the future and like yourself I would love to see a strong representation from the SSP & green party.

Edited May 6, 2014 by LJS

[Buff124]

In practice and in my opinion, any re -alignment of the Scottish Party will probably be preceded by Labour's traditional bout of infighting

There would be blood on the hypothetical carpet all right. Blairites vs Brownies all over again, but this time one side is leaderless. No Peter Mandelson either.

[Comfy Bean]

So, a hyopthetical General Election in iScotland wouldn't necessarily be won by the SNP. Alex Salmond wouldn't necessarily be the first iScotland FM. A Centre-left Govt wouldn't be particularly radical, but it would be mandated to reduce poverty levels as best it can. Nothing spectacular, just get the head down and get on with it.

Still just sayin

Good stuff Buff. Just rhyming !

Or...... as an alternative to the above hypothetical options we could stick with the Tories doon the road. For me not a difficult decision. Just been watching today`s news about the latest welfare " reform " type move with the zero hours contracts

The next story was about the main reason folks intend to vote No :

It might affect my job & it might affect my pension. Are these the often mentioned jam hunters ?!

[Comfy Bean]

I agree with pretty much all of the above.

I have argued that independence has the power to set the Scottish Labour Party free from the shackles imposed on it by the UK Labour party's terror of frightening the (mainly) English middle classes. That there is support for this view within Scottish Labour is not open to doubt .. to quote from Labour for Independence

The question is how strong is that support? - in practice we are unlikely to know until after the referendum

In practice and in my opinion, any re -alignment of the Scottish Party will probably be preceded by Labour's traditional bout of infighting which may well mean they will not be a viable party of government in the first Scottish elections post Indy.

That makes an SNP victory the most likely outcome but it is not inevitable - It is not hard to imagine problems in the post referendum negotiations which would reduce the level of SNP support.

But, in the end, the identity of the winning Party in 2016 is not crucial - & this is what a lot of people just don't get - we are voting for HOW Scotland is governed for the foreseeable future NOT who governs it in 2016.

Of course the winners in 2016 will set the tone for the future and like yourself I would love to see a strong representation from the SSP & green party.

Interesting point about a new new Labour party. I mentioned before that my view is that the SNP would have to also re-invent with independence in the bag. Almost like a new dawn.....

The Green party would hopefully continue to enjoy increased influence in a smaller pond.

[LJS]

There would be blood on the hypothetical carpet all right. Blairites vs Brownies all over again, but this time one side is leaderless. No Peter Mandelson either.

you forgot the Lamontites & the Darlingites ( i think they may be an endangered species)

[LJS]

Good stuff Buff. Just rhyming !

Or...... as an alternative to the above hypothetical options we could stick with the Tories doon the road. For me not a difficult decision. Just been watching today`s news about the latest welfare " reform " type move with the zero hours contracts

The next story was about the main reason folks intend to vote No :

It might affect my job & it might affect my pension. Are these the often mentioned jam hunters ?!

[eFestivals]

I'm not sure we have been given the choice often enough to be certain.

The only occasion in recent times I am aware of any party standing on a policy of raising income tax is the Snp in 1999 with their "penny for Scotland"

They lost but their vote increased on the last Westminster vote (this was the 1st Holyrood election)

They ditched that pledge for the 2003 election & their vote decreased.

These facts prove absolutely nothing as many factors influence the electorate's decision.

It has become accepted political wisdom that you can't promise tax rises & win. But other than the rather inconclusive example above , I can't remember anyone trying it.

As I say, i'll be happy for the poorest of Scotland if iScotland proves me wrong.

But I won't be holding my breath, and if I'm right many of the reasons why some people say they'll vote for independence become null and void within the reality of what will be achieved.

And of course, there's another side to this.....

There's also the possibility that the poorest will be MORE heavily penalised than they are now - because everything that iScotland (like any country) might wish to achieve is limited by the reality of finances.

If the finances of iScotland work out to be worse than what Scotland currently has, then spending will have to be cut somewhere - and the easiest target is always the uncomplaining poor.

For me, what happens will be interesting. It might be far more horrible for those within Scotland's borders.

Edited May 7, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

That makes an SNP victory the most likely outcome but it is not inevitable - It is not hard to imagine problems in the post referendum negotiations which would reduce the level of SNP support.

so much of what is happening passes so many people by.

Why do you think the people of Scotland will suddenly refuse the idea that everything bad that happens to Scotland is the fault of those horrible outsiders?

Every jot of the referendum has been raised on the basis that all Scotland's problems come from outside. That's not going to change within the negotiations, and the SNP will have a national myth at their disposal to mug the stupid with for all time.

[eFestivals]

It might affect my job & it might affect my pension. Are these the often mentioned jam hunters ?!

there's jam hunters on both sides ... which only gets to show that more of the vote is about voting yourself cash than it is about the wonders of Scottish democracy.

If it wasn't that, you wouldn't have the SNP trying to out-jam the union.

[LJS]

so much of what is happening passes so many people by.

Why do you think the people of Scotland will suddenly refuse the idea that everything bad that happens to Scotland is the fault of those horrible outsiders?

Every jot of the referendum has been raised on the basis that all Scotland's problems come from outside. That's not going to change within the negotiations, and the SNP will have a national myth at their disposal to mug the stupid with for all time.

As so often, your unique insight from afar does not match my experience on the ground. Sure, we ain't happy with how Westminster has run the country & we don't much like Tories. But to portray the whole campaign in that way misses a whole lot of positive stuff. & I'm not talking about jam!

[eFestivals]

As so often, your unique insight from afar does not match my experience on the ground. Sure, we ain't happy with how Westminster has run the country & we don't much like Tories. But to portray the whole campaign in that way misses a whole lot of positive stuff. & I'm not talking about jam!

There isn't much positive stuff however much someone might like to pretend. There's only "we will decide for ourselves" (which is fair enough in many respects, tho I don't go with the bedroom republic idea that's at its heart).

Against that is all the "we MUST decide for ourselves because those outsiders who are currently deciding for us are nasty to us".

Given that the negotiations are a two sided thing where iScotland doesn't get everything it might want, how do you think that's going to play out within the narrative which already exists and is the whole central basis for the ref?

[LJS]

How much of the country does Westminster actually run though ? Every thought you might be blaming the wrong people ?

Large amount of policy will be made by the Scottish Goverment, a big chunk of the rest is the EU... Very little comes from Westminster...

I can tell the difference.

[eFestivals]

I can tell the difference.

you sure?

So far you've shown that you can't tell the difference between a CU and no CU, and that you are unable to recognise how nationalist parties operate.

The only possible thing that Westminster deprives Scotland of are the big 'national' choices, such as defence and the like.

If Scotland made (proportionately) different choices then it'd have more money to spend on other things instead .... but then again, things like defence are very very likely to cost iScotland proportionately more than is the case currently, because (this is illustrative, not a fact) half a plane is the same as no plane at all. To get a meaningful defence force (that could actually defend) would take a bigger chunk of iScotland's money than is currently spent by Scotland on defence from within the union.

Then again, in a country run by nationalists the army will only be there to glorify the glorious leader.

You might say "Scotland would have a no-defence defence force, to save a few quid". NATO might say different, and you'll be doing what NATO demands.

[LJS]

you sure?

So far you've shown that you can't tell the difference between a CU and no CU, and that you are unable to recognise how nationalist parties operate.

The only possible thing that Westminster deprives Scotland of are the big 'national' choices, such as defence and the like.

If Scotland made (proportionately) different choices then it'd have more money to spend on other things instead .... but then again, things like defence are very very likely to cost iScotland proportionately more than is the case currently, because (this is illustrative, not a fact) half a plane is the same as no plane at all. To get a meaningful defence force (that could actually defend) would take a bigger chunk of iScotland's money than is currently spent by Scotland on defence from within the union.

Then again, in a country run by nationalists the army will only be there to glorify the glorious leader.

You might say "Scotland would have a no-defence defence force, to save a few quid". NATO might say different, and you'll be doing what NATO demands.

1. Of course I know what a CU is & I always have.

2. There are many different strands of Nationalism. Most of the nasty ones can be described as ethnic nationalism. If you think what is on offer bears any relation to that, you are as ignorant as you are Ill informed.

3. The UK has the 6th largest defence budget in the world. As Scotland will not wish to be seen as a world power,we do not really need to compare ourselves to that.. As a % of GDP Germany is way below the UK as is Italy. Unless you are threatening to invade us Barry, I think we can comfortably save some money there.

[eFestivals]

1. Of course I know what a CU is & I always have.

OK, I accept that.

Which gets to mean that you wanted to believe that the UK is being meaner to Scotland than it was to Ireland.

But the Scots don't think everything from the south is nasty to Scotland, yeah?

2. There are many different strands of Nationalism. Most of the nasty ones can be described as ethnic nationalism. If you think what is on offer bears any relation to that, you are as ignorant as you are Ill informed.

there's policies, and then there's methods of operation (how to gain support).

The polices are different, the "everything is the fault of those nasty outsiders" is the same.

3. The UK has the 6th largest defence budget in the world. As Scotland will not wish to be seen as a world power,we do not really need to compare ourselves to that.. As a % of GDP Germany is way below the UK as is Italy. Unless you are threatening to invade us Barry, I think we can comfortably save some money there.

iScotland will have 50% of the UK's sea, and plans to spend 5% of the UK's sea budget defending it.

iScotland will have getting on for 50% of the UK's airspace (I don't know what the budget plans are for that, but presumably it won't be more than proportional).

How are they going to work out, do you think? Please bear in mind that the people of Scotland are wedded to the idea of being in NATO, clearly feeling that adequate defence of Scotland is an absolute priority.

(The army matters less, because it's not like they really have a defence role .... and I don't think that Scotland's £450M pa saving from the UK's nukes is going to stretch very far in iScotland's total budget, especially considering all the promises of extras, along with all of the extra costs of being a sovereign state!)

Edited May 7, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

The only possible thing that Westminster deprives Scotland of are the big 'national' choices, such as defence and the like.

and WELFARE. Increasingly so.

[Buff124]

No point in transferring control of Welfare unless Revenue comes too.

[Buff124]

As argued by Alan Trench in an IPPR paper from March this year. One of his recommendations (lifting the cap on DHP) has already been agreed in principle.

http://www.ippr.org/publications/devo-more-and-welfare

[eFestivals]

and WELFARE. Increasingly so.

Yes and no.

Yes, Westminster sets the level of welfare spend and is cutting back the welfare spend, and that means that Scotland welfare claimants get less (on average) than they did.

But no, Scotland is not losing anything extra as a result of that. Scotland is continuing to get the same % back from it's contribution to the treasury, and the money that is retained by Westminster isn't being tucked under the Westminster carpet for post-indy jam, but is being spent on "uk wide" things just as it always was.

So if iScotland wants extra welfare, iScotland will have to find the money from another part of the budget (as spent now). There's not any hidden jam to magically appear.

[eFestivals]

No point in transferring control of Welfare unless Revenue comes too.

If welfare-claiming in Scotland is the UK average, and if the revenue is transferred, guess what?

Scotland is not one penny better off.

Given that yes-ers often go on about the poverty in Scotland, I might presume* that welfare-claiming in Scotland is greater than the UK average .... in which case, if the revenue is transferred Scotland is worse off.

(* I've no idea what the real situation is. My guess would be very close to the average, tho perhaps slightly on the greater-claiming side. Feel free to fill me in with what it really is ).

[LJS]

iScotland will have 50% of the UK's sea, and plans to spend 5% of the UK's sea budget defending it.

iScotland will have getting on for 50% of the UK's airspace (I don't know what the budget plans are for that, but presumably it won't be more than proportional).

How are they going to work out, do you think? Please bear in mind that the people of Scotland are wedded to the idea of being in NATO, clearly feeling that adequate defence of Scotland is an absolute priority.

(The army matters less, because it's not like they really have a defence role .... and I don't think that Scotland's £450M pa saving from the UK's nukes is going to stretch very far in iScotland's total budget, especially considering all the promises of extras, along with all of the extra costs of being a sovereign state!)

Of the European members of nato only the UK, France & Estonia(!) spend over 2% of GDP

Looking at countries with a lot of sea & air, Norway comes in at 1.4% & Ireland at 0.56%

Spain astonishingly comes in at 0.85%.

The two countries most recently admitted countries (Albania & Croatia) spend 0.8% & 1.9% respectively.

So, I think it is fair to assume Scotland can save a few quid here.

For me defence spending is well down my list of priorities.

edit: oops forgot this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Edited May 7, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

Salmond is screaming for lower taxation for his city chums!

Good job I don't have to vote for him in 2016 then isn't it?