It wasn't the same Tories back then. It was the conservative and unionists. The vote was as orange as it was blue.
I live in a Westminster constituency which hasn't changed hands since WW II.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
White Paper (THE #indyref thread)
(2915 posts)- Started 11 years ago by Morningsider
- Latest reply from chdot
- This topic is
closed
-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Childcare is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That's why there was the stooshie over one of the key white paper proposals for independence being to extend childcare. It's not a matter that needs independence. The Scottish Government, if they chose to, could implement any changes now. The reason they choose not to is that getting women into work, and families the income that comes from it, generates tax revenue that flows to the Treasury. So the politics of it is that rather than implement the policy and try to get the money back from the Treasury, they hold back on the policy (that key issue in addressing poverty) until the taxes stay here.
If you viewed it as a matter of just spending priorities, ignoring where the tax revenues go, you might wonder, for instance, why they choose to subsidise largely middle class students' tuition or pensioners' bus fares or the prescriptions of people who can well afford it or freeze the Council Taxes of the wealthy rather than tackle this key aspect of poverty. Progressive?
Of course there are many areas that the SG can't influence - welfare benefits being one of them and there was a nice bit in the FM's speech last night that is worth a read, although he didn't mention that he'd be keeping the benefits cap.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Ahhhh, I see what you meant.
Universal benefits saves money in administration.
More importantly it gives everyone a stake in the welfare state. Nobody feels they are paying in and not benefiting. I suppose you could say it means we're all in this together.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@wfb
Were Holyrood to increase tax then Westminster would just make a corresponding cut in the Barnet formula.I don't think that's correct. The Barnett formula predates devolution and the amount paid to Scotland is driven by spending in England. As Jim and Margaret Cuthbert - two SNP economists - put it
"The important point to note, however, is that the overall change to the Scottish Block is determined solely by the operation of the Barnett formula, applied to the changes in the relevant English programmes. This means that the size of the Scottish Block is determined externally by Whitehall: it does not depend either on decisions taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland, or on the amount of revenue which is raised by taxes in Scotland. This will continue under devolution: in other words, the Scottish Parliament will have no control over the size of the major part of its funding, which will continue to be determined through the Barnett Formula by changes needed in English programmes." (my emphasis)
The Scottish Government could use it's tax varying power, although the Cuthbert's quite rightly pointed out (back in 1998) that it's not a great power to have, for many reasons, and wasn't likely to be used.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Then they would alter the wording so they could change it or scrap Barnet and bring in something else. The powers fell into abeyance because there was a cost for keeping them in place and they weren't used.
They fudge Barnet on a regular basis. We get no concequencials from Crossrail and the new London sewage system as they are UK projects. Indeed we get billed for 9% of these things as money spent on Scotland's behalf.
I'm really not sure why Wendy and Donald put the second tax question in. I've pondered it for many a year.
Posted 10 years ago # -
While I'm browsing the Cuthberts' website, you might like this one. You'll have to scroll down to find Neo-liberalism with a Heart, which analyses the SNPs' economic strategy. I like the phrase, which neatly encapsulates the riding-two-horses quality that I've always seen in the SNP's strategy and which is still there in the White Paper. It's relatively old (2009) but if you read the next one where they talk about what they'd want to see, I'm not sure much has changed.
And Neo-liberalism with a Heart could almost describe the Blair, Cameron, Clinton and Obama administrations. For each the Heart soon gave way to the neo-liberalism. For SNP economists, they sum up my skepticism of the progressive potential of independence quite nicely.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Gembo:"sorry to derail the thread but Tories would have to win next UK election. Clearly the budget attempting to win back Tories from UKIP but UKIP could split Tory vote in 2015...? Tricky for independent Scotland to remain in EU according to Jose Manuel Barroso, so maybe we will be an island? We could form an alliance with England, Wales and Northern Ireland as European countries not in the EU??"
We could call it the British Union and share sovereignty with them.
Posted 10 years ago # -
You have to admire Darling's chutzpah, if nothing else. He, of all people, knows that the companies that he's talking about are...gasp!...already run from London. I'm typing this in the nominal headquarters of one of those companies and when I chain my bike up in the 'executive' car park, do I see any executives? Nope. They're in London.
Standard Life do business in at least eight jurisdictions and six currencies already. They are not going to freak out and spend a billion because of one more jurisdiction. What might freak them out is UKIP pulling the whole UK out of the EU.
Most national capitals do rather well out of being national capitals. But not Edinburgh? Doesn't strike me as very likely.
As ever, I'm very willing to be persuaded of the positive utility of the Union, but this sort of nonsense, combined with the blatant lying about the possibility of a currency union, just pushes me further and furhter towards Yes.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Darling is right. Independence has got 'risk' written all over it. A few years ago Sir Fred Goodwin took a similarly reckless gamble on buying ABN Amro. Those voting yes will be guilty of the same.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@IWRATS I'm intrigued by what you say about "blatant lying about the possibility of a currency union". What is the blatant lying?
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Instography
I suppose I should qualify that! I've tried to look at the statements of the Westminster parties on the subject of a currency union from a distance - as if I was an Asian investment analyst for example.
In my experience you can know what the Westminster parties will do by working out what lies in the intersection of;
a) what's in the best interests of the City of London
b) what won't cause an actual riot anywhere important (riots in Northern Ireland can generally be dismissed as tribal warfare between savages)So in this case, I predict that Westminster will;
a) claim that a currency union is not available (because the City wants a No vote)
b) negotiate a currency union in the event of a Yes vote, because the City would be furious if additional currency exchange costs and risks were imposed on the businesses it ownsI'm not actually too keen on a currency union with the rUK, but I'm quite annoyed that;
a) Westminster politicians appear to be playing poker rather looking after the nation's interests
b) Westminster politicians are talking as if they already only represent EW&NIPosted 10 years ago # -
I would have been more sceptical of the UK Gov and other parties' statements on currency union if (a) the idea hadn't struck me as obviously inimical to the interests of both the rest of the UK and an independent Scotland, and (b) they had expressed their opposition in less clear and unequivocal terms. Instead they firmed up their position from it's previous weasling "unlikely".
While I wouldn't entirely rule out back-tracking if Scotland votes Yes, I don't really think they're bluffing.
Posted 10 years ago # -
IWRATS "Westminster politicians are talking as if they already only represent EW&NI" when asked what would you do if Scotland was seperate?! Strange that Liberals got Danny Alexander to answer that when he couldn't reperesent his current seat if Scotland stops sending MPs to Westminster.
"companies that he's talking about are...gasp!...already run from London" so would it be better if that was in a seperate country or part of the same country?
"What might freak them out is UKIP pulling the whole UK out of the EU" is it more or less likely that the whole UK would leave EU than that the remnant UK would leave EU without support for EU from Scotland? And what would effect be on Edinburgh offices of big finance companies based in London if one was in EU and other was out?
Posted 10 years ago # -
@slowcoach
I quite agree that Mr Alexander's position is a strange one. He cannot claim to be disinterested in a referendum which could leave him unemployed. Unemployable even?
On the second point - there would be little change. To the finance houses Edinburgh is just a pool of skilled labour to be exploited. It'll be exploited no matter where the notional border is.
On the third point - I can only say that I have no idea. But I agree with your approach of looking at both Yes and No votes are carrying both opportunity and risk. Whatever happens in September the status quo will not continue.
Posted 10 years ago # -
In the event of a Yes vote, I'd have thought whoever is negotiating the settlement from an rUK perspective will have a duty of care to their citizens to secure as strong an end position for the rUK as possible. So Westminster politicians talking as though they represent EW&NI seems like a pretty realistic response to any "what would happen in the event of independence" questions.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@PS I think it's realpolitik, certainly. I model the situation as Westminster governing largely for the City of London. The interests of the people of the former UK might or might not be served by a currency union but the refusal to countenance one even prior to seeing the offer looks like a clear attempt to alter the referendum outcome - something they promised they wouldn't do. And think - the UK accepted currency union with the Irish Free State after they shot their way out of the Union!
Either they're lying about gentle, civilised Scotland or they think we're less worthy or more risky than the insurrectionary Irish. In either case, why would we let these people govern us?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Actually there wasn't a currency union with the republic. Eire pegged the Free State pound to GBP - sterilisation they call it now. Quite different. From the UK's perspective without a currency union the UK wasn't lender of last resort. The UK Government wouldn't have cared much although it would have made transactions easier between the two states, especially as the republic continued to accept sterling. "Using the pound" and "entering into a currency union" shouldn't be confused (even if the press routinely over-simplify by using the former when they mean the latter).
Anyway, Yes needs a currency union not so much for its own sake but for what it means more broadly. For an independent Scotland to join the EU the financial institutions need to be underwritten by the central bank of the country in which they do the bulk of their business. (You can see Scottish Financial Enterprise's analysis here). So, for iScotland to join the EU they need either their own currency (which would mean declaring that we would redenominate in a new currency which, if my experience of talking to the public about this is anything to go by would be a referendum loser) or they need to be in a currency union with the rUK. The expectation is that the EU would accept this as Scotland's financial institutions being underwritten by their "domestic" central bank. But means that the Bank of England, the central bank of another country, is the lender of last resort underwriting Scotland's financial sector.
So, rUK carries the risk of Scotland's finance sector. In that scenario, the transaction costs associated with a new currency (although my expectation is that they would do the same as Eire and use Sterling and try to blag it with the EU) pale against the risks of bailing out Standard Life or any others. Why would they? Why would England, the voters of England, the parties who want to be voted into parliament in England, do that? It's clear what's in it for Scotland and the Scottish Government of any colour but what's in it for them English? (Another dodgy Tory eviscerates the argument here.)
And don't think the jobs would stay. It's not politics it's the pragmatism of it. You think the EU is going to accept a PO Box in Threadneedle Street as the HQ while all the functions stay on Lothian Road or Gogar? Leave it out. That's why Standard Life and Lloyds are registering companies in England into which their assets would be transferred. Underwritten by the Bank of England. You really think that with a Yes vote the UK Government wouldn't welcome the independent decisions of major employers to relocate to the comfort blanket of the Bank of England?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Exactly as Insto says, every time the Yes campaign assures us that this is all scaremongering and when it comes down to it they will be able secure a favourable outcome for Scotland from the post-yes-vote negotiations, I ask myself but what's in it for rUK ? rUK will not be a willing participant in the negotiation and will have by far the stronger hand. And the longer negotiations continue the worse Scotland's position becomes.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Pin, what happens to Sterling if we leave it? Does it stay steady or does its decline in value accelerate?
Posted 10 years ago # -
@wfb
What determines the value of Sterling at the moment?Posted 10 years ago # -
"rUK will not be a willing participant in the negotiation and will have by far the stronger hand. And the longer negotiations continue the worse Scotland's position becomes."
Perfectly rational argument, and somewhat shows up any pretence from those in the No camp saying 'it's up to the people in Scotland to decide'.
'Please vote No, but if you don't we'll make things difficult.'
I suspect arguments up thread that 'the City'/business interests will be so against 'currency uncertainty' for a large part of its market that there will be some rationality/compromise.
I don't think Salmond should bother with the 'wots yr plan B option' jibes. But I do wonder about 'independence' with another country setting interest rates!
Posted 10 years ago # -
Or, just as accurately, 'Please vote No, but if you don't we'll look after our own interests.'
Posted 10 years ago # -
Yes.
Same dis-ingenuity about 'we'll respect the views of the people'.
Would be more honest not have said that, but they have/do.
I'm sure they believe No will win, and may well do, but.
Of course Salmond giving his deadline date doesn't help.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Basically politicians like people if the people like what the politicians.
OR politicians hide behind 'focus group findings' - if they are 'favourable'!
And/or - as suggested at Monday's Spokes meeting politicians believe what they think people want.
As in 'people like the idea of encouraging walking/cycling, 20mph etc. but (too many) politicians think that such things are "vote losers" '.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Insto,
Well since we came off the gold standard it is supposed to be the hand of the market, who ever that is.
Of course it could be some bloke in London fixing it for his mates.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Of course it could be some bloke in London fixing it for his mates."
You missed the s off the 7th word.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Whatever happens, the 18th of September 2014 will be a glorious day. For the thirteen hours the polling stations are open the British state will be pacing around smoking fags and chewing its talons while we decide if we're a country or not.
Don't know about anybody else, but I'm going to vote at 07h00 and then take off round town on my bike with a camera.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"then take off round town on my bike with a camera"
Sounds like a project!
Photo of bike + queue at every polling station??
Posted 10 years ago # -
Take the next day off too, so you can stay up to watch the news of the count.
Posted 10 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
posts
