CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
closedchdot - I'm not really saying anything, just thought people might like to know about an actual solid example of a new Scottish agency being established, as opposed to the rather creative figures being bounced around by both campaigns at the moment.
I though yesterday was something of a low point in both campaigns. I can't help thinking of Play Your Cards Right, with each campaign shouting "higher" "lower" at the other, while each claiming to have the bigger Brucie Bonus.
@Morningsider
I think one of the silly things about the "how much do the insititutions of a new state" cost argument is that these things already exist. So if the FSA in Scotland is switching from Westminster to Holyrood control, we're not actually setting up a new agency from scratch.
It's as if the assumptions are being based on some idea that Scotland has no institutions of state and we need to build them all from zero as if we were emerging from the ruins of a failed, governmenteless state like Iraq or Libya or Somalia whatever.
I think there's plenty people who would be quite keen for there to be less government and government institutions in Scotland, not more!
Many senior technical and policy positions are in London, including the vast majority of oil and gas specialists, whose expertise Revenue Scotland might find essential. National Insurance staff are based in Newcastle.
Yes, and after Scotland becomes independent many of these people will be looking for a new job, there being a lot less oil and gas to tax from London, and approximately 9% fewer national insurance contributions to administer...
As you've read Dunleavy's blog, you'll have also noted his points about outdated, arcane and exoensive to run centralised IT systems in the current HMRC, and also that both DWP and Revenue Scotland already operate substantial administrations in Scotland. Also his point about Scotland's administrative setup not remotely resembling Whitehall's expensive 'Rolls Royce' ministry silos, but being more modern, flexible, efficient and cheaper to run?
I applaud your scepticism and holding to account of Scottish government claims. To dissect Dunleavy's points in support of the Treasury 'analysis' however, seems to be siding with the 'no' camp to my eye. Dunleavy's not a 'yes' campaigner as far as I can tell, neither in the pay of the Scottish government. He's just miffed at his work being abused in this way.
We may all draw upon comparisons from elsewhere in an attempt to refute Dunleavy's claims if we wish, but he's the one who compiled a serious academic report into such costs, not us. I'm inclined to find him the more credible voice in all of this, I must say.
Just as I wouldn't seek to correct your good self on the running of opinion polls (however sceptical I might be about the results), I'm not about to pretend I know more than Dunleavy about the costs of setting up, moving or running government administrations.
@morningsider
I share your desperation about yesterday's Grand Guignol performance.
As regards these government agencies and their costs...sigh...perhaps we might bear the late unlamented FSA in mind. It was cheap because a high proportion of the staff were on secondment from the companies the FSA was intended to regulate. Who knows if a properly staffed FSA would have blown the whistle on the credit default swap bubble, let alone the housing one or the RBS insanity? What we do know is that the cheap FSA failed utterly.
@morningsider, just thought people might like to know about an actual solid example of a new Scottish agency being established
Aye, but you are talking about running costs rather than set-up costs. The argument 'twixt Dunleavy and Alexander is about (one off) set-up costs.
It's very much up to the Scottish government to decide how many, how large/small, its various ministries/directorates/NDPBs are.
Oh and for anyone feeling a bit confused about the acronym 'FSA':
Morningsider is talking about the Food Standards Agency (soon to be Food Standards Scotland).
IWRATS is referring to the Financial Services Authority (RIP).
Neither to be confused with Full Speed Ahead - manufacturer of fine bicycle components, especially cranksets.
@crowriver
<blush> Thanks.
Or the Free Syrian Army. Or the Florida Sherrif's Association.
Regarding the F[ood]SA, let's remember that it was the Irish FSAI that rumbled the horsemeat shennanigans first. If I recall, the UK FSA was rather behind the curve with the whole thing and did not have a regime in place to detect or prevent it?
Perhaps IWRATS was right that it's something worth paying a (relatively) little bit more for?
crowriver - I quoted running costs as these were the only solid figures available.
All the figures quoted for the cost of setting up new state institutions are (at best) very rough guesses, whether they involve professors or not. Until we get to the point of divvying up the assets/liabilities and working out what needs to be established then we will have no firm idea of the cost.
I can understand why the no side want to maximise the figures and the yes side minimise them, but feel this is a gross dis-service to voters, who need some sort of foundation on which to base their decisions. It would have been good if an independent source could have provided an estimated range of costs and the two sides could have argued over that, rather than producing the highest figures they thought they could credibly get away with.
It would have been good if an independent source could have provided an estimated range of costs and the two sides could have argued over that
Er, that's exactly what the independendent source Dunleavy tried to do when quizzed by the Financial Times...
@morningsider
I reiterate - a financial analysis would need to cover costs and benefits of the two possible outcomes as a minimum. We'd need four sets of data.
Can you imagine a circumstance under which the UK government would produce a credible set of costs to be paid by Scotland to continue in the Union? It would need to include the capitalised cost of our next war.
IWRATS - seems reasonable. I can't imagine the UK Government producing such figures, which is part of the reason why I suggested they should be drawn up by an independent source. Not sure about the "next war" - I think the vote not to go to war in Syria by the UK Parliament represents a fundamental shift in attitudes to conflict, also the UK armed forces are in a pretty poor state after years of conflict.
crowriver - I appreciate that the prof is an independent source, but he hasn't carried out the detailed research I was suggesting.
In my defence, I wasn't defending the Treasury's figures. I was defending their use of Dunleavy's figures and explaining that they manifestly have not done what he claimed they had done, which was to manipulate his data and then stick an LSE badge on it. They simply haven't.
I did go further and argue that his estimate - that it would be a tenth of £2.7bn (or £270m) was also nonsense. Local government reorganisation between 1995 and 1998 cost £281m, which even inflated by RPI would be £460m now.
I'm sorry if not agreeing with the Prof makes me sound like I'm in the 'no' camp. I can't say it worries me too much. It reads to me like Dunleavy rushed to his blog before he had actually seen the paper he so noisily objects to.
And what seems most important in all of the figures is that John Swinney hasn't got one.
@morningsider
The vote not to attack Syria was, it seems, a procedural mistake. Both 'sides' were in favour of an attack in principle.
If you want to get a sense of what the British state thought of this impediment to its military ambitions, just read the Telegraph;
There hasn't been a year without a UK combat death since 1939. The British state is utterly wedded to war and this come prosperity or austerity. I'd say that war is one of its defining characteristics. Ever seen the range of 'HM Forces' branded toys in the supermarket? Not too much doubt what their purpose is.
It would be almost fatuous to argue that a No vote doesn't imply a Scottish contribution to one or more wars in the next five years. It would only be gentlemanly of Better Together to inform us who we are about to kill and injure, and what share of the blood and treasure we are to supply.
@chdot
"Which surely just means that UKGOV isn't charging the right amount - or are you saying it demonstrates (lack of) economies of scale that will affect all functions that would have to be carried out by an independent Scotland?"
It suggests that breaking up centralised functions creates additional costs. This seems to be recognised. The figures I posted upthread about the cost of tax collection reflect the same thing Morningsider refers to. John Swinney based his calculation on Ireland and New Zealand, being similarly sized and having collection costs of about 1.15-1.25% of their revenue.
HMRC costs £3.5bn to run and collects £468.9bn. They have a target to cut their costs by 25% and we all know they could collect more. But their current costs as a percentage of revenue is about 0.75%, which suggests that there are some economies of scale that are expected to be lost.
"
RUTH Davidson today announces a historic shift in Scottish Conservatives’ attitude towards devolution by signalling that her party will embrace a stronger Holyrood with radical new tax-raising powers.
"
Interesting to see the Tories proposing more powers for Holyrood than Labour (14% more to be precise). Still not enough though. Tinkering, hardly "radical": for Strathclyde read Calman Plus.
As to the "report by Glasgow University economists John McLaren and Jo Armstrong", what the Hootsmon fails to mention is Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) - which makes the UK figures much less rosy. In any case how much of 'UK plc' is in fact registered for tax in the Bahamas, Channel Islands, Luxembourg, Turks and Caicos, etc.? If you look at the report itself, the estimates used for GNI vary considerably, depending which data is used. So as usual the media are not telling the whole story.
Also, more on those 'academics' and their potential motivation for looking into this issue: Jo Armstrong was a policy adviser to Jack McConnell's government; John McLaren "worked as a researcher for the Labour Party for a year leading up to the first election (1999) of the new Scottish Parliament, being subsequently appointed as a Special Adviser by Donald Dewar, and then by Henry McLeish, for the period up to 2001. John was a member of the Labour Party from 2000 to 2005. In 2006 John was hired by the Labour Party on a consultancy basis to undertake work leading up to the 2007 election." (from his CV on Glasgow University web site). Hardly 'disinterested observers' are they?
Worth reading this piece in Bella Caledonia: The professor, the think-tank & the black black oil.
"
Touting "practical idealism" and a raft of policies borrowed from Germany and the Nordic countries, its stated aim is to dispel the idea that the only political choice facing voters is "varying forms of extreme market economics".
"
I thought Ruthie had a line in the sand.
Perhaps she has seen the secret poll.
Tide came in.
Actually that was a little unfair of me. I think it's ok to change your ideas when new facts appear. I'm suspicious of what the new facts were.
Can we now draw this thread to a close? Pack up the sun, dismantle the moon and cancel the referendum, for the boss of B&Q has spoken. An independent Scotland will go short of screws.
What were we thinking?
"
Spokes has no position on the Independence referendum, but we are certainly disturbed to find no mention at all of walking or cycling in the Scottish government's 650-page White Paper. The White Paper's transport vision centres on expanding long-distance travel, particularly road and air, with little interest in local accessibility or in reducing the need to travel.
"
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pall-corrected-p8.pdf
So. Farewell
Then
B&Q.
Purveyor of
Cheap screws
And
Plastic guttering
Your move into furniture
Was bold
But you shall not be our
Corner that is forever England
So we will go to
HomeRuleBase
Instead.
In case anyone has missed the coverage, here are the Conservative and Unionist Party's proposals for the situation where we vote No and they win the 2015 Westminster election outright;
I particuarly like their proposal to oblige civil servants in the Scottish Government to spend time seconded to London.
"I particuarly like their proposal to oblige civil servants in the Scottish Government to spend time seconded to London."
That's why the tram was supposed to go to Victoria Quay!
'Scuse the French, but FFS...
In my pretty extensive experience I would say that Scotland's civil servants are miles better than their UK colleagues, and that the senior civil servants aren't as good as those on the rungs below - usually because they're more concerned with their careers and covering their backsides than with getting stuff done.
What's also notable is that the English civil servants in Scotland are far better than the Scottish civil servants in England.
I can only assume the Tory thinking behind this half-assed idea is that they think the civil servants would be more Westminster-minded and less likely to well serve the government currently elected by the Scottish people.
If they had any interest whatsoever in generally broadening the experience and knowledge of Scotland's civil servants, they could have recommended they spend more time in Brussels and in other European and Commonwealth governments. Instead, their parochialism continues.
Madame IWRATS gets very upset when people say 'excuse my French'. I've never understood why.
It is, is it not, a delicious insight into what I can only characterise as an imperial-parochial mindset. Scotland's administrators must learn at the feet of the Titans of administration in London. Not Paris, not Beijing, not Montevideo, not Brussels and not Washington. They might pick up strange foreign ideas in those places. Frankly, I think that horse bolted a while back.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts