"Why for me?"
Thought you needed some company on this thread.
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 #
-
Ah, in the interest of balance, i see. Insto has been switching back and forth, morningsider has posted some good links, IWRATS is missing in action - I was wanting to sing Breaking rocks In the hot sun at him today as iggy pop played the original version yesterday then after the news he played the clash version which rather pointedly showed just how brilliant the clash were, though a slightly flabbier midsection than I had remembered.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"in the interest of balance, i see. Insto has been switching back and forth"
If you mean 'between Yes and No', I think not.
Whichever 'side' - Yes or No. - individuals are inclined towards, only the 'blinkered' (or professional politicians) are denying the existence of contrary/contrasting/distracting/ unsettling views.
Or more to the point that there is only 'one true view'. Wonder how many SNPers regard the White Paper as 'gospel' - or should that be 'tablets of stone'?
Posted 10 years ago # -
I'm glad you like The Clash -
Posted 10 years ago # -
Haven't read the canada piece, but worth noting that Canada's federal arrangement provide for much more individual variation than devolution, with possible exception of Scotland's development role.
But also that transfers are very transparent. It used to be that transfers were from the central provinces to the peripheries. Now that has changed, and a lot of economic growth being driven from previously have not provinces - like Newfoundland. However, there is still a huge population disparity and cultural disparity, which people from Ontario etc tend not be aware of.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"there is still a huge population disparity and cultural disparity, which people from Ontario etc tend not be aware of."
'Worse' than Londoncentric media, politicians and 'establishments'?
Posted 10 years ago # -
@gembo
Which bits did you think were back and which forth?Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Friends are falling out and the atmosphere is tense around the family dinner table, as the temperature rises over the issue of Scottish independence. Husbands and wives may agree in general on politics but disagree, vehemently, on the idea of Scotland 'being a 'nation again'.
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
'Worse' than Londoncentric media, politicians and 'establishments'?
Different. Because they think they are sensitive to it or understand it, but they don't. And because they are so many different poles - not just London and everything else.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Different. Because they think they are sensitive to it or understand it, but they don't."
Ah, so they try?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Sorry didn't mean to suggest insto has switched from 95% or more yes. I just thought his analysis of needs based issues/ Barnett formula/already devolved NHS Scotland versus NHS England was same as mine. Maybe I am switching, no just checked. Posters still up. My better half was told by her colleagues at work today that we are very brave putting posters up as we will get our windows put in!! She just laughed.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"She just laughed."
That's good!!
Fight the fear.
Posted 10 years ago # -
95% Yes? Blimey. I was pretty sure I had to be coming across as a definite no. I guess that makes me undecided.
I described it to a client as a choice between Willy Wonka and the Wizard of Oz. She wasn't quite so amused.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"I was pretty sure I had to be coming across as a definite no"
Nope, more like 'I'd prefer Yes, but it's not going to happen'.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"She wasn't quite so amused"
Must be an SNP voter.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"a choice between Willy Wonka and the Wizard of Oz."
Aye, but which is which? And why?
Posted 10 years ago # -
The wizard of Oz was the bigger bluffer (see page 979 Of the magic white paper?)
Posted 10 years ago # -
The Wizard of Oz was the small, insecure guy who tried to maintain his power and authority by fear. Willy Wonka was the schmoozy, slightly creepy guy, prone to rage and vengeance, who offered people a golden ticket to candyland. Both of them lorded it over little people - the munchkins and the oompah-loompahs.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Not directly related to indieref, but relevant (referring back to North Sea oil price and extraction possibilities).
"
GRANGEMOUTH plant owner Ineos has bought the majority share of a shale gas exploration licence for Scotland in a deal thought to be worth tens of millions of pounds – a development it said was the “next step” towards fracking in the country.
"
http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/ineos-secures-scotland-s-only-fracking-licence-1-3513016
Posted 10 years ago # -
Not the indieref (II)
http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/books/no-evidence-referendum-to-blame-for-outlander-snub-1-3513545
Posted 10 years ago # -
So here's a question - slightly spurred by the last page or so. I'll try not to spin it, as it bears answering by both campaigns (if not the CCE hive mind!).
Where does the "we want to govern ourselves" line end? In an independent Scotland, where taxes are no longer collected and disbursed by London, should Aberdeen be bothered that its taxes are being spent in the Outer Hebrides instead of locally? Or being spent in the central belt instead of being used to support the local NHS?
Of course, the poorer parts of the country are unlikely to be advocates of the local taxes for local people line...
Or should Dumfries complain that they have an Edinburgh government they didn't elect?
What's the difference between wanting the UK to govern itself (a la UKIP), wanting Scotland to govern itself, and declaring the independent republic of Morningside?
Is it just the size of the population? But then there are self governed countries smaller in population than Edinburgh or Glasgow (Iceland has ~325K) or even Aberdeen (Samao!). Is it culture or language group? Or contiguous land mass?
Perhaps this has already been addressed, but I've been away and have not retained the answer!
Robert
Posted 10 years ago # -
Not strictly #indyref but relevant to discussions on investment, funding, internal transfers and "need" upthread:
"Crossrail extension to Hertfordshire being considered
Proposals to extend Crossrail to Hertfordshire are being considered by the government, Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin has announced.
Extending the service would reduce journey times between London and parts of Hertfordshire by up to 16 minutes.
At Crossrail's Farringdon site in central London, Mr McLoughlin said the plans would also provide an opportunity to redevelop Euston station.
Business groups in the area said an extension would drive economic growth."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28680186
That's on top of the existing, yet to be completed Crossrail, coming soon: "The £14.8bn project is scheduled to be fully operational by 2019."
£14.8 billion. £14.8 billion. Nice work if you can get it.
Posted 10 years ago # -
crowriver - of that £14.8bn, over 60% comes directly from London Government funds or London businesses. Network Rail provides another £2.3bn, which is raised through the Regulated Asset Base - which is being used to fund the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme and other Scottish investments. The UK Government is making a grant of £4.7bn for Crossrail. I'm sure you will also be interested in this quote from a report by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett Formula:
"...the Treasury eventually agreed to the classification of spending on Crossrail (which will overwhelmingly benefit London and the South East) as an "England" expenditure therefore triggering 'consequential' payments for the devolved administrations. This amounted to some £500 million for Scotland (QQ 469, 925-7). This appears to have been a decision taken to resolve a difficult political disagreement rather than the application of a consistent principle."
Report at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldbarnett/139/13908.htm
Posted 10 years ago # -
@roibeard
There are already tensions between parts of Scotland over how funding is distributed. Cities object to rural areas getting funding related to sparsity because there's no similar consideration of the costs of population density. Edinburgh complains about Glasgow. Everyone complains about the islands. Scots language campaigners complain about the funding for Gaelic.Dumfries could complain about having a government they didn't elect. Why not? So could some English regions. Everyone who didn't vote SNP could complain about having a Scottish Government they didn't elect.
Getting the government you vote for sounds neat but it's always seemed flawed to me. If you consider it in terms of the percentage of the vote, Scotland doesn't even have a government it elected in Scotland. The SNP got 45% of the consituency vote and 44% of the regional votes but that got them over 50% of the seats. So a majority didn't get the government they voted for.
But that begs the question of whether people even vote for governments. In practice we vote for candidates perhaps in the hope that their party will be able to form a government. We don't directly vote for the government. In a coalition, where governments are formed after the election you could argue that no one gets the government they voted for. They get a more or less shoddy compromise of a government.
So on that basis, the argument that Scotland should always get the government it votes for is flawed. Given Scotland's electoral system, no one is intended to get a Government of the party they vote for.
It's also flawed in that it assumes that Scotland can be considered a whole and so should, exceptionally (it's not an argument advanced for English regions), get a UK Government that reflects local voting patterns. You might well ask why, within the context of the United Kingdom, Scotland should always get a UK Government that reflects patterns of voting in Scotland. Within the context of a larger union, it doesn't automatically follow that it should and not necessarily a problem that it doesn't. Should you always expect to win?
So, it only works if you consider Scotland electorally indivisible. But actually, about 40% of Scottish voters voted for the coalition parties at the last Westminster election so many people have some reason to be pleased. Scotland got the government that they voted for and maybe their preferences should count for something. Of course, their preferences aren't reflected in seats in the House of Commons, which is a different problem.
Posted 10 years ago # -
What's disappointing (amongst many other things ;-) ) is that the parties, press and to a large extent voters have not got their head around how coalition politics works.
The SNP winning a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament hasn't helped the developemnt of coalition politics in Scotland, whilst at Westminster parties are hoping it will go away again at the next election (which seems unlikely, given latest polls).
Interestingly, the rise of UKIP and (perhaps to a lesser extent) the Greens may just push UK politics towards ongoing coalitions. What would really help is a proper rift in the Conservative and Labour Parties, which although unlikely is not beyond hope (especially if the nuttier wing of the Conservatives get friendly with Farage and co).
Politics at all levels is in a state of flux.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Morningsider, yeah we looked at the PR page from the Crossrail web site earlier in this thread.
I'm going to switch the discussion of Crossrail there, as it's probably where I should have put it (just forgot about that thread).
Extract from the Lords is interesting though. I'm sure that originally the £4.7 billion (£5.2 billion original figure before savings were found) was classified as a UK project rather than an England only one.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Morningsider, another interesting snippet from the Lords report that you forgot to include:
"While there remain subjective decisions for the Government about whether particular matters attract 'consequential' payments for the devolved administrations (some of which are discussed in more detail below), the Formula is otherwise simple to apply. This was clearly set out in the Treasury's evidence to us (p 85)."
This rather supports my point about 'grace and favour' extras above. I had not realised that 'consequential' were actually discretionary gifts from the Treasury ministers, but I suppose it makes 'sense' in a UK, unwritten constitution kinda way.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Another snippet directly above the one Morningsider quoted:
"When making spending decisions for a project or event in England the Treasury has to decide whether that expenditure is "UK-wide" or "England only". The decision to categorise spending in England as "England only" requires an exercise of judgment by the Treasury triggering a 'consequential' payment through the Barnett Formula to the devolved administrations. By contrast categorising expenditure as "UK-wide" does not trigger a 'consequential' payment. The following examples highlight a subjective application of the Formula by the Treasury—mainly on the categorisation of spending:
The planned expenditure for the 2012 London Olympics, including spending on regeneration schemes in east London, has been classified as "UK-wide" rather than "England" only. This has the effect of preventing 'consequential' payments to the devolved administrations. If specific regeneration spending had been classed as such it would have triggered automatically 'consequential' payments for the devolved administrations. (QQ 165, 167, 653, 675, 679-82). There were extensive discussions about this between the devolved administrations and the United Kingdom Government and it was considered at Cabinet (QQ 924-5)."
Posted 10 years ago # -
And another. I'm away to pick up No.2 daughter now.
"47. The Treasury also enforces the distinction between the levels of capital and current spending within the block grant; such levels were set as part of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review. This amounted to a form of hypothecation of devolved spending as it restricted the devolved administrations' freedom to determine their own allocations of spending. It was reinforced as part of the 'reprofiling' of public spending in the 2008 Pre Budget Review with the amounts required to be spent by the devolved administrations adjusted in accordance with the changes in the capital investment programme of the United Kingdom Government (p 318). Similarly a retrospective review of the baseline for the NHS in England in 2006-07 led to a reduction of the baseline of some £3 billion (apparently due to underspending on its capital budget triggering 'consequential' reductions in the baseline for the devolved administrations) (QQ 155-63, 677-8)."
Posted 10 years ago # -
crowriver - I only included the link to highlight that Crossrail was an England only project and that the Scottish Government received Barnett consequentials from it. Ironically, Scotland benefits from the UK Government underwriting overspend and the shortfall in private sector finance through increased consequentials.
The quotes you include above help explain why the Committee recommended that the Barnett formula be junked, in favour of a UK-wide needs based funding allocation system.
Posted 10 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
posts
