CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 14years 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.
closedWell they would say that, wouldn't they -
"
A FORMAL currency union with the rest of the UK would be the “best route” for an independent Scotland, the chair of an expert group which advises Alex Salmond’s Government has insisted.
Crawford Beveridge, chair of the Fiscal Commission Working Group, said their “clear recommendation” was for such an agreement to be reached if there is a Yes vote in next month’s referendum.
"
@ Roibeard
All good/reasonable questions.
I read it as saying 'given all the various national/regional interests/aspirations/grievances, why does/should Scotland get the chance to do things differently?
The simplistic answer is 'why not'.
A more nuanced one is that there is an 'appetite' for it, and (for good or bad) there are people who don't like/trust the Westminster/UK/British/London/etc. establishment(s) or expect them to change/develop/evolve sufficiently for the UK to become a 21st century state (whatever that may be) and/or take a different view of the whole neoliberal/austerity mindset.
Whether there is a Yes or No in Scotland, the referendum seems to stirred things in various other parts of the r/UK.
That is probably a good thing.
@Morningsider
"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."
That's rather a leap, to claim that one explains the other. What the quotes do explain is the power of discretion ministers in Whitehall have to classify state spending in various ways. This fiddling at the margins of an otherwise apparently "simple to apply" Barnett formula exposes the shortcomings of the devolution settlement.
To then say that the system ought to be scrapped for a needs based system is purely a political judgement. One can equally argue that Barnett principles could be extended to cover all government expenditure budgets, rather than this haggling over what is "UK-wide" and what is "devolved" expenditure. One can go further and argue that all revenues raised in a particular devolved administration's territory ought to be retained, with transfers made to the centre to cover "UK-wide" services.
Of course these latter two options would limit the powers of discretion of ministers and HM Treasury: how inconvenient. Unlikely to be recommended by the Peers of the Realm then.
I've only skimmed the Barnett Committee's report, but it looks a pretty solid piece of work. They took evidence from a wide range of sources and had two very experienced advisers - the recommendations are coherent and seem to be backed up by the evidence the committee received.
The report also contains a useful summary of how the Barnett formula works - it's worth noting that Barnett only covers about half of the public expenditure in Scotland and that any haggling over what constitutes English or UK expenditure is a tiny element of any annual budget allocation (if at all). The Scottish Government has never taken issues about such decisions to the Joint Ministerial Committee - which is the ultimate arbiter of such decisions.
@Morningsider, it is certainly a detailed report, as far as it goes. However one of the main issues is the terms of reference, and the parameters limiting its recommendations. These are neatly summed up in the following paragraph:
"71. It is clear that the United Kingdom differs in fundamental respects from all other funding systems. In particular, the United Kingdom is characterised by historic constitutional asymmetries and by the limited fiscal powers of the devolved administrations. Consequently, with the exception of the Australian Commonwealth Grants Commission, such systems can offer relatively little to help with United Kingdom issues. What is needed is a British system to address specifically British issues."
So, there we have it. Various federal systems are mentioned in passing; the Australian federal model is gone into in more detail; ultimately though this is a proposed reform which aims to change only criteria for centralised distribution of funds. So the so-called "alternatives" are not even considered seriously.
The report does make some welcome suggestions however:
"72. We have drawn attention above to the lack of transparency of the operation of the system, and the dominant role of the Treasury. It is no longer appropriate for the Treasury to make decisions on the allocation of funding and to administer that system without external independent advice and audit. Though we do not believe that the Australian model for grant allocation would be right for the United Kingdom, we consider that the role of the Commonwealth Grants Commission in Australia offers a useful institutional model of an independent body that has responsibility for making recommendations about the allocation of finance."
There are some interesting discussions of "fairness" in pp. 82-83, citing opinions from the Tax Payers Alliance on England "subsidising" Scotland, and special pleading from Wales and Northern Ireland for more funding due to their special "needs".
Here's a rather revealing paragraph:
"86. John Swinney MSP told us that it would be very difficult to undertake an assessment of relative need (Q 192) and that in any event such an assessment should not be undertaken because it could not be 'objective'. Others said that financial arrangements should only be changed as part of a much more comprehensive review of devolution as a whole (or indeed of the whole constitution and governmental structure of the United Kingdom) (Q 741). We reject these views."
(The "we" including Lords Forsyth, Lang and Lawson).
They go on later:
"101. While we are not in a position to reach a conclusion about precise relative needs in the four countries and regions, on the basis of our initial analysis, we believe that Scotland now has markedly lower overall need than Wales and Northern Ireland in comparison to England. The current allocation of spending does not properly reflect this basic pattern across the devolved administrations."
Anyway, after a rather skewed look at the "evidence", surprise surprise, the conclusion is that Scotland's "needs" are lower than everyone else's! An argument then for cuting the block grant! Their self-proclaimed "top-down approach" is aimed squarely at placating the complaints of "subsiding" Scotland from Middle England, and at playing the devolved administrations off against each other.
Certainly not a "solid piece of work", but the usual political partisanship in favour of keeping power over financial distribution centralised in England.
So, the Committee considered international comparitors and decided that a version of the Australian model best suited the circumstances of the UK. The Committee included some Tories and heard from a witness that you disagree with. It suggested a way to loosen the stranglehold of the Treasury on public finances. It heard from the devolved administrations, all of which made a case to ensure they gained/retained extra funding. The committee concluded that, from their limited work, Scotland's finances look generous compared with Wales and Northern Ireland on a needs basis - but more work needs to be done on this.
Nothing unreasonable there I would argue. It's all a moot point anyway - the report was effectively shelved and the Barnett formula remains unchanged, which is what the Scottish Government wanted.
I was at a rally tonight in currie. Town 53 of gentle Jim murphy's 100 towns in 100 days tour. He was very measured. The audience mainly polite. No bottle slung as happened to him down in leith.
He has many nature related tales. Apparently there are many photos of animals with yes stickers so his staff are tasked with taking pictures of pets with no thanks badges on their collars etc. In Oban the seagull whisperer who is Yes was at the rally at the pier head. Locals had their hoodies up, Jim was not so lucky. In Ayr a man calling himself William Wallace who had a purple beard wrote the word freedom on his dog with a biro pen.
Jim Murphy. Oh dear, oh dear. One of Blair's New Labour clones, and a reminder that those on the left need the opportunity that independence offers to re-create the values and principles that he, and his like, usurped 20 years ago.
"
Pat Kane (@thoughtland)
19/08/2014 20:15
Could @AlexSalmond make it any clearer that a Yes vote is not about him, or SNP, but the people of Scotland?
http://ow.ly/Av6mU #indyref
"
@dg145 seems a bit harsh on jimbo? Ok he was a student for nine years and chose not to graduate, took over from me as barman in the doublet 1987. Very surprisingly won Eastwood from Allan Stewart (helped by macallan induced breakdown of the sideburns sporting flintlock and pick axe wielding Tory). That was 1997 and he was miliband D organiser so I guess he is blairite? Obviously a traitor to his class from the two bed flat in Arden via South Africa and still capt. Of the House of Commons football team whilst claiming to be a socialist
He does at least seem to know he is a party hack and there is a slight chance he is a real person. Unless you think he used the Clutha bar helicopter clash as shameless self publicity?
Anyway he was fairly measured and thoughtful. Standing on his Irn Bru crates outside Scotmid, the crowd was there in its tens and twentys
I've never understood the argument that the left needs independence to renew itself or, as you say, "re-create" its "values and principles". Why doesn't it just get on with it? What does independence do for the left that it can't do otherwise. They seemed to be doing OK until Tommy's Tommy and his ego got the better of him.
Anyway, wasn't it Kinnock who started that around 1987. Him and his Director of Communications, Peter Mandelson.
@Morningsider, the only idea they took from Australia was an 'independent' body to oversee the allocation of funding from the centre. The rest of the Australian model (which is federal) was discarded. The proposed 'independent' body would be a quango, with members appointed by Whitehall ministers.
"The Committee included some Tories and heard from a witness that you disagree with. "
Not just "some Tories": two former Scottish Secretaries from before the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament. They heard from a lot of witnesses, but the ones who argued that finances needed to be looked at as part of a wider constitutional settlement rather than in isolation (mentioned as "Others" in the report) had their views rejected.
Of course, that's up to the committee, but it is a political decision to cherrypick the idea of an 'independent' body without the accompanying federal structure.
"the report was effectively shelved and the Barnett formula remains unchanged"
Which is probably the right outcome, given that the report did not meaningfully consider any alternatives other than a so-called "needs based" formula which would have the effect of *only* cutting the Scottish block grant.
Jim Murphy? The Trident nuclear submarine enthusiast?
@Gembo, was this the event?
https://twitter.com/bellacaledonia/status/501643993714016256/photo/1
Note: found on a Celtic website not the Bellacaledonia one, which I've never read. Mr Murphy is a season ticket holder at Celtic Park, I believe. Jeez .. him , John Reid and Brian Wilson. Pure dead embarrassment, so it is.
Ooh that is harsh. Think that might have been earlier in his tour, looks maybe Bathgate? He was also in Broxburn today. The man who allowed his dog to be photographed wearing a no badge on its collar was telling me he lived in Broxburn.
I have heard Kenny Mackaskill a view times giving talks. He gets a bit bombastic for me. However, I bumped into him in the rush for coffee at a violence reduction gig that had authors and stand up poets. I felt some stirring of empathy for him as his talk on the diaspora was a bit dry in comparison but he grafted it out. So over coffee I said I thought he was good and he looked genuinely pleased. (Note it turned out I was mildly delirious and was admitted to hospital with suspected Empyema shortly after this). Nonetheless I saw a human side to Kenny. So come on, give Jimbo another chance.??
Genuine question.
Is the No side getting meeting turnouts like this?
https://twitter.com/nicolasturgeon/status/501465385238290432
@Gembo - Kenny MacAskill is a good guy (Party aside). I used to play 5 a sides with him in the days before he became an elected politician, and the Scotsman still referred to him as a 'misty eyed romantic'. Still have the odd, mainly work related, contact now.
Via that connection I watched most of Scotland's short-lived assault on the 1990 World Cup at the SNP Club (which was then ... may still be ... in St Andrews Square). What a genuinely crazy mob! As a consequence of those experiences I was a little worried when they achieved their, initially, minority Government position in 2007. But it turned out that they were actually fairly competent at the job of administering Government, even if they lack much in the way of visionary politics (being somewhat single issue in that respect).
But, of course, the Indy referendum is not about the SNP.
Is No doing meetings? Mind you, it's Nicola. It's Faslane. She's planning to shut the town down. How friendly was the meeting?
No, it's not about the SNP and nothing to do with their White Paper.
@Instography - yes, you're right, it was Kinnock what started it. That was around the time I left the Party. Blair, Mandelson & Co just took it to a different level.
I think things are too far gone for the left at UK level. The current Tory party makes Thatcher's era look comparatively liberal, and the electoral popularity of UKIP is only forcing the Tories further right.
UK Labour has re-positioned itself as the new centre-right party in a bid to appeal to that part of the electorate which is 'small c' conservative, and is reluctant to follow the Tory Party on it's drift to the right.
This leaves no mainstream political voice on the left or even centre-left in the UK. I just think that the electorate in England is fundamentally different to that in Scotland - we've been,in effect, separate countries since the late 1970's. The Labour governments from 1997 were just Tory-Lite. We can't influence the dominant electoral numbers in the UK, so in that respect Independence does offer us the opportunity to do 'something different'. Whether we actually do or not remains to be seen, but it's the only chance I can see to give it a shot.
"
Scotland is about to make one of the most important decisions in its history. On the 18th September, people will vote to decide if Scotland becomes an independent country. Ken MacDonald explores what psychological techniques both campaigns are using to influence how people will make up their minds ahead of this historic vote.
"
I see. When you say 'the left' you mean a social democratic Labour party that can encompass Tony Benn and Roy Jenkins. I guess the SNP is the place to be. It can do that left-talking, right-acting that Labour used to be good at before it gave up on the left-talking.
This is one of the things that troubles me about independence. It's a counsel of despair. This strand of independence writes off the electorate of England (and Wales, I suppose, although it fits the auld enemy trope if we call it England) as basket-case right wing Little Englanders. A lost cause. It's Touching the Void politics: cut the rope and save ourselves.
@dg145 I instinctively agree with you that we are different electorates, but none of the research in the topic -and there's a fair bit - supports our view.
"How friendly was the meeting?"
You can't believe everything you read on the internet.
"
David Leask (@Leasky)
19/08/2014 19:10
Overheard: English-accented Faslane sailors enthusing about Scottish navy opportunities after hearing @NicolaSturgeon speak yesterday.
"
Her meeting tonight -
"
Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon)
19/08/2014 21:26
Tonight's #indyref meeting was in Lochgelly. This time next week I'll be on the ferry to Shetland. #voteyes
http://pic.twitter.com/h3zzYt5GOp
"
Maybe she's using photoshop.
@SRD - What? I need evidence for my opinions on here? ... I'm out ;-)
There would be promotion opportunities for some.
"This strand of independence writes off the electorate of England (and Wales, I suppose, although it fits the auld enemy trope if we call it England) as basket-case right wing Little Englanders. A lost cause. It's Touching the Void politics: cut the rope and save ourselves."
That is a point of view - based on some (apparent) truths - the UKIP Euro vote and the Tory reaction to it and (perhaps) the unwillingness of 'the regions' to take an interest in devolution/localism.
It's not a view universally taken by English 'lefties'.
Owen Jones is saying 'don't go' and seems to think the UK will be 'saved' by (no longer New) Labour.
Billy Bragg is saying 'go for it'.
IF Scotland votes Yes, there will be a lot more interest in English (and Welsh) regionalism and a lot of 'please help us to escape from a tory (note the small t)/UKIP future'.
There will be a lot of people in Scotland willing to advise/help.
The 'electorate' stopped the Government acting over Syria and is now (somehow!) restraining military action in what's left of Iraq.
Much of this is of course a continuing legacy of the British Empire.
Scotland (probably) wants out of the fantasy notion of "Britain" being some sort of friendly world power.
I suspect there are a lot of people in England who would like to 'leave' Britain.
Perhaps after a No, people in England, Wales and Scotland could agitate to 'leave' Britain!
Or at least dismantle the British State - like the SNP has been trying to do -
Keep the Queen and the Pound, but not nuclear weapons, have a better relationship with "Europe" - oh and maybe take Climate Change seriously.
@Instography "When you say 'the left' you mean a social democratic Labour party that can encompass Tony Benn and Roy Jenkins."
By the end of the 1970's neither of these people were effectively part of the mainstream Labour Party. Jenkins was on his way to the SDP and Tony Benn was a marginalised figure - popular at Party Conferences and among the CLPs but nowhere near the levers of power. When Michael Foot crashed and burned in 1983 it was all over for the mainstream left in the UK.
This is not a recent phenomenon. I absolutely understand your 'cut the rope and save ourselves' concerns, but sometimes that has to happen.
@chdot
I admire your optimism. Really, I do.
@dg145
So, the English working class are dead loss and can be left to their fate. What then of the Scottish left. Play out this rejuvenation for me. How exactly does this revival happen?
You think the political landscape in Scotland is so radically different? There are more pandas in Edinburgh zoo than there are socialists in the Scottish parliament.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts