crowriver re "Arguably this is somewhat better for CO2 emissions than those people flying." Maybe I picked the wrong quote last time and this explains it better:"Willie Walsh says he expects people to drive across the border to Scottish airports if country becomes independent". They wouldn't be driving to Scotland instead of coming here by plane - they would be driving north and then flying from here to avoid paying as much APD tax as at English airports. The driving would be extra - some flights would be longer, (some shorter but would that help?)
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, I see. Well I reckon the drive from north west England to Paisley International would probably not be cost effective. Prestwick slightly closer to England so might make a difference for some. North East of England to Edinburgh, however, could be worth it depending on the saving on the ticket. So the A1 might get busier...
If they hurry up and build the train/tram interchange station at Edinburgh airport that *might* make a bit of difference to road traffic levels. No sign of it yet though...
Posted 10 years ago # -
Either way it has little relevance to the independence debate.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Prestwick usually has plenty of slots and we own it.
Don't know if it's less CO2 intensive than driving to Paisley. Paisley would be M6, M74, M8. Prestwick would be M6, M74 (just), A75, A76, A70, A77 or further up the M74 then A71, A77. Lots of bendy speed up, slow down stuff.
Is it more relevant than a company saying they might move at some point? If Osborne dropped his negotiating position and behaved himself then it wouldn't even have come to a "could".
Posted 10 years ago # -
Crowriver re "...you must believe it is likely that Labour will form the next UK government. I have to ask, just how likely is that?".
I'd say quite likely
Our model suggests that if we went to the polls today, Ed Miliband would gain 120 seats and become prime minister with a powerful majority of 106.Posted 10 years ago # -
"I'd say quite likely"
Except that was from last year.
This (Telegraph too) is this year -
"
Labour's lead in the polls is not what the party would like. The economy is recovering and the cost of living crisis on which Miliband has fallen back may start to ease
"
My prediction for Westminster next year is Labour with most seats and SNP holding balance of power.
Unless there is a Conservative/UKIP coalition (but I don't actually think UKIP will get many - if any - seats)!
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Labour with most seats and SNP holding balance of power"
In the event of a 'Yes' vote that would result in an ocean-going, industrial-strength constitutional débâcle. Imagine the Scottish Government negotiating terms with a parliament in which it held the balance of power....the London parties would go into meltdown!
Anyway, that's a digression. Let's work for a Yes vote and then agitate for the money we used to spend on war, the threat of war and war-monger subsidies to be spent on active and public transport.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Oops. I didn't check the links as closely as I should. (like some of the BBC links that go to old stories - 2 on Steve Jobs over the weekend?!) Today's prediction, I think, is for
"Outcome: Labour majority of 84
Labour 367
Conservatives 232
Liberal Democrats 23
Ukip 0
Other 28" no details with this, but presume similar caveats still hold.So yes, I'd still say Labour majority quite likely.
And IWRATS, while we might want Govt to spend on active travel, others have already said an independant Scottish Govt would cut taxes to encourage environmentally-unfriendly travel.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"others have already said an independant Scottish Govt would cut taxes to encourage environmentally-unfriendly travel"
Yes, but, that's only the SNP. Don't think anyone is 'matching' that. Lab already saying 'no affordable tax cuts'.
HOWEVER
As needs to be repeated - if there is a Yes vote that doesn't mean that Scotland will be run by the SNP after all the negotiations and the next Holyrood election.
The future really is unwritten.
Make no assumptions, just keep highlighting the advantages of a society where 'active travel' is one element in 'a better place to live' (and work and do business).
It's not about 'cycling' or 'being green'.
Posted 10 years ago # -
We do have elections :-)
Posted 10 years ago # -
@cc - If you weren't paying very close attention to the London media you might well get the impression that this is a referendum on handing personal power to Salmond in perpetuity.
It is of course a referendum on whether or not our votes should ever count again. Vote 'no' and England determines what happens in Scotland. Vote 'yes' and we decide what happens. Which could be motorways everywhere and compulsory helmets and licence plates for cyclists....or Dutch style cycle provision. Up to us.
Posted 10 years ago # -
For those predicting a Labour majority at the UK general election in 2015, I would just say: remember 1992.
Cameron: the new John Major.
Milliband: the new Neil Kinnock.Posted 10 years ago # -
Vote Yes and you'll be voting for the biggest economic disaster since Darien. Ironic when you consider what that led to.
Posted 10 years ago # -
We're reaching new levels of hyperbole here.
" Vote 'no' and England determines what happens in Scotland. Vote 'yes' and we decide what happens."
The truth, of course, is somewhere in between. At the moment substantial areas of policy have been devolved (and some have always been devolved). That's how we get to not reorganise the NHS in Scotland, have free personal care, no tuition fees, etc. It's just not true that England decides what happens.
Nor is it true that a Yes vote means that we decide everything. Certainly not if we get a currency union. In that case, well, England decides the scope of fiscal and monetary policy and even if we have a separate currency, monetary policy would be, like it is in most countries, largely determined by currency speculators. And the commitment to all the supranational organisations (NATO, the EU, the WTO) means that considerable areas of policy are decided somewhere else.
I realise it doesn't have much of a campaigning ring to it but the choice is between two different forms of limited sovereignty.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Sure. But I'd suggest that there is a clear difference: if we vote no, our limited sovereignty can be removed at the whim of Westminster. If we vote yes, our somewhat less limited sovereignty will be ours to dispose of and share and exercise as we will.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@ I
All very true and not likely to help the people who 'want answers' or sway those who have decided that Scotland should have as much autonomy as possible 'in the modern world'!
After watching the London programme last night it's clear that that Capital is virtually a country on it's own and that its present and future depend on external decisions by (for instance) Russian oligarchs and global property companies.
It could be argued that Boris has more influence (on its development) than all the politicians at Westminster. They just agree to spend money on infrastructure that comes from taxing the rest of the UK (I simplify!)
Some people (who) want Independence want to 'avoid being like London' (in the relentless growth/change sense) and others want 'our share of that'.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@cc
In theory. But even after the so called "independence", I'm sure the Queen will retain the theoretical constitutional power, as head of state, to dissolve the Government and reinstate the bones of Bonnie Prince Charlie to the Scottish Throne (although why she would, is another matter).But then in theory, with only a unicameral legislature, a sufficiently bold First Minister could declare himself Supreme Jedi and Keeper of the Force in perpetuity. Anything is possible.
Sorry, but too much of this debate is about what could, in theory, happen and not enough about what will, in any foreseeable likelihood, happen.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Sorry, but too much of this debate is about what could, in theory, happen and not enough about what will, in any foreseeable likelihood, happen.
This is the problem with making such a big choice. Folk are not used to dealing with all these issues and the inevitable uncertainty that surrounds them. Too many unknowns associated wiith either choice, yes or no.
As Rumsfeld said there are the known knowns, and the known unknowns. But it's the unknown unknowns that get you in the end.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Vote 'yes' and we decide what happens. Which could be motorways everywhere and compulsory helmets and licence plates for cyclists....or Dutch style cycle provision.
I can't remember the exact detail of the devolved settlement but, as transport is a devolved matter, doesn't the Scottish Government pretty much have as much control over the "motorway vs dutch-style provision" decision now as it would in an independent Scotland?
Posted 10 years ago # -
"too much of this debate is about what could, in theory, happen and not enough about what will, in any foreseeable likelihood, happen"
What's the alternative?
There is no status quo.
Stuff happens/things change.
Ignoring things like recent severe weather (mostly in England) and the unknowability of whether this now going to be 'regular' and 'what will Putin do next' (and the price of gas), and just discuss the Referendum and it's variables -
Yes or No - in the next 2 years there will be Euro, Westminster and Holyrood elections. The outcomes are unknown.
UK in or out of Europe (with or without Scotland) - unknown.
Yes - Pound (probably to start with), then Groat, Euro, Dollar, Rouble or Pound?
No - more devo - depends on outcome of next year's election and who wins. If Labour, whether they implement whatever London and Scottish Labour 'agree' on in next few weeks.
A million variables. A yes vote is (perhaps) a naive hope of something better. A No vote an endorsement of what is and faith that it won't change too much or (for Labour voters) 'Ed has to be better than Alex'.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"doesn't the Scottish Government pretty much have as much control over the "motorway vs dutch-style provision" decision now as it would in an independent Scotland?"
Yes but they'll no longer be able to say (about anything) 'but that bad Westminster won't let us'.
Of course some Yes voters hope that Keith Brown and the SNP won't be running Scotland when the negotiations are over.
And of course that could be case even with a No vote!
So many variables and decisions to be made.
Think I'll just go for a ride.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I think it also reflects a desire to win, on both sides, that the costs and benefits are talked up and polarised. It's like a helmet debate.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"I think it also reflects a desire to win, on both sides, that the costs and benefits are talked up and polarised."
That's politics - 'never had it so good', 'jam tomorrow' etc.
They don't like admitting they don't know (but that's probably partly due to intense media scrutiny), don't want to say 'well it will be a bit different, but mostly the same'.
AND definitely don't want to say 'actually we don't have as much power/control as we pretend or you imagine - and sometimes wish we had'.
"It's like a helmet debate."
Except that the Referendum isn't a private member's bill which won't get passed.
In September some (many) people will bother to vote. There are three options - vote Yes, vote No or doodle on the ballot paper.
If half the people who go into the ballot box write "We want Devo (Max/Plus/Extra/PlusMaxwithExtrafries - delete as appropriate)" that would make life interesting.
But I am CERTAIN that won't happen (well not half the people).
If there is a massive No vote, London oriented politicians will probably say 'there you go, people in Scotland don't even want more devolution'. Otherwise there will be (some) more devolution of powers/responsibilities/sovereignty such that people will go 'I can't believe that this is/not independence'.
Posted 10 years ago # -
If there is a No vote, London oriented politicians will say 'there you go, people in Scotland don't even want more devolution'.
FTFY
Posted 10 years ago # -
Sidestepping for a moment, there was a very revealing glimpse of Westminster's priorities yesterday with this photo of a document outlining the UK stance to be taken regarding US calls for sanctions against Russia:
It recommends that the UK government should "Not support, for now, trade sanctions … or close London's financial centre to Russians."
This highlights just how in thrall Westminster is to The City.
More here:
Posted 10 years ago # -
"FTFY"
Nope
If it's No by one vote there will be those who react to it as 'no more devo then'.
Most will keep quiet unless there is a huge gap between yes and no.
Making sure (if it's No) that any of the parties put into next year's manifestos whatever they 'offer' this year is another matter!
Posted 10 years ago # -
Making sure (if it's No) that any of the parties put into next year's manifestos whatever they 'offer' this year is another matter!
Do you honestly believe they will bother to offer any further concessions to Scots? I recall Alistair Darling the other day on Newsnicht saying that the referendum would "put this issue to bed for the next 25 years". So as you would say, there you go. Straight from the horse's mouth. Senior Labour ex-Chancellor entrusted with running the no campaign says effectively that what we have now is the deal on offer for the foreseeable future.
Note that deal includes boundary changes which will see Scottish MPs at Westminster reduced to 52 in time for the 2015 UK general election. In 1997 there were 72 Scottish MPs. It also includes the watered down, tinkering at the edges measures for further devolution which will come into effect in 2016 if Scots vote no.
Also note that if the Conservatives get in again in 2015, not only will they pursue reducing state expenditure massively, but they're also highly likely to review the Barnett formula as part of that. Also they will likely move to restrict the ability of Scotish MPs to vote on matters affecting 'only' England & Wales. This despite the fact that, currently, where cuts are made to budgets in England & Wales, a 'consequential' cut is passed on to the block grant sent to Edinburgh. Scottish Conservatives have not revealed what, if any, plans they have for further devolution, saying they will wait until after the referendum to make a statement.
If Labour get in, have they pledged to reverse cuts made by the Coalition? No. Have they pledged to continue to 'trim' public expenditure? Yes. It might be austerity 'lite' compared to the Conservatives, but there will still be, as Blair was fond of saying, 'tough choices' to be made. Scottish Labour has a commission on devolution which is supposed to report back within a month or so, we will see what's on offer. However its terms of reference are limited to just three areas: certain taxes (VAT, oil and gas, and most 'UK wide' taxes ruled out of course); welfare spending (though last year's interim report virtually rules this out); and further devolution to local authorities (important but presumably already within the power of the Scottish Parliament?).* Will it's recommendations form part of UK Labour's manifesto for 2015? Who can tell?
* - Interim report is here.
'Way forward' (ie. the issues they are actually focusing on are as follows:
"Empowering communities
181.
Devolution is not just about transferring powers from one building in Westminster to another in Edinburgh: it is also about empowering local government and communities. We will be looking at whatscope there is for the transfer of additional powers to local government and communities, what these powers should be, in addition to the possibility for the further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament.
Creating greater accountability
182.
Taxation provides the revenue to support the delivery of social and economic policy objectives. Different forms of taxation can also in themselves be used to drive social and economic change. As a result, we will be examining what potential there is for greater accountability in the tax system and on the further devolution of tax powers to the Scottish Parliament.
A more socially just Scotland
183.
The Welfare State provides everything from child benefit to pensions – it is the foundation that underpins a socially just Scotland and UK. Correspondingly, we will be considering what changes to delivery and devolution, if any, can support a more socially just Scotland
Strengthening parliament
184.
Scottish Labour believes in open, transparent and accountable government. We will be investigating whether the devolution settlement can be improved to support (a) increased civic engagement in the legislative programme, and (b) a balanced parliamentary process that allows all views to be considered"Posted 10 years ago # -
@Instography - Sorry if what I wrote appeared to be hyperbolic. That wasn't, of course, my intention. What I was trying to get across through the imperfect medium of the internet, was the idea that this is a decision in principle not a decision on a specific set of proposals.
That, I think, is why the debate has been so fraught. People demand detail as if we were looking at the manifestos of competing parties looking to govern for five years, and in that case a demand for detail would be perfectly reasonable.
But the question is whether or not we (the Scots) constitute a group sufficiently distinct from other Britons to justify setting up a new state. That simply doesn't depend on whether or not Standard Life set up a new legal entity or Ryanair think they can pay less air passenger duty. It depends on whether or not people feel that Scotland has diverged far enough (or indeed has never been close enough) for the current Union to no longer be in our best interests.
If we decide that we do need a new state, then we'll need to negotiate with other groups, notably the rump UK, the European Union and the United Nations. They may or may not be willing to negotiate in good faith. They may even try to exploit us for their own ends. But that - to my mind - has no bearing on the question;
Should Scotland be an independent country?
The Church of Scotland asked – very wisely I thought - that we talk about this as we'd talk to our families and not get hooked up on minutiae. So here's what worries me about the Union;
* It puts the interests of the rich first
* It treats us as subjects to be controlled rather than as citizens whose liberty it should assure
* It is barely a democracy
* It is always at war, threatening war or preparing for war
* It is addicted to fossil fuelsHere's what I like about the Union;
* The people - warm and friendly and odd and creative
* The tradition of dissentHere's what worries me about the prospect of an independent Scotland;
* We're not used to running our own affairs. We may get the first few years quite wrong.
* International capital may seek to exploit our fledgling nation.
* Our second rate press and broadcasters may not be able to hold our government to accountHere's what excites me about the prospect of an independent Scotland;
* We can start from scratch and write the constitution of a new functioning democracy free of medieval flummery and built-in vested interests
* We can look to other countries as models of good practice and trading partners rather than as sources of immigrant criminals and targets to bomb
* We will have the chance to start the urgent task of figuring out how to run an equitable society without fossil fuels
* We can be at peace for the first time since 1939This is a decision that will bind people not yet born, long after we’re all dead and buried. The future is uncertain whichever way we vote – so we really do need to take a long term view of the risks and benefits involved.
Posted 10 years ago # -
re chdot "If it's No by one vote there will be those who react to it as 'no more devo then'." there will also be those who react as if 'just one more push and we'll win our freedom (sic) next time' and those who say 'we better push on with more decentralisation to stop the separatists getting any more support'
re crowriver 2nd post above "remember 1992" yes I remember polls being wrong/changing, that's why I wouldn't say it's certain the Tories will lose in 2015, but it looks likely.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I accept you maybe don't mean it as hyperbole but you seem to be excited by a series of over-the-top caricatures.
But we don't start from scratch. And we are voting on a set of proposals. The Scottish Government's ill-named White Paper is a set of proposals that was defined as the blueprint for Scotland and it is what people have been asked to vote for. If there is a Yes vote, the current Scottish Government will, quite rightly, lead the negotiations so it's important to take the white paper seriously. The very least we can say is that we are voting on whether the SNP should lead the negotiations at which Scotland breaks its constitutional relationship with the rest (a very large rump) of the UK to be quasi-independent.
After that we can look forward to the 2016 elections to the first parliament where the choices will revert to the SNP or Labour. Their actual proposals or what we can infer from their positions on current policies are what will shape this new Scotland not distant dreams of an independent socialist republic (with the Queen as head of state and the honours system so not quite free of mediaeval flummery).
The broad strokes of those policies don't look to me like they'll herald a new dawn of social equality. I don't think vested interests are being swept out of decision making. I guess that's why I don't much care either way. Just on the question of currency, we have the prospect of the status quo where George Osborne kowtows to finance and tells everyone else what the consequences are, independence in a currency union where George Osborne kowtows to finance and tells everyone else what to do and independence with our own currency where John Swinney gets a direct line to Finance and ... you get the idea.
Posted 10 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
posts
