CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

White Paper (THE #indyref thread)

(2915 posts)
  • Started 10 years ago by Morningsider
  • Latest reply from chdot
  • This topic is closed

1…8910…98

  1. crowriver
    Member

    @Insto, I get the impression you are probably not going to bother to vote in the referendum at all.

    I wouldn't say it's certain the Tories will lose in 2015, but it looks likely.

    Labour have a pretty slim lead in polls at the moment, but the Conservatives are closing in. Lib dem support has more than halved since 2010, unsurprisingly. The unknown factor is UKIP, not only in how they might damage the Conservatives, but also how they set the political agenda of both Conservatives and Labour on certain issues.

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @Instography - thanks for that. I think there is a point of substantial disagreement there. As far as I know, the White Paper, having been through neither the Hoyrood nor the Westminster parliaments has no real standing at all. It's just one vision amongst many;

    http://allofusfirst.org/
    http://nationalcollective.com/category/imagine-scotland/

    If we vote 'yes' then the mother of all conversations needs to take place. It'll be entirely up to us if we want the 'Queen' or the 'honours' system.

    Absolute independence isn't possible, but change is. Why on earth would we forego the possibility of removing the House of 'Lords' from our lives and nuclear weapons from our country?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. Instography
    Member

    The reason I said it was ill-named is that I agree, it's not a white paper in the traditional sense that the term is used in relation to legislative proposals but that doesn't make it irrelevant. It is the Scottish Government's prospectus for independence. It is their manifesto. That government will lead the negotiations and it can't throw the white paper away. You're getting the Queen and we're keeping the honour's system. That's what they promised.

    What is the role of those other visions. Who are they going to elect? Which party, which candidates? Is there a Pat Kane or Jimmy Reid or Tommy Sheridan for FM campaign? Maybe there will be but it won't get anywhere.

    And actually, faced with the prospect of a legislature with no revising chamber - elected or unelected - I think I might prefer the House of Lords. I don't have so much faith in politicians that I wouldn't prefer there to be there's some prospect of proposals being altered. The HoL may be a democratic anachronism but at least it sometimes wakes itself up and frustrates the government.

    "The Scottish Government is committed to securing the complete withdrawal of Trident from an independent Scotland as quickly as can be both safely and responsibly achieved."

    Plenty of wriggle room there.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. crowriver
    Member

    Hmm. Drifting into the no camp, then Insto?

    I dislike the assumption that this referendum is all about the SNP's vision, Salmond's leadership or even the 'White Paper'. It seems disingenuous to label it as such, even cynical. As many have already commented, there is no guarantee the SNP will form the next Scottish government after a yes vote.

    One can take cynicism (and downright pessimism) about politics too far. That's not to say an independent Scotland would be some progressive utopia. However in my view independence (even if subject to numerous constraints) offers a better platform for progressive change than the Westminster system.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. chdot
    Admin

    " it's not a white paper in the traditional sense that the term is used in relation to legislative proposals but that doesn't make it irrelevant. It is the Scottish Government's prospectus for independence. It is their manifesto."

    I think the first sentence is entirely true.

    Semantically splitting hairs but - as it's not a "White Paper" is it not the SNP's manifesto?

    Obviously the SNP will be the Gov if post-Yes negotiations are required.

    But, if the 'WP' was written with the help of civil servants why isn't it a real "WP"?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. Instography
    Member

    No, actually in many respects independence is quite appealing. In the same sense that something new and different has attractions that the status quo can't match. And as I've said before, in terms of my work (and my responsibility for a business that works mainly for the public sector) the expansion of the government would be good news. Apart from an interim period stabilising a new currency and proving effective management through a programme of public expenditure cuts, I can't really see the downside.

    But I do find the romanticism associated with many of the Yes arguments very misleading because they neglect what the real world is, the limited scope that any government will have and the limited ambition that most of the politicians with any real prospect of gaining power have to make changes. So I quarrel with them.

    I think we've got nothing to lose by independence but I'm probably towards the pessimistic end of thinking that there's anything substantial to be gained. It's a change of management. And not much of a change of management given how much of Scotland is already devolved. I can't think of many areas of life where it will be tangible that Scotland is independent of the rest of the UK.

    I think it's actually quite realistic to look at it in terms of what the SNP would do. They, in the guise of the Scottish Government, are the only serious contenders to govern an independent Scotland who have laid out a prospectus.

    After Independence, since most people don't even know who Lamont, Rennie etc are, they would, I think, almost certainly win the election. Probably a majority. Have you seen how popular they are? Much more popular than independence. So Salmond would remain the leader and John Swinney would keep control of finance. And the White Paper has to become their manifesto. Realistically, what else is there to consider? The SSP? The Greens?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. crowriver
    Member

    Apart from an interim period stabilising a new currency and proving effective management through a programme of public expenditure cuts, I can't really see the downside.

    No need to repeat the currency argument here, but I ought to point out that both these predictions also contradict the SNP's prospectus. So you admit that, in fact, the SNP's vision may not prevail on every matter.

    As to the detail of any public sector cuts after independence, I'd say the bulk of savings are likely to be found from the defence budget and also foreign office, intelligence services, etc. When you're not trying to cling onto the remnants of imperial power you don't need the fourth largest military expenditure in the world; nor do you need vast networks of spies, data surveillance, embassies absolutely everywhere, etc. Norwegian or Danish levels of spending on those things would likely suffice. On this agenda I am fairly in agreement with the SNP's vision.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. crowriver
    Member

    To take military expenditure, for instance.

    Scotland's GDP per capita is around $42,000. Defence expenditure (UK) is 2.6% of GDP.
    Norway's GDP per capita is around $61,000. Defence expenditure is 1.5% of GDP.
    Denmark's GDP per capita is around $41,000. Defence expenditure is 1.5% of GDP.
    Sweden's GDP per capita is around $41,500. Defence expenditure is 1.3% of GDP.
    Finland's GDP per capita is around $37,500. Defence expenditure 1.4% of GDP.

    So Scotland would manage just fine with a defence budget around 57% of the amount that is spent now. We don't have to go around invading other countries either.

    That's not romantic, that's pragmatic.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    This is a great thread. Polite, informed and enthusiastic.

    A year from now we could actually be involved in the grubby compromises and hard work of setting up a new country. For someone of my generation it feels like a once in a lifetime opportunity. If that's romantic - so be it. (It's not unknown for me to be considered a cool, calculating individual, so @Instogram's suggestion of romanticism is actually quite welcome!)

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. Instography
    Member

    "So you admit that, in fact, the SNP's vision may not prevail on every matter."

    I don't think I ever said that they would get their own way on everything but their vision would lead an independent Scotland into the separation negotiations. Whether they get the currency union and a free pass into the EU, the shares of everything they consider the assets is the outcome of the negotiations. But they'll shape what those negotiations are about. Not the Queen obviously - that's a given. I doubt Commonweal or National Collective will be at the table. Patrick Harvie might.

    So, I think the White Paper should be taken seriously yet too many people seem content to pick the bits they like and ignore the rest. Maintain a united front for the duration of the campaign despite their misgivings about the SNP and its policies. All eyes on the main prize and worry about the differences later. Makes sense in the kind of political climate we have. No doubt that front will hold, albeit a little more shakily, for the duration of the negotiations too so that there's no scope for rUK to the exploit divisions.

    I'm sure there will be many independence dividends like defence but I was thinking more along the lines of the kinds of austerity that Westminster has been getting blamed for up to now. I just don't think that will go away or be covered by the oil. Not when the IFS is estimating that oil receipts last year were about half what the Government was using as the basis for its forecasts. But what happens with public spending depends a lot on who is actually determining policy - George or John?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  11. wee folding bike
    Member

    Is there a Pat Kane or Jimmy Reid or Tommy Sheridan for FM campaign?

    Don't know about Pat Kane or Tommy Sheridan but I'm fairly sure Jimmy Reid is out of the running for that post.

    Pat Kane doesn't drive and wrote the foreword for Deep Fried Hillman Imp. I was in the queue waiting at the tunnel during the crash he talks about. Not one I'm going to forget. I saw what was left of the Focus. I see him on the train sometimes.

    http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/intelligent-mr-toad/html/profharvie/deep_fried_hillman.pdf

    Posted 10 years ago #

  12. Charterhall
    Member

    A year from now. If, heaven forbid, the outcome is Yes, I, along with many of my colleagues, will be packing my bags and trying to sell my house in order to follow my employer's relocation to England. A very sad day for me but more so for my Edinburgh-born and bred wife. And also for her 81 year old mother, living on her own but currently within easy reach only 2 miles away. After Partition that gap set to increase to several hundred miles at just the point in her life when she is needing more support from us than ever.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  13. Radgeworks
    Member

    A year from now, IF heaven permits, the outcome is YES, I along with my family, friends, and colleagues will be rejoicing, at not just the thought of the massive PR disaster and huge loss of their business when the corporate leeches that are clearly only here to milk what they can out of the Scots, pack their bags and show themselves for what they are. Leaving a huge market hole for their more forward thinking competitors to exploit. Never mind those that would choose to head south "in a huff", tearing up roots as they go, just because they are simply not willing to entertain the thought that they may only need to seek alternative employment if its such a wrench to go in the first place. These are just some of the simple reasons for a YES. The Radgeworks.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  14. Instography
    Member

    The idea that businesses (especially corporate leeches) would pack up in a huff and head south betrays a pretty poor understanding of what motivates businesses. Some companies may have good reason to move but corporate leeches tend to be willing to do business with a wide range of political interests and (with all the usual caveats about the non-inevitability of an SNP Government) what is being proposed should be making businesses quietly unconcerned. It's not like Alex and John are hostile to businesses and plan to raise a workers' army to expropriate the bourgeoisie. Quite the opposite.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  15. Instography
    Member

    Again, with the usual caveats, not much for businesses (or the wealthy in general) to worry about here:

    "Regarding the central thrust of the First Minister’s case for independence, I can’t help feeling his diagnosis is better than the proposed cure. He made the usual (legitimate) points about the UK being unequal, too much economic power being concentrated on London, etc, but when challenged by New Statesman blogger George Eaton as to whether he’d restore the 50p tax rate after independence, Salmond more or less ruled it out, arguing that he would not “put ourselves at a tax disadvantage to the rest of the UK”.

    "Jason Cowley also mentioned the flagship economic policy of undercutting the UK rate of Corporation Tax by 3p; wouldn’t that damage the north of England? “I don’t want to cut Corporation Tax because I want to make people rich,” responded Salmond, “but because I know the Scottish economy will need things to resist the gravitational pull of London.” Wouldn’t this, asked a lady from Caithness, simply make Edinburgh the “dark star” of an independent Scotland? The First Minister didn’t really address her (perfectly reasonable) point. In other words, Salmond’s “progressive” vision of independence is, in certain respects, not very progressive."

    From http://fivemillionquestions.org/blog/2014/03/05/scotlands-future-in-scotlands-hands/

    Posted 10 years ago #

  16. cc
    Member

    Indeed, ISTR a few businesses and celebs promising to flee Scotland if devolution got a 'yes' vote. Mostly empty threats, although Scottish & Newcastle did go to the rather drastic lengths of getting itself taken over :)

    Besides, Standard Life isn't threatening to leave Scotland.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  17. wingpig
    Member

    Is "dark star" an accepted Caithnesian business/political term? What is one?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  18. chdot
    Admin

    "Is "dark star" an accepted Caithnesian business/political term? What is one?"

    It's not about Caithness (they have the northern lights after all). It's about places (mostly London) sucking in all the talent/investment/jobs/money/etc.)

    As of yesterday I think the idea/name will stick.

    Cue rivalry as to which is darker Edinburgh or Glasgow!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  19. Instography
    Member

    From the same source: “dark star” being Professor Tony Travers’ description of London.

    AKA a black hole. In terms of economic gravitational pull, Edinburgh would be Scotland's dark star.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  20. crowriver
    Member

    @Insto, yeah all a fair and balanced analysis.

    Probably we will have to put up with Brenda and her numerous relatives and hangers on, at least for a while. Charlie boy seems to be quite keen on taking the royal train set up to Scotland: I see it in sidings at Dundee station a lot, often with diners aboard. Royals don't seem to have killed off the vitality of Norway, Denmark (though they are largely ceremonial there); Canada and Australia manage with Brenda as putative head of state, so needn't be a tragedy even if I personally would rather be shot of the whole bunch of parasites.

    I can't recall what provisions are in the White Paper regarding the Crown Estate in Scotland but I thought there was something about bringing that under Scottish state control? Important for renewables, etc.

    If Scotland eventually becomes a republic (no reason why not) then presumably Holyrood would become a presidential palace, and Balmoral a tourist attraction?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  21. crowriver
    Member

    In terms of economic gravitational pull, Edinburgh would be Scotland's dark star.

    It used to be Glasgow once upon a time. Indeed, in transport spending terms, it still is. In property bubble terms, it's Aberdeen, not Edinburgh that is ahead. The central belt really exerts the 'London effect' here though. That's the real difference here, rather than one massive black hole we have two red dwarfs in a cyclical orbit around each other, both exerting gravitational pull on each other (and the rest of Scotland).

    So i don't think comparisons 'twixt London and Edinburgh are all that valid: Edinburgh may be the capital but it does not have the scale nor the critical mass of industry, trade and population that London has. A more apt comparison within the UK might be the Liverpool - Manchester axis, except that Liverpool's decline has been so dramatic that it is now a rather feeble pulsar orbiting the red giant of Manchester (sorry any Liverpudlians reading).

    Probably we ought to look elsewhere, like Germany (Cologne - Dusseldorf); Netherlands (Rotterdam - Amsterdam); Belgium (Antwerp - Brussels); or Sweden (Gothernburg - Stockholm). We need to abandon this Atlanticist mindset that looks at global cities vs. hinterland as a zero sum game. Most of Europe diesn't work like that (not to same extent, anyway) and Scotland is, despite its location and recent history, more European in outlook than our current UK context would have you believe.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  22. wee folding bike
    Member

    Brenda owns Balmoral. According to wiki Albert bought it, not Vicky, so it's not part of the crown estates.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  23. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Scotland, rich in natural resources and peopled by one of the best-educated populations in the world....and in the grip of a poverty crisis;

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26424477

    Vote 'no' and there's very little we can do about this situation. Vote 'yes' and there may not be miracles, but at least we could hold our representatives to account for the state of the country.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  24. Instography
    Member

    Why is there little we can do about it?

    "The campaign said a key issue was easing the financial burden of childcare in order to make it easier for parents to work."

    Who is responsible for childcare?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  25. wee folding bike
    Member

    I suppose that depends on your point of view. Some might say parents, others might say the community, yet others might fall somewhere in between.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  26. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    I've concluded that we can't do much because all of the Westminster parties have demonstrated supreme indifference to the grimmer bits of Glasgow and Edinburgh over my lifetime.

    Why? Take your pick from: Scots voting for any donkey with a red rosette, the first past the post system, corporate takeover of party politics, an upper house stuffed with well-off Londoners...the distance between London and Scotland. Who even knows what's on at Westminster today...let's have a look at what merits their attention;

    * prayers (God help us...)
    * afghanistan (british civilian personnel)
    * persecution of religious minorities (pakistan)
    * Transatlantic trade and investment partnership (A notorious anti-democratic scam to benefit the rich; http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/us-trade-deal-full-frontal-assault-on-democracy )

    Doesn't look like Sauron's eye has turned to the Northern wastes...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  27. crowriver
    Member

    Why is there little we can do about it?

    Oo, I dunno, because powers over taxation and social welfare spending are reserved to Westminster?

    True, education is devolved, but is childcare part of education (arguably) or is it part of social welfare (arguably)?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  28. slowcoach
    Member

    some "powers over taxation and social welfare spending are reserved to Westminster", but not all. Didn't the Scottish Parliament already have powers (never used) to vary income tax? And the 2012 Scotland Act increased those powers to Landfill Tax and Stamp Duty Tax? Council Tax is set in Scotland? And according to Labour MSPs they persuaded the Scottish Governement to effectively scrap the Bedroom Tax.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  29. slowcoach
    Member

    "Scots voting for any donkey with a red rosette"?? In general elections back to as far as 1945, Labour has never won more than half the votes in Scotland. Only the Tories have ever won that sort of majority! That was in 1955 though and since then their level of support has fallen while Liberal and SNP support increased.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  30. wee folding bike
    Member

    Tax varying powers was the second question on the last referendum. Were Holyrood to increase tax then Westminster would just make a corresponding cut in the Barnet formula. Calman gives Holyrood tax gathering responsibility but no real powers.

    Labour MPs didn't bother turning up to vote against the bedroom tax a few weeks ago. My MP was on of those who managed to be elsewhere. They preferred a cosy agreement with the Tories.

    They were all over the BBC claiming that they had persuaded the government to ameliorate it but since it's a majority government they had no say.

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…8910…98

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin