CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

YesScotland: not for cyclists

(118 posts)

No tags yet.


1…34

  1. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Similarly I think the Tories made a mistake in not putting Murdo in charge but he might have upset too many apple carts.

    I think Scottish Labour, Lib Dems and Tories have been the architects of their own failures at Holyrood and SNP have been there to step into the void. As parties they seem more concerned with staring into their own navels, their own internal politics and what's right for themselves and their own party. Then they wonder why voters don't care for them or know who their leaders are, when they should be thinking about what might go down well with the electorate and be good for them and Scotland. Then they might find that electoral success would follow.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    "I remember after the yes decision on devolution they said that politics up here would be brand new and not replicate the party political nature of the way of things down south"

    Well it was for a bit.

    Tommy Sheridan did a lot to destroy things.

    There are still two Greens.

    Er that's it.

    The voting system was designed so that it was 'impossible' for any party to get a majority.

    Not to spite the SNP, but to get a range of parties/non-parties elected.

    Worked first time round.

    The fact the SNP subsequently got an overall majority can be interpreted in all sorts of different ways.

    Including - 'The SNP did a good job as a minority Government so let's give them a chance to do it properly'.

    The current Westminster Coalition Government isn't very popular. I'm sure there is some element that 'British' people prefer one party Government (5 years at a time).

    Voters in Scotland may or may not feel the same.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. wee folding bike
    Member

    I don't want to be in the position of voting No and then wake up in the spring of 2015 to find another Tory government in Westminster. I know that's a fairly negative reason but I really don't want to be in that spot.

    We have never decided the Westminster gov. If you take out Scottish seats there would have been two hung parliaments in the 20th century but we never changed the vote of the rest of the UK to match the government which we selected.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. Instography
    Member

    The implication of the Swinney memo is that, in effect, is what you'll get regardless of how you vote, yes or no, before or after the referendum.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. wee folding bike
    Member

    Insto,

    I'm not quite sure what you mean there.

    I'd also wonder if it was the memo or the BBC comedy version?

    Iain MacWhirter seemed quite impressed with the actual memo, less so TOP SECRET stamped on the front. MacWhirter is one of a smallish number of commentators Itake seriously. His stated preference is for a No vote.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/with-enemies-like-the-better-together-campaign-who-needs-friends.20449422

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    "I don't want to be in the position of voting No and then wake up in the spring of 2015 to find another Tory government in Westminster"

    I assume you count the coalition as Tory.

    Current opinion polls say - Referendum "No", Westminster Labour.

    So I suppose Yes and Tory is possible...

    2015 is also Holyrood.

    Presumably some people assume a No vote would also mean an electoral defeat for Alex/SNP.

    Presumably he thinks a Yes will mean his party gets another four years.

    Certainly a Yes vote without an SNP Government would make independence negotiations interesting

    "His stated preference is for a No vote"

    Not sure about that.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. wee folding bike
    Member

    I assume you count the coalition as Tory.

    Actually I count the current Labour Party as Tory too.

    Even if there is no blue Tory government at Westminster in 2015 there will be sometime.

    2015 can't be a Holyrood election. They agreed not to have them in the same year when Westminster decided to move to a fixed term.

    Whenever I have read Iain MacWhirter's stated preference it has been for the Union. It has been particularly interesting reading his pieces recently but I have yet to see him state anything other than No. I agree his pieces of late seem to be wavering but I suspect that is more his view of Better Together. If he does come out for Yes then his journey has been worth following.

    Henry McLeish has been similarly interesting to listen to. Malcolm Chisholm continues to give me hope by speaking out against Trident when Ms Lamont has not. He has a track record on that one.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. chdot
    Admin

    "They agreed not to have them in the same year when Westminster decided to move to a fixed term."

    Ah yes -

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/799/elections_and_voting/1161/upcoming_elections

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. Instography
    Member

    I meant that the scenario spelled out in the memo, which would be the same for whoever wins the referendum, in the UK or in an independent Scotland, reads very much like continuing austerity. Now, I think the Tories do it with a bit more glee and focus it more sharply on their own particular 'undeserving' groups but I haven't heard anything from Labour or the SNP that suggests anything fundamentally different.

    The reason I mentioned Alex Massie's approving commentary on it is because he reads it as a Tory and finds, "Indeed, it was a document of such neo-liberal orthodoxy that it offered the prospect - in theory at any rate - of Scotland being rather better-governed after independence than it is liable to be so long as it remains within the United Kingdom. By better-governed, that is, I mean "governed from a right-of-centre position"."

    So, as I say, if you're priority is to avoid Tory government I'm not so sure that an independent Scotland with John Swinney anywhere near the Treasury is the way to go about it. But then I think it only reflects the assumptions that underpin all of the mainstream parties of government. Whatever the outcome, in Scotland or the UK, this is what they are all committed to.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. wee folding bike
    Member

    I understood the memo to be based on a No vote and using OBR figures which are the lowest set out there. They also don't have a great track record.

    Current Holyrood policy does differ from Westminster in more than just finance.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. Instography
    Member

    My copy of it is at work but I read it much the same way it's described in the Scotsman, "A private memo written by John Swinney last year setting out in stark terms the financial pressures likely to face an independent Scotland ..."

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. wee folding bike
    Member

    OK, checked it, that's what the Hootsmoon said right enough.

    Is it section 14 you have in mind where is says we might be worse off than the UK in 4 years?

    Avoiding a Tory government isn't my only hope but I don't want to be thinking that I'm partly to blame for them being in charge of us again.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. Edinburgh Cycle Training
    Member

    Its a remarkably simple one for me.

    The 2014 referendum is NOT about policies nor personalities. Its not even about "politics".

    It is ALL about power.

    At this moment in time I have no faith nor belief not trust in Davidson, Lamont or Salmond. I wouldn't want any of them being my Prime Minister.

    However, what me and every other Scot thinks or votes for is pretty much irrelevant. If the rest of the UK doesn't agree, we don't get.

    Scotland does not have the power to do what its people want on non devolved issues.

    I want that power.

    After that I'll worry about the policies, and vote accordingly in the 2016 election. Unless I join a party and cast my vote for its leader, I'll let others worry about the personalities.

    Power, without it, whats the point?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. wee folding bike
    Member

    Bikeability,

    Well then I suppose the argument is what size the unit of power is. Glasgow probably didn't vote for the current government in Hollyrood. Airdrie has been returning a Labour member since the Second World War. The current MP probably has little to worry about for the rest of her career if there is a No vote. Should Lanarkshire be able to declare UDI?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  15. LaidBack
    Member

    Power, without it, whats the point?

    Apart from Scotland are there any other countries that shouldn't govern or represent themselves ;-) ? I've resisted getting involved in this till now.

    One side says that more power to Scotland will ruin us as we make lots of wrong decisions. The other says allow power to reside elsewhere so we don't have to blame ourselves.
    The answer is that wrong decisions are made everywhere - even in countries we hold up to be cycle friendly.
    It seems though that despite public disagreement between parties there is quite a lot of consensus in private about broader social direction.

    For example the SG have architect Malcolm Fraser about to report back on how to improve town centres. Walking and cycling are key in his view - hope politicians from all parties will take note. Article getting prepared for next issue of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society Geographer magazine.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  16. Instography
    Member

    Power. Hmm. I'm not against Scotland being independent but let's not get carried away thinking that having a government means you have power. One of my problems with the discussion around the independence referendum is the notion of independence.

    When we're members of the EU, Nato, a Sterling zone (or a euro zone), when monetary and fiscal policy, personal and corporate taxes, VAT and excise duties will (I have no doubt) be constrained by agreements with the rUK treasury, when the Queen is head of state, when we will, undoubtedly, agree external border controls, anti-terrorism and other 'homeland security' with the rUK, when the value of our major asset (the oil) will be controlled by speculators and our borrowing determined by City wide boys and supranational ratings agencies, in what meaningful sense will Scotland be "independent"? What forms of independence will we enjoy that we don't already have?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  17. wee folding bike
    Member

    Sterling is likely to be temporary, Ireland did the same thing. Euros have been song better but that could be down to the quantatative easing wheeze.

    NATO I'm in two minds about. One reason I want to be rid of Westminster is their distressing habit of sending in the gun boat. I don't know how much autonomy we get on this within NATO.

    EU I don't mind. In the past the Scottish representative has had to sit outside while the UK did deals which might not have been to our best advantage. I'd probably be as happy with EFTA.

    Why do you think taxes will be constrained by Westminster? I have a feeling that Northern Ireland is allowed to set business rates and the second question in the last referendum allowed for tax powers.

    The Queen shouldn't have anything to do with legislation although recently we have heard that the royals have been meddling. I think Brenda has done an ok job by dint of saying nothing for 60 years. Charlie I'm less impressed with.

    The oil price would vary no matter what but I don't see Qatar, Dubai or Saudi handing these matters to their neighbours because of a volatile price. In the long run the price of oil is only going to go one way.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  18. Instography
    Member

    I'm not saying constitutional independence would be better or worse, or that there's any aspect of those arrangements that I like or dislike. I'm just struggling to see how, in any practical sense, it would be different once we're independent.

    Sterling is unlikely to be temporary. Swinney's words below (para 34 in the original) in which he links Scotland's economic future to Sterling, in particular financial services, and accepts that this means that independence will be tightly constrained by the need to comply with the agreements - likely to involve priorities for inflation, caps on borrowing etc, the sorts of things that impact on currency values - with rUK treasury. Fiscal autonomy within the straitjacket of a monetary agreement focused on the needs of Sterling. This is why Alex Massie likes it.

    "The Scottish Government has already articulated a strong and coherent economic narrative in favour of maintaining Sterling following independence through entering a formal monetary union with the rest of the UK.

    There are clear benefits to Scotland from entering this formal monetary union, such as promoting price and financial stability and facilitating intra-UK trade. In addition, it will preserve the highly integrated UK financial services industry.

    An independent Scotland in formal monetary union would have the fiscal and wider economic policy freedom to tailor policies to enhance the performance of the Scottish economy. Scotland would decide on the best overall fiscal stance which is appropriate for the Scottish economy, whilst ensuring that it remained in line with any agreements on monetary union."

    The reason I think taxes will be pegged to rUK is for competitiveness and because it fits with established policy of not changing personal taxes and of aiming for a low tax business environment. Again, Swinney's own words:

    In February, quoting from The Scotsman "he said "I don’t envisage ­increases in personal taxation in an independent Scotland."

    He said in this scenario he would not increase taxation on the oil industry and would want a "competitive business tax ­regime to attract business to Scotland".

    This, he said, would help businesses and "grow the economy and thereby grow the tax base".

    Mr Swinney added: "The purpose of that is to increase the tax take by delivering a stronger and bigger economy.""

    Pure neo-liberal economics.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  19. wee folding bike
    Member

    Ireland used Sterling for more than 50 years. Would we be under different forces though? Oil would have the opposite effect here when the price went up and down. Even if we are in a monitory union we would be able to leave it if we feel it is not in our interest. The long suppressed McCrone report was worried about the effect of a wealthy Scotland on the rest of the UK.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report

    Did he comment on the possibility of lowering business taxes? I don't see any quotation about that.

    How do you feel about the NHS? Policy on that is very different here, England always has had a seperate NHS.

    About 90% of Scottish MPs voted against the bed room tax. We will still get it. That would have been an unpleasant tax we could have avoided. I understand that housing benefit probably needs to be reformed but this seems a particularly nasty way to go about it. Back when I was a student land lords knew that we were fairly price insensitive because the housing benefit would pick up the bill. It had changed a bit by the early 90s when I last rented but it still seems to be something which bucks the market.

    Yesterday's scare story, no RBS shares for you, today's scare story, no long trips aboard for the armed forces so that they can shoot innocent people in foreign lands. Vincent Cable's RBS story foundered on the dates, no matter how it falls we would still be in the UK in 2015 when he suggested selling the bank. Mr Hammond's story today is something I would welcome.

    I support our government's attempts to increase renewables and not build more nuclear plants. Westminster on the other hand pulled the plug on a carbon capture scheme in Peterhead and for some reason seem hellbent on more nuclear to the extent of guaranteed prices. I know we make very little difference compared to the CO2 output from the USA or China but it's our wee bit.

    I'd also quite like to be done with the vermin in ermine. There are two parliaments in the world where the clergy sit as a right. The other one is Iran.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  20. Edinburgh Cycle Training
    Member

    The power isn't always the power to do, what can be more important is the power to change.

    At the moment, Scotland is a country which does not have the power to change all of its government, only part of it. That, IMHO has change.

    Wee Folding Bike - regarding the unit of power, isn't a country a reasonable unit?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  21. wee folding bike
    Member

    It's ok Bikeability, I was just leaving an opening for someone to discuss the islands.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  22. Instography
    Member

    I think when he says "a competitive business tax regime to attract business to Scotland", that's his preference for lower corporation tax - lower than the reduced rate that the Coalition introduced. He's said many times that he wants to reduced business taxes. It's consistent with his brand of liberal economics. The same notion that says reducing the taxes of millionaires will increase tax yields says that reducing business taxes produces growth and higher tax income.

    There's more about the Laffer Curve here. The Scottish Government's commitment to it is discussed by Richard Murphy, a prominent anti-poverty campaigning tax accountant and economist here. His about page gives his credentials but not his political affiliations. He may well be a unionist stooge given his trades union connections.

    I like the fact that we won't have the NHS changes and that Michael Gove has no remit in Scotland. I like many things about devolution and wouldn't object to an extension of devolution or full independence. From a purely personal perspective a huge expansion of government in Scotland would be great since there are many areas of work that my colleagues in London do that cover the UK and I see none of it. With independence comes revenue. I just think it's a subject of such importance that it should be debated to a standstill and the current level of debate depresses the life out of me.

    @Bikeability. That's kind of my point. If government doesn't have the power to do, what good is the power to change the government?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  23. SRD
    Moderator

    Into - your third para goes for me too

    Posted 11 years ago #

  24. Roibeard
    Member

    @WFB - Ireland used Sterling for more than 50 years.

    Not quite, it used pounds and pence, but not Sterling, in the same way that many countries have dollars and cents, but not US dollars.

    Similarly, Scotland could retain the nomenclature, but have an exchange rate with Sterling, or simply peg the Scottish pound as equal to a Sterling pound. I'm sure economists would have opinions on which is better and why...

    Robert

    Posted 11 years ago #

  25. Instography
    Member

    A floating exchange rate (and probably monetary union with the euro) is exactly what he wants to avoid. Partly for political reasons (it's a change that people wouldn't like - the assumption seems to be that people will vote for independence if they think it won't change anything - and will provoke joke debates about what it'll be called. The eckle etc).

    In economic terms he'd be terrified that on day one, starting out with one eckle = 1 GBP, trading would push it to the floor and the new Scotia Central Bank would have to step in to support the currency, they could only do that by borrowing and interest rates would immediately start increasing. Even before that, the rating agencies would have assessed the borrowing of Caledonia and anything less than Iceland's BB+ would be disastrous. The return on Scottish bonds would be lower than English bonds so Scottish base rates would have to be higher than English base rates, the markets would start to anticipate shifts in the currency to reflect the coming differences in value and hedge funds would be short-selling the eckle before it was even in people's hands to spend.

    There's only downside to not using Sterling even if the price is to have your monetary policy set by George Osborne.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  26. wee folding bike
    Member

    And even then the Bank of England isn't really for England alone and we might have more say over Osborne than we do now.

    I could see a future rUK gov wondering why they should pay for upkeep of the M6 north of Carlisle. They already see no reason to bother with the high speed rail north of big English cities (can't remember where it's due to stop).

    Given that it took them 20 odd years to fill inthe Cumberland gap and we're still waiting for the direct trains to mainland Europe which were going to run via the tunnel I'm not sure how big a deal it will turnout to be and we might be able to reinstate direct ferries from the Forth and the sort of trade with the Hanseatic league which we had before 1707.

    Arghhhh. BBC 4 just annoyed me. They portrayed an obvious recording as live ant sounds. I know what Audacity looks like on a Mac BBC.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  27. Edinburgh Cycle Training
    Member

    I agree wholeheartedly about the lack of debate. I think that is in part due to the debate that there is often degenerating into disagreements about policies or personalities.

    I am always puzzled by the number of people (and I am not refering to this forum) who seem to have made the assumption that should Scotland vote "YES", then the SNP led by Alex Salmond will govern and fix all policies.

    The reality of course is that the first government of an independent Scotland would be decided by the Scottish electorate in 2016's elections. Hopefully after careful consideration of each party's manifesto.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  28. chdot
    Admin

    White Paper thread -

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11722

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…34

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin