My Hope is that Scotland will vote for Independence

[AthenaAwakened]

Why you should enjoy people voting to shoot themselves in the head economically and socially is beyond me.

He thinks they're on the left.
He thinks they're going to run the country as a leftist paradise.
He thinks that a leftist paradise will fail miserably, making it easier for the convervatives elsehwere to point at the social and economic self-administered headshot and say, 'See! That's how you get ants!' and win arguments about how to run countries conservatively.
And if they fail for reasons that have nothing to do with leftism, he can still point and say 'leftism did that.'

or worse
They could run the country as a leftist paradise...

And succeed.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't think that's ever a risk

 

[Jokodo]

Make no mistake, the nationalists of the SNP are not a left-wing party. They were supporters of the Nazis during WW2 and their leader, Arthur Donaldson, was selected by the Germans to be Scotland's Quisling in the event of a successful invasion of the UK. The SNP actively supported Margaret Thatcher when she was in opposition and it was their votes in Parliament that triggered the General Election that got her elected.

They will, however, say, do, and promise anything to secure independence.

They are only in power at Holyrood due to the disenchantment (after the Blair/Brown years) of the traditional Labour vote who stayed at home in droves in 2011 election. The SNP secured 44% of the vote in a 50% turnout.

Realising this, the SNP have embarked on a cynical campaign to make things worse for the poorer, left-leaning, elements of society whilst simultaneously blaming the UK government for all the austerity measures that they actually have devolved powers to mitigate. They have then presented themselves as the natural party of the left wing whilst Labour have been floundering for direction after Blairism.

Once they have secured power the SNP will then revert to their true right-wing nationalism. Nationalism, as we all know, invariably flourishes in times of economic disaster, and they will seek to capitalise on that in the post-independence collapse.

Are you saying that the SNP will abolish elections? Because, short of that, I don't see how what the SNP will revert to is going to affect where an independent Scotland is going in the medium to long run. The best an SNP that is swinging back to the right can hope from a yes vote is a temporary boost in the first elections. People who vote YES because they're fed up with the Tories aren't going to vote for an SNP that's showing its right-wing face.

The flight of capital and business has already begun with numerous banks announcing they will re-locate their headquarters (and thus their tax obligations) in the event of a Yes vote. UK-wide retailers have also announced that their prices will inevitably rise to reflect the higher cost of doing business in Scotland; extra cost which is currently cross-subsidised by more-profitable areas of the UK with higher population densities.

Prices will also increase if/when independent Scotland re-joins the EU (leaving the UK means leaving the EU) as certain EU taxes that the UK currently has an opt-out on will be imposed. For example, food in the UK is not subject to Value Added Tax; new members joining the EU must apply VAT at a minimum rate of 5%.

Why does leaving the UK mean leaving the EU? If the UK splits up peacefully, both Scotland and the rUK are in equal measure successor states of the UK as we know it. It should be either that both of them are kicked out and have to apply anew, or neither.

Scotland cannot afford to be out of the EU as non-UK exports count for 30% of Scotland's sales abroad, much of that is whisky. The French for example, consume lots of Scotch, much to the chagrin of their own Cognac and Brandy producers, and have attempted on various occasions to apply their own tariffs on whisky imports contrary to EU rules. This has been successfully resisted by the UK government in the past but the tariff shutters will come down with an enormous clang the instant Scotland is out of the EU.

Scotland will be outside the EU for a minimum of five years as the incoming president of the European Commission announced a five year moratorium on new entrants when he took office a couple of months ago.

Except that Scotland would not be a new entrant. It would be an inheritor to a previous member, just like the rUK, and the default position should be that it can instantly become a member under the terms previously established.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

 

[Togo]

Prices will also increase if/when independent Scotland re-joins the EU (leaving the UK means leaving the EU) as certain EU taxes that the UK currently has an opt-out on will be imposed. For example, food in the UK is not subject to Value Added Tax; new members joining the EU must apply VAT at a minimum rate of 5%.

Yeah, but VAT is applied on a wide variety of items in the UK that aren't so heavily taxed in the rest of Europe, rising as high as 20% for some items. Part of the point of independence is to get taxation and spending better suited to life north of the border.

Why does leaving the UK mean leaving the EU? If the UK splits up peacefully, both Scotland and the rUK are in equal measure successor states of the UK as we know it. It should be either that both of them are kicked out and have to apply anew, or neither.

Because the rUK still retains the major qualifications for membership, in particular currency stability. An independent Scotland wouldn't qualify nearly so easily. I can't see joining the EU again being made deliberately difficult or awkward, but the Scottish economy isn't nearly as robust as the English one, and at the very least they'd have to get their exchange rates under control, which would take time.

This has been successfully resisted by the UK government in the past but the tariff shutters will come down with an enormous clang the instant Scotland is out of the EU.

I don't see why. France and Scotland get on quite well, historically, and deliberately starting a trade war with a potential new entrent seems kinda pointless. Not impossible, but hardly a forgone conclusion. Competition for ship-building business would be a more likely source of contention.

Scotland will be outside the EU for a minimum of five years as the incoming president of the European Commission announced a five year moratorium on new entrants when he took office a couple of months ago.

Except that Scotland would not be a new entrant. It would be an inheritor to a previous member, just like the rUK, and the default position should be that it can instantly become a member under the terms previously established.

Maybe it should. I'm pretty sure it's not though. It's a new government with new policies, and would need to go through the standard process.

 

[Jokodo]

Scotland will be outside the EU for a minimum of five years as the incoming president of the European Commission announced a five year moratorium on new entrants when he took office a couple of months ago.

Except that Scotland would not be a new entrant. It would be an inheritor to a previous member, just like the rUK, and the default position should be that it can instantly become a member under the terms previously established.

Maybe it should. I'm pretty sure it's not though. It's a new government with new policies, and would need to go through the standard process.

Countries get new governments and new policies all the time. We don't see countries reapplying after every election (although, sometimes it might be a good idea if they had to - Hungary).

 

[Togo]

Maybe it should. I'm pretty sure it's not though. It's a new government with new policies, and would need to go through the standard process.

Countries get new governments and new policies all the time. We don't see countries reapplying after every election (although, sometimes it might be a good idea if they had to - Hungary).

The EU is a framework of treaties and legal agreements. Scotland isn't bound by those agreements, because it's now an independent country, not bound by agreements made in London. So it has to reapply. I see the logic of what you're saying, but the law isn't written like that. Changing policy or leadership isn't the same as repudiating all past agreements, currency ties, legal structures and constitutional settlements and setting up an entirely new country.

It would make a lot of sense for Scotland to carry on in the EU without reapplying. But, as it happens, that isn't how it works.

 

[Jokodo]

Countries get new governments and new policies all the time. We don't see countries reapplying after every election (although, sometimes it might be a good idea if they had to - Hungary).

The EU is a framework of treaties and legal agreements. Scotland isn't bound by those agreements, because it's now an independent country, not bound by agreements made in London. So it has to reapply. I see the logic of what you're saying, but the law isn't written like that. Changing policy or leadership isn't the same as repudiating all past agreements, currency ties, legal structures and constitutional settlements and setting up an entirely new country.

It would make a lot of sense for Scotland to carry on in the EU without reapplying. But, as it happens, that isn't how it works.

And why would the rUK be bound by agreements ratified by a parliament that includes Scottish MPs? So, by your logic, both countries should be kicked out. Either that or neither. I still don't see the logic in treating one but not the other as the inheritor of the UK.

 

[Derec]

I am a strong believer in the right of succession

What does the royal baby have to do with anything?

I wish the US had this right, and the red and blue states could chose to go their own way.

I on the other hand am deeply suspicious of balkanization. Especially your suggestion of splitting along ideological lines would lead to extremes that would not be healthy for anyone.

 

[Derec]

I think it would be a bad idea for Scotland to secede. They have been part of the UK for several centuries and are quite intertwined now, economically and socially.

Also, just like red states and blue states in the US moderate each other in the federal government so do England and Scotland. Without Scotland (which only gave the Parliament 1 Tory MP) I do not see how Labor could win a UK election without a major realignment. And of course Scotland would be much further to the left which wouldn't be good either.

In the case of a "no" vote I would very much like to see implementation of a true federalism rather than the clumsy "devolution". By which I mostly mean an English parliament. It makes no sense to have a "devolved" Scottish and Welsh parliaments while their members of UK parliament vote on internal English matters.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I don't think that's ever a risk

I didn't say it was a risk.

But it is a fear.

People who truck in paradises and golden ages always have a fear, and that fear is always the same.

That there is no hell for the none believer.

Any leftist, or perceived leftist, outcome that does not end in absolute misery is a betrayal of the promise of judgment, which is the real seduction of revealed religion,

Revenge.

 

[bongomaniac]

I'm not sure if the OP is serious, but it so far from reality and from the tone of the debate in Scotland that I suggest that maxparrish gets his "facts" from a broader range of sources. The narrative that Scotland is an impoverished slacker suckling on the teat of the benevolent English taxpayer is just false: Scotland is the most prosperous region of the UK (GVA per capita excluding oil and gas) outside of London and South East England, and there is less government spending per capita than London. The ratio of tax revenues (excluding oil and gas) to government spending in Scotland is similar to the UK average. The economic effect of Scottish independence on rUK would be neutral overall, but would highlight the economic differences between the South East and other parts of England. For conservatives who want to frame things in this way, it is a case of London & South East England subsidising the north of England, Wales and Northern Ireland; However this poses a problem since government policy is virtually identical across England -- I suspect that many outside these islands do not appreciate the weakness of local government in England -- so these differences need to explained by some reason other than whether there is a Tory or Labour government in London.

 

[bilby]

I'm not sure if the OP is serious, but it so far from reality and from the tone of the debate in Scotland that I suggest that maxparrish gets his "facts" from a broader range of sources. The narrative that Scotland is an impoverished slacker suckling on the teat of the benevolent English taxpayer is just false: Scotland is the most prosperous region of the UK (GVA per capita excluding oil and gas) outside of London and South East England, and there is less government spending per capita than London. The ratio of tax revenues (excluding oil and gas) to government spending in Scotland is similar to the UK average. The economic effect of Scottish independence on rUK would be neutral overall, but would highlight the economic differences between the South East and other parts of England. For conservatives who want to frame things in this way, it is a case of London & South East England subsidising the north of England, Wales and Northern Ireland; However this poses a problem since government policy is virtually identical across England -- I suspect that many outside these islands do not appreciate the weakness of local government in England -- so these differences need to explained by some reason other than whether there is a Tory or Labour government in London.

The reason for the relative poverty of the areas outside the South East corner is simple - corruption.

It makes most sense for a business to set up in the North, rather than the South East, because almost all the costs are lower - land is cheaper, wages are lower, and the government is basically the same. But this doesn't happen, because what is best for a business is not the same thing as what is best for the people managing that business. Yes Prime Minister had an episode (Man Overboard) in which the employment minister suggests relocating military bases from the South to the North; the Generals are aghast at this suggestion, because their wives simply will not tolerate living so far from Harrods.

What is best for the army and what is best for the generals is different - and the same applies to what is best for businesses vs what is best for businessmen; or to what is best for the country vs what is best for ministers and senior civil servants.

Managers are paid, very well, to do what is best for the companies they manage - but they follow their personal interests first, and the company's interests take a back seat.

Of course, sometimes the benefits of siting, let's say, a factory, or a warehouse, in the cheap-land/cheap-labour North, are too great to hide, and there are jobs 'up North' as a result - but even then, the majority of companies keep their executives at an office in London. This isn't because the executive functions couldn't be done in better from the factory site in Manchester or Sheffield or Leeds or Liverpool - but because the executives have enough clout to put their desire to be in London - a far nicer place for a wealthy person to live - above the direct benefits to the company that would come from their moving North.

The same effect occurs in most places that are sufficiently small for the effect of being in the 'wrong' place to be easy to hide; most nations, regions, and states have a segregation of wealth, with those parts close to the capital city much richer than the more remote areas.

Scotland is probably far enough from London, and different enough from England, to make this effect less important than it is for the North of England; Scotland gets a significant income from immovable industries such as tourism and whiskey distilling - and nobody will pay to stalk deer in Glasgow, or to drink 25 year old whiskey made with water from the Clyde, or to look for the Loch Ness monster in the Forth estuary; furthermore, the oil is in the North Sea, so Aberdeen makes a more reasonable departure point for the rigs than somewhere 150 miles further South.

Even so, the concentration of wealth in Scotland is in Edinburgh and Glasgow, just as the concentration in England is in Greater London, and for similar reasons.

Of course, the decision makers, whether military, corporate or governmental, would never accept that their choices are corrupt; and they always have a rationalisation to hand, on the very rare occasion when someone raises the point. But corruption it is, nonetheless.

 

[maxparrish]

Why you should enjoy people voting to shoot themselves in the head economically and socially is beyond me.

He thinks they're on the left.
He thinks they're going to run the country as a leftist paradise.
He thinks that a leftist paradise will fail miserably, making it easier for the convervatives elsehwere to point at the social and economic self-administered headshot and say, 'See! That's how you get ants!' and win arguments about how to run countries conservatively.
And if they fail for reasons that have nothing to do with leftism, he can still point and say 'leftism did that.'

Oh my gosh, an apologism for failure before they have even formed a state! Nothing like getting the propaganda presses started early, heh?

 

[Togo]

The EU is a framework of treaties and legal agreements. Scotland isn't bound by those agreements, because it's now an independent country, not bound by agreements made in London. So it has to reapply. I see the logic of what you're saying, but the law isn't written like that. Changing policy or leadership isn't the same as repudiating all past agreements, currency ties, legal structures and constitutional settlements and setting up an entirely new country.

It would make a lot of sense for Scotland to carry on in the EU without reapplying. But, as it happens, that isn't how it works.

And why would the rUK be bound by agreements ratified by a parliament that includes Scottish MPs?

Because that's how the UK constitution works. Its the thing that Scotland is considering leaving. If they leave, they aren't part of the entity that joined the EU. Again, you may not think that's the most sensible way to look at it, but that opinion doesn't change the law.

So, by your logic, both countries should be kicked out. Either that or neither. I still don't see the logic in treating one but not the other as the inheritor of the UK.

The logic of the UK constitution is that the UK is a political entity, Scotland is considering leaving that political entity and forming a new constitution. The rest of the country isn't changing anything. Scotland leaving can't change the status of the UK itself. If the UK itself were to change, they would need to vote on it. Your logic may well be more sensible, but it's not the one used in the UK constitution.

 

[Hickdive]

Are you saying that the SNP will abolish elections? Because, short of that, I don't see how what the SNP will revert to is going to affect where an independent Scotland is going in the medium to long run. The best an SNP that is swinging back to the right can hope from a yes vote is a temporary boost in the first elections. People who vote YES because they're fed up with the Tories aren't going to vote for an SNP that's showing its right-wing face.

The flight of capital and business has already begun with numerous banks announcing they will re-locate their headquarters (and thus their tax obligations) in the event of a Yes vote. UK-wide retailers have also announced that their prices will inevitably rise to reflect the higher cost of doing business in Scotland; extra cost which is currently cross-subsidised by more-profitable areas of the UK with higher population densities.

Prices will also increase if/when independent Scotland re-joins the EU (leaving the UK means leaving the EU) as certain EU taxes that the UK currently has an opt-out on will be imposed. For example, food in the UK is not subject to Value Added Tax; new members joining the EU must apply VAT at a minimum rate of 5%.

Why does leaving the UK mean leaving the EU? If the UK splits up peacefully, both Scotland and the rUK are in equal measure successor states of the UK as we know it. It should be either that both of them are kicked out and have to apply anew, or neither.

Scotland cannot afford to be out of the EU as non-UK exports count for 30% of Scotland's sales abroad, much of that is whisky. The French for example, consume lots of Scotch, much to the chagrin of their own Cognac and Brandy producers, and have attempted on various occasions to apply their own tariffs on whisky imports contrary to EU rules. This has been successfully resisted by the UK government in the past but the tariff shutters will come down with an enormous clang the instant Scotland is out of the EU.

Scotland will be outside the EU for a minimum of five years as the incoming president of the European Commission announced a five year moratorium on new entrants when he took office a couple of months ago.

Except that Scotland would not be a new entrant. It would be an inheritor to a previous member, just like the rUK, and the default position should be that it can instantly become a member under the terms previously established.

The SNP will, in all likelihood postpone the 2016 Scottish election because it they have precisely no chance of completing separation negotiations in time in the event of a Yes vote.

However that is not the primary point which is that whoever is in "power" in Holyrood will actually be powerless in the face of global economics. All politicians effectively are already but independent Scotland would be unique in deliberately creating an economic crisis for the world markets to exploit. At that point it doesn't much matter, in terms of the country's prosperity, who is in charge but rather than admit that the politicians will seek to blame an identifiable group be they the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, the capitalists, the English or the Jews.

I'm afraid your information on EU membership is just wrong. The European Commission and the European Council have said exactly the same thing on numerous occasions since the policy was first published in the European Journal in 2004. If a territory of a member state secedes from that state then the seceding territory becomes a third party with respect to EU membership i.e. they are no longer a member whilst the territory seceded from remains a member. Put in simple terms, if this wasn't so then Scotland's electorate alone would be able to determine the UK's EU membership status with no input from English, Welsh, or Northern Irish voters. Scotland will be a new applicant state.

The above being the case (and even the SNP have admitted that there will be a "hiatus" in Scotland's EU membership) then the rest of your post is moot.

 

[maxparrish]

I'm not sure if the OP is serious, but it so far from reality and from the tone of the debate in Scotland that I suggest that maxparrish gets his "facts" from a broader range of sources. The narrative that Scotland is an impoverished slacker suckling on the teat of the benevolent English taxpayer is just false: Scotland is the most prosperous region of the UK (GVA per capita excluding oil and gas) outside of London and South East England, and there is less government spending per capita than London. The ratio of tax revenues (excluding oil and gas) to government spending in Scotland is similar to the UK average. The economic effect of Scottish independence on rUK would be neutral overall, but would highlight the economic differences between the South East and other parts of England. For conservatives who want to frame things in this way, it is a case of London & South East England subsidising the north of England, Wales and Northern Ireland; However this poses a problem since government policy is virtually identical across England -- I suspect that many outside these islands do not appreciate the weakness of local government in England -- so these differences need to explained by some reason other than whether there is a Tory or Labour government in London.

I don't "get my facts" to comport with 'the tone of debate in Scotland' because facts exist independent of someone's idea of "tone". And if you are skeptical of the sources I use for my facts, you might pen a quick email to the business section of BBC : http://www.bbc.com/news/business-16477990 . Former economics editor, Stephanie Flanders, provided the detailed and convincing analysis on how the Scots are a net tax loss to England.

For readers who'd rather not wade through the statistics: the answer is yes, Scotland does get a net subsidy....

The basic facts are that Scotland accounts for 8.4% of the UK population, 8.3% of the UK's total output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues - but 9.2% of total UK public spending.

Scottish Executive figures for 2009-10 show that spending per capita in Scotland was £11,370, versus £10,320 for the UK. In other words, spending in Scotland was £1,030 - or 10% higher - per head of population than the UK average.

What about revenues? The same source shows Scottish total non-oil tax revenues coming in at £42.7bn in 2009-10, or £8,221 per head, which compares with total public expenditure attributable to Scotland of £59.2bn, or £11,370 per head....

...

So there are two numbers to choose from, depending on whether you take a Whitehall view of oil, or the view from Holyrood.

On the Treasury view, the gap between spending and revenues in Scotland for 2009-10 was £3,150 per head. On the Scottish Nationalist view, the gap between spending and revenues was closer to £2,130.

Please, take your pick. ...

And it is no secret that Scottish public is more interventionist, redistributionist and socially democratic than England.

So, I continue to hope the Scots do part ways - it's time that to give the them what they want, on their own "dime".

 

[Togo]

Of course, the decision makers, whether military, corporate or governmental, would never accept that their choices are corrupt; and they always have a rationalisation to hand, on the very rare occasion when someone raises the point. But corruption it is, nonetheless.

Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple.

The south has a lot of advantages over the north, particularly a deeper hiring pool for skilled labour, better infrastructure, and in some cases closer proximity to customers and business partners. Basically, the same reason that people tend to prefer cities. If you want cheap land, cheap labour, and less regulation, and aren't too bothered about where you are located, then you don't locate in the North, you locate in the Far East.

So what ends up in the North is things that need a UK element - businesses that need to be close to northern customers, businesses that can use local concentrations of skilled labour, such as shipbuilding, media, steel and so on, land-intensive businesses, typically recreation, and so on, and very small industries that rely on a handful of people who can locate themselves where they choose. So you get a lot of small specialist high-tech business, skilled labour business, and so on, and a handful of export businesses that need a 'made in Europe' label. Anything where you want cheap labour goes to the Far East, anything where you want to be able to swap employees with your competitors and hire experienced staff at short notice goes to London, anything where you want regular contact with other companies goes to London, and that doesn't leave enough left to keep the North as active as the South.

Sure there's an element of exec snobbery there, but it's not just a problem for the execs, it goes all the way down the company. If you want to hire good people you hire in London, because that's where the good people tend to go to get hired. When I did contract work up in Newcastle, I could expect to get 50% more money than I could down in London, because there were simply far fewer skilled candidates to hire. Even then, we had a terrible problem with people leaving, and we would hire twice as many people as we needed to make sure we had enough people left at the end to finish the project.

If you want regular contact with a specialist supplier, you move to London. If you want a close working relationship with another company, you move to London. And so on... It's not true for every company, just enough of them to make England into something approaching a city-state.

Even if you're a general, it's better to be located with other generals, semi-retired advisors, defence research companies, the Ministry of Defence, and other branches of the armed services in the South East, than in a military base or training camp. And the more generals that make the same judgement, the bigger the advantage it gives you.

There is a psychological element to all this as well, which is how far you need to get before you're considered 'Far Away' I've noticed that in the US 'far away' is 2-3 states away on both the East and the West coast, despite the states being different sizes. In the UK it's the South if you're in the North, or the North if you're in the South, and Wales and Cornwall no matter where you are. This despite the entire country being smaller than some US states. And on the island of Jersey, in the Channel, the east coast is far away from the west coast, and vice versa, despite the island being 5-10 miles across. As one native explained to me, if he had to move 'away from home' to work on the far side of the island, he might as well move to London.

 

[bongomaniac]

Max: It is not in dispute that spending in Scotland exceeds revenue -- the UK is running a budget deficit -- nor that it is true that the ratio of spending to revenue is above the UK mean, but this is the case for all parts of the UK apart from the SE of England and Scotland is in a better position that most of England. I find it objectionable for you to label Scots as "degenerate", "welfare dependant" (unemployment rates and per capita welfare spending in Scotland are lower than the UK average) and "free loaders". Hidden behind the ellipsis in your second quote is the statement that, under one method of accounting for oil and gas revenues, Scotland becomes a net "subsidiser" of the rest of the UK. By your logic at the stroke of an accountant's pen the rest of the UK becomes a den of degenerate loafers whilst Scotland becomes a nation of capitalist supermen.

Perhaps instead we can put the insulting stereotypes aside and look at what has actually been happening in Scotland in recent years. The rise of Scottish nationalism has been fuelled by the self-inflicted collapse of the Conservatives in Scotland and the ineffectiveness and corruption of Scottish Labour which stands in contrast to the SNP government in Holyrood which has gone about its business with confidence and competence. Nationalists have managed to frame the debate in terms of autonomy and democracy, whereas some unionists have misjudged their response with the sort of paternalistic attitude exemplified in your OP that refuses to acknowledge Scotland as an equal parter in the UK. The fact that the unionist parties have already been forced to concede greater autonomy means that the nationalists have already won regardless of the outcome of the vote on Thursday.

 

[Potoooooooo]