So an interesting post over in the (obviously inferior ) US thread concerning Scottish devolution was deleted as off topic; in response, here is a UK thread. The topic was this, or the subject of Full Fiscal Autonomy. Even as an SNP supporter, I've got mixed feelings on that particular issue, so I'm curious to hear others' views. As per usual, economists make wildly divergent claims about it, thus promoting the suspicion that they make it all up anyway.
Oh, and David Starkey made some oddcomments: he thinks that the SNP are the new Nazis, and somehow compared the swastika and the St Andrews cross in the process. Asking around in the history department where I am doing my PhD, he has an interesting reputation as a good historian who talks a lot of mince about things not within his field.
Well, I found the debate over leaving to be a bit dishonest, on both sides.
On the pro-Union side, the argument that the Scots would not be able to use the pound was bunk, it is an internationally traded currency. They'd have to cede control to a central bank they didn't have a say in, but Ireland gained independence much more acrimoniously and used the british pound for ages until it established it's own currency, which was still linked to the pound.
On the Independence side, the argument that Scotland would be economically better off for certain on independence was also silly as hell. It was very likely that breaking away from the Union would have negative financial consequences for Scotland just as it did for Ireland, likely cushioned significantly by oil revenues but still, a drop in living standards seemed likely. The price of independence.
What amuses me is that people have trouble applying the same ideas to the British split from the EU, and trouble seeing that many of the arguments of the Scottish Nationalists are the same as the arguments as the Eurosceptics. I am always amused at how "nationalism" is such a dirty word with condescending overtones in the UK debate, but the UK is bad at recognising when it is itself being quite nationalistic.
Watching the EU debate, I can't help but worry for Ireland as I think it would be pretty negative for us. I think it will be negative for the UK too, and Europe, but at least it might stop the UK acting as a block to all sorts of good things and promoting things I don't agree with, like the TTIP.
Ah, slightly different issue there. Full Fiscal Autonomy is the current issue framing Scotland's place in the UK. It is a pretty boring issue, being about how money is distributed. In short, at the moment the UK government gives a block grant to the Scottish government, with the latter having some minor financial controls at its use; to have Full Fiscal Autonomy would make Scotland like an US state, raising most/all of its own taxation under its own steam.
The EU debate is a very strange one at the moment. Currently nobody is really actively campaigning. Because Cameron is trying to renegotiate stuff first, and won't set out his own views until he does, it is not entirely clear right now what the referendum's issues will actually be. Obviously the European Union. But how the debate gets framed is vitally important, and I think that nobody wants to start setting out their pitch until that becomes a little clearer. Currently they are still arguing over how and when the referendum will be held. Apparently June 2016 is a possibility, though that seems pretty close...
Though Scottish nationalism and the eurosceptic lobby would seem a priori to have a lot of similarities, those are not very obvious up close. The comparison is very muddied by the fact that the SNP are pro-EU, while the Conservatives are both unionist and eurosceptic. Here in the UK euroscepticism is allied with right wing beliefs, and the Scottish independence movement is very left wing. Indeed, being part of the EU was a core plank of the independence proposal.
Though Scottish nationalism and the eurosceptic lobby would seem a priori to have a lot of similarities, those are not very obvious up close. The comparison is very muddied by the fact that the SNP are pro-EU, while the Conservatives are both unionist and eurosceptic. Here in the UK euroscepticism is allied with right wing beliefs, and the Scottish independence movement is very left wing. Indeed, being part of the EU was a core plank of the independence proposal.
Aye, I understand that, but their goals are the same regardless of their leanings- independence, sovereignty. And both utilize nationalist feeling to make their case. It's a failure of empathy perhaps not to recognize these similarities. (sorry, re-reading that, that looks personal - I meant more when I have challenged Unionists about it, not you personally. I'm mildly pro-Scottish Independence and strongly pro-EU)
The Scots got demonized a fair bit down south during the debate, as I'm sure the English were a bit up north. I think there's a similar level of impatience with the UK in Europe, where it is perceived as sulky and difficult.
David Starkey is a professional historian. He focuses on the Tudors, I think. The obvious question would be, "why is he even talking about this stuff?" and I don't know the answer to that. He is a big name TV type, though, so probably he comes under the general umbrella of talking heads.
Oh I didn't even respond to Starkey. Ridiculous nonsense comparing the SNP to the Nazis. No party in the UK except perhaps the BNP is anywhere close to that. Even UKIP are miles away from that level.
Starkey is just an old-fashioned troll in a nicely tailored suit - it's been at least 3 months since he's had one of these episodes so I guess it was that time.
Regarding the EU Referendum, some random thoughts
1) Doesn't matter what the result is (and I reckon we will stay in on a smallish, but still comfortable margin) it will never, ever, ever satisfy the Ukippers and the headbanging wing of the Tories. Personally, I rather like Camerons approach of offering referendums on the big-ticket issues.
2) Although I'm in favour of staying in, I think the anti-EU crowd do have some points. It has metastasised over the decades, and there are issues of national sovereignty that haven't been addressed. And I've never heard any good answer to the main question facing the EU namely "Financial union without political union is turning out to be right balls-up, so whats the plan for the future then?"
The institutions need reform, and if Cameron can contribute to getting that ball rolling (doubtful, it'll be fig-leaf stuff) then I'd consider that a good thing.
Having a referendum is probably not a terrible idea in general. I mean, the point that the system has changed dramatically over time and so we could do with establishing whether the electorate is actually happy with it is a relevant one. But I also think that this is not why we are having it: instead it is taking place in order to appease the Tory party's militant wing. And that doesn't seem like the best reasoning.
Will this help the Tory party overcome its internal issues? Either way someone will be unhappy, and losing sides in votes tend not to change their minds as a result of the loss. Can you see Farage saying, "Well the people have spoken, time to pick a new topic?"
There is a clear democratic deficit at the heart of the EU and many nations, not just the British, are concerned about that. However, nothing can be done to address that in the next 18 months, so Cameron's referendum is meaningless because there can' t be an option 3, stay in with suitable reforms.
Charles Rampant wrote: it is taking place in order to appease the Tory party's militant wing. And that doesn't seem like the best reasoning.
Can you see Farage saying, "Well the people have spoken, time to pick a new topic?"
Eh, I don't really mind too much what the reasons are TBH.
When (and I do think it is when as opposed to if) we vote to stay in it will seriously take the wind from Farages sails. I suspect he'll carry on with a small-ish base of support, but I'd wager we've seen peak UKIP already.
Shifting topics -- I've been half-heartedly following the Labour leadership contest. It really is a collection of second rate no-marks and careerist hacks -- the front-runner is the eternally beige Andy Burnham FFS. I could be way, way off here but part of me does think that Labour might be done as a major political party, as a natural party of government. I mean what are they? Scandinavian style social democrats? A union backed workers party? Metropolitan progressives? Yes and no to all three IMO.
As I said maybe I'm wrong and Mr Burnham will turn out to be a political colossus ready to unite the country.
motyak wrote: I'm really not up on UK politics, who is David Starkey? A nutter, or does he actually hold a position of power? Or both?
He's a historian of some note, but also a professional troll.
Is it ok for me to post here? It was my message that was deleted on the other politics thread
Anyway, I was watching the EU debate in parliament today, specifically the amendments to the bill, and one of the major concerns is funding for the Yes and No sides. A lot of Conservative MPs made some valid points about campaign funding, and yet, in the Scottish independence referendum, they stayed silent on these same points, especially regarding the use of government resources.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll also return to my original point about the SNP and full fiscal autonomy(FFA).
The SNP won 56 out of 59 seats In Scotland. They campaigned on a FFA pledge, the unionist parties goaded the SNP to table an amendment for it, and they did, and now the government has slapped it down. So much for democracy. The Conservatives are even back-tracking on pledge of the Smith Commission, something they signed up to!!
Like I've said, the comparisons with the Irish home rule movement in the 19th century are eerily familiar...
A couple of days ago, Gordon Brown said that the Tories were a bigger thread to the union than the SNP are. There is a real desperation on display from Scottish unionist politicians - Jim Murphy making similar comments. And a consistent theme in their comments is that the Conservatives, by giving up on Scotland, are giving the SNP their dream situation.
The Labour leadership election is dull so far. They lost nearly their entire leadership cadre in the election, and it shows. But so far the candidates are lurching to the right, except for that Corbyn chap. I read somewhere that they are trying to emulate Blair's ability to simultaneously appeal to left and right wing voters, without realising that they have alienated their base by doing that. So whenever they now try to appeal to both, their natural voters abandon them for (of all things) UKIP.
The Tories have been the bigger threat to the Union since the dawn after the referendum when Cameron, cheered on by his little Englander backbenchers, popped up outside Downing Street, not to congratulate all on all on a hard fight well fought and commiserate with the losers, but immediately started banging on about English votes for English laws. So having persuaded/bribed/cajoled the Scots into voting No and staying in the Union, idiot Cameron proposes major changes to the very Union.
This nonsense reached its apogee in the latter stages of the GE campaign when the SNP was going to be running roughshod over a minoirity Labour government. Utter twaddle. It may have unexpectedly helped him into power but it has stirred up English nationlalism, something which the EU referendum campaign may make worse.
Yes. I think that if Scotland becomes independent in the next decade, then history will cite that speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street as the reason for it.
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a clear democratic deficit at the heart of the EU and many nations, not just the British, are concerned about that. However, nothing can be done to address that in the next 18 months, so Cameron's referendum is meaningless because there can' t be an option 3, stay in with suitable reforms.
This. You often get people complaining that the EU is awful and that country X should leave it, and when one as a response to this suggests staying in the EU and changing the bad things you're met with more "no, the EU is awful! Harumph!"
Re Starkey: The man's bat-guano-crazy obviously, but I found his reasoning utterly hilarious. In short - the SNP have "Nationalist" in their name, strike one; the Saltire(St Andrew's Cross, our flag) is a "corrupt cross" in that it's on a diagonal not straight up & down, which is totes exactly the same as a Swastika, strike two; German national dress is Lederhosen, Lederhosen show off the knee, Scottish national dress is the Kilt, Kilts also show off the knee, strike three. Ipso facto Nazis.
Re Full Fiscal Autonomy: It's not ideal IMO, but frankly it's better than what's on offer at the moment, which is essentially a poison pill. The threadbare Scotland Act as it stands provides control over Income Tax and permits the Scottish Government to spend its budget on welfare provision in some limited ways, the trap essentially being that the Tories will again slash social security, then the Scottish Government must either raise Income Tax alone to fund the gap(which is untenable economically because we would have none of the other powers and legislative competences necessary to manage and offset the effects that would have) and get savaged in the media as rabid tax & spend socialists, or let the cuts stand and get savaged in the media for not using the powers we've been given(the media, with their typical objectivity and nuance, of course completely failing to take into account the broader circumstances).
Of course FFA was never a realistic prospect; time & again Unionists have said publicly that if they give us FFA that's as good as admitting the Union is dead, and the level of scrutiny the transition process would put the UK's accounts under would be untenable, particularly for the current government who make a big deal out of being the "fiscally responsible" party, and a scenario in which Scotland were given control over all revenues raised in Scottish territory including offshore would put the final nail in the coffin of the rather useful(for Unionists) myth that Scotland is a "mendicant nation" dependent on English largesse - they'll want to keep hold of that in case there's another referendum in the next few years.
Again though, it's the batcrappery that I find most entertaining. Labour, Tories, media, all of them have been insisting for weeks that the SNP, despite arguing for it and putting it in their manifesto, didn't really want FFA. They've been banging on and on about the SNP "not having the courage of their convictions" blah blah etc; "Why won't you ask for FFA?", "The SNP know FFA would be a disaster!", "Hypocrites!" etc etc, then the moment the opportunity arises and the SNP submit an amendment and say "Fine then, give us FFA.", a deathly silence falls, punctuated only by Iain Murray quietly whimpering "Eh....no?" from the corner.
I particularly enjoyed Scottish Questions though. Scotland's only Tory MP and Scotland's only Labour MP standing across from each other taking questions largely from each other and English MPs that were mostly variations on;
"Thank you Mr Speaker, to ask the Honourable Gentleman if he would agree with me that SNP BAD?"
"I thank the Honourable Member for their question, to which I would respond that, indeed, SNP BAD, and furthermore, SNP VERY BAD."
The EU issue is actually starting to trouble me a little. I find the EU instinctively appealing as a concept(indeed I view it much the way I used to view the UK), but more and more issues have been arising over the last few years; TTIP, the treatment of Greece, the EU's response to the financial crisis more generally and in particular the way Germany seems to have been steering that response to benefit itself at the expense of smaller nations...I find myself beginning to agree more than disagree when people talk about it needing more urgent reform particularly regards democratic accountability. The problem, of course, is that typically the people putting forward the idea that the EU needs to be reformed are people who think those issues are fine & dandy, and when they talk about "reform" they mean eradicating the things about the EU I find most admirable like their commitment to free movement, to international solidarity, to human rights, and to regulating business from the side of the people not the corporations.
It makes it difficult to form a view, and in the UK it's difficult even to articulate it to others given how toxic and regressive elements have claimed Euroskepticism for themselves.
The EU issue is actually starting to trouble me a little. I find the EU instinctively appealing as a concept(indeed I view it much the way I used to view the UK), but more and more issues have been arising over the last few years; TTIP, the treatment of Greece, the EU's response to the financial crisis more generally and in particular the way Germany seems to have been steering that response to benefit itself at the expense of smaller nations...I find myself beginning to agree more than disagree when people talk about it needing more urgent reform particularly regards democratic accountability. The problem, of course, is that typically the people putting forward the idea that the EU needs to be reformed are people who think those issues are fine & dandy, and when they talk about "reform" they mean eradicating the things about the EU I find most admirable like their commitment to free movement, to international solidarity, to human rights, and to regulating business from the side of the people not the corporations.
It makes it difficult to form a view, and in the UK it's difficult even to articulate it to others given how toxic and regressive elements have claimed Euroskepticism for themselves.
Hard to disagree with that. Even as a very Pro-EU person, the project needs serious reform, but not the sort of reform Cameron and his Eurosceptic buddies want (ie. dismantling the EU's social mission and making it even MORE neoliberal than it currently is).
I think if we can't have this debate properly, the EU will fail, because people are getting tired of this neoliberal socialism for the rich crap that has been pulled over the last decade. I used to be hugely pro-EU, but even my patience is wearing very thin over the handling of the banking crisis and the fact that even now, years afterwards, we are not putting together what's needed to stop that from happening again.
The EU issue is actually starting to trouble me a little. I find the EU instinctively appealing as a concept(indeed I view it much the way I used to view the UK), but more and more issues have been arising over the last few years; TTIP, the treatment of Greece, the EU's response to the financial crisis more generally and in particular the way Germany seems to have been steering that response to benefit itself at the expense of smaller nations...I find myself beginning to agree more than disagree when people talk about it needing more urgent reform particularly regards democratic accountability. The problem, of course, is that typically the people putting forward the idea that the EU needs to be reformed are people who think those issues are fine & dandy, and when they talk about "reform" they mean eradicating the things about the EU I find most admirable like their commitment to free movement, to international solidarity, to human rights, and to regulating business from the side of the people not the corporations.
It makes it difficult to form a view, and in the UK it's difficult even to articulate it to others given how toxic and regressive elements have claimed Euroskepticism for themselves.
Hard to disagree with that. Even as a very Pro-EU person, the project needs serious reform, but not the sort of reform Cameron and his Eurosceptic buddies want (ie. dismantling the EU's social mission and making it even MORE neoliberal than it currently is).
I think if we can't have this debate properly, the EU will fail, because people are getting tired of this neoliberal socialism for the rich crap that has been pulled over the last decade. I used to be hugely pro-EU, but even my patience is wearing very thin over the handling of the banking crisis and the fact that even now, years afterwards, we are not putting together what's needed to stop that from happening again.
I used to be pro-EU as well, until 2008. Remember 2008? Ireland voted in a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, they voted no, but then the EU told them to vote again, and vote Yes. It was a shameful anti-democratic display.
That's not really what happened. We voted No, and then they polled to find out what the main issue was. They altered the treaty to address the issue (I can't remember but I think it was about the number of comissioners- we wanted to keep the number to 1 per country as it benefits small nations like us.)
Then they put the new, amended treaty to us and we voted yes. Democracy in action, I would say. I remember voting in both, and I'm a bit embarrassed that I can't remember the issue now. I do remember the absolutely ludicrous and dishonest No campaign posters though- claiming our minimum wage would drop to 1.89, that our kids would be drafted into a European army, loads of bollocks like that. None of it has happened, but for some reason our crop of Eurosceptics were never hauled in and questioned fiercely over their false claims.
I so see that lie being spouted a LOT in british media, so I'm not surprised you have heard that end of it, though. Farage came over with UKIP leaflets during, a particularly tone deaf intervention from the oul fella.
Da Boss wrote: That's not really what happened. We voted No, and then they polled to find out what the main issue was. They altered the treaty to address the issue (I can't remember but I think it was about the number of comissioners- we wanted to keep the number to 1 per country as it benefits small nations like us.)
Then they put the new, amended treaty to us and we voted yes. Democracy in action, I would say.
I so see that lie being spouted a LOT in british media, so I'm not surprised you have heard that end of it, though. Farage came over with UKIP leaflets during, a particularly tone deaf intervention from the oul fella.
But France and Holland voted NO to it as well, and they were ignored. As well!
Sorry but that is not entirely correct either. The French Non on the constitution effectively killed it. The later Lisbon Treaty was not the same document, and was passed by the French parliament.
I think this is a good example of how the debate around Europe becomes distorted. The British press are really very bad about this, even the BBC.
Da Boss wrote: Sorry but that is not entirely correct either. The French Non on the constitution effectively killed it. The later Lisbon Treaty was not the same document, and was passed by the French parliament.
I think this is a good example of how the debate around Europe becomes distorted. The British press are really very bad about this, even the BBC.
When it comes to the vote, I'm 50/50 on this.
I've been following the bill's progress through the House of Commons, and the issue of Purdah, has a lot of people concerned.
Like I said, I'm also a bit split. On the one hand, I think it would be bad for the EU as a whole and Ireland in particular if Britain left. On the other hand, I'm sick of hearing about this issue and would like it to be cleanly resolved, and I also feel that Britain holds the EU back from being what I would like it to be, and promotes things in Europe that I don't agree with, like the Eastward Expansion and TTIP. On balance I suppose I'm okay with you guys staying, but I think it's slightly underestimated in the UK the level of exasperation with this entire issue, and British obstructionism in general.
Da Boss wrote: Like I said, I'm also a bit split. On the one hand, I think it would be bad for the EU as a whole and Ireland in particular if Britain left. On the other hand, I'm sick of hearing about this issue and would like it to be cleanly resolved, and I also feel that Britain holds the EU back from being what I would like it to be, and promotes things in Europe that I don't agree with, like the Eastward Expansion and TTIP. On balance I suppose I'm okay with you guys staying, but I think it's slightly underestimated in the UK the level of exasperation with this entire issue, and British obstructionism in general.
For historical reasons, Britain's been like this for years. We still can't decide on America or Europe, so we try to do both, and it usually fails
But a lot of people have made this point, and it's one I agree with. Trading with Europe is fine, people moving around Europe is fine, and making these things easier is ok in my book, but a European super state? Not for me.
Well, just like the USA, but individual states would be nations like the UK, France, Germany etc
It scares the hell out of me, and I'm broadly pro-EU!
There are people pushing for a European super state with it's own army, foreign policy etc
With the rise of China, and of course, the USA being number 1, some European leaders would Europe to be the 3rd 'superpower' to act as a balance.
It always amazes me that you seem to be able to pull charts out of nowhere!
And just for you, whembley, the Clintons support the idea of a European super state
*shudder*
I don't see how practical it would be for ya'll to form up a Super State. But, if that DID happen, then the EU monetary system would work much better as ya'll be one entity.
Well, just like the USA, but individual states would be nations like the UK, France, Germany etc
It scares the hell out of me, and I'm broadly pro-EU!
There are people pushing for a European super state with it's own army, foreign policy etc
With the rise of China, and of course, the USA being number 1, some European leaders would Europe to be the 3rd 'superpower' to act as a balance.
It always amazes me that you seem to be able to pull charts out of nowhere!
And just for you, whembley, the Clintons support the idea of a European super state
*shudder*
I don't see how practical it would be for ya'll to form up a Super State. But, if that DID happen, then the EU monetary system would work much better as ya'll be one entity.
Be careful, as it can get wonkey and just plain weird like Zero Hedge.
Some aspects of it make sense. For example, I've long argued that the UK, France, and Germany, should shoulder the military burden for Europe, especially in regard to Russia. This would allow the USA to pull out of Europe, and shift its focus to Asia.
Unfortunately, two problems always rise:
1) Germany, for historical reasons, is reluctant to beef up its military.
2) As soon as the British public hear talk of German re-armament, then alarm bells start ringing. (yeah, I know it's 70 years, but this is Britain ) and the British public and the newspapers start demanding that the idea goes out the window.
Well, just like the USA, but individual states would be nations like the UK, France, Germany etc
It scares the hell out of me, and I'm broadly pro-EU!
There are people pushing for a European super state with it's own army, foreign policy etc
With the rise of China, and of course, the USA being number 1, some European leaders would Europe to be the 3rd 'superpower' to act as a balance.
It always amazes me that you seem to be able to pull charts out of nowhere!
And just for you, whembley, the Clintons support the idea of a European super state
*shudder*
I don't see how practical it would be for ya'll to form up a Super State. But, if that DID happen, then the EU monetary system would work much better as ya'll be one entity.
Be careful, as it can get wonkey and just plain weird like Zero Hedge.
Some aspects of it make sense. For example, I've long argued that the UK, France, and Germany, should shoulder the military burden for Europe, especially in regard to Russia. This would allow the USA to pull out of Europe, and shift its focus to Asia.
Unfortunately, two problems always rise:
1) Germany, for historical reasons, is reluctant to beef up its military.
If they're part of a Federal SuperState... why? That's like saying, Pennsylvania would lose their gak if Georgia beefs up their National Guard.
2) As soon as the British public hear talk of German re-armament, then alarm bells start ringing. (yeah, I know it's 70 years, but this is Britain ) and the British public and the newspapers start demanding that the idea goes out the window.
The other weaker nations keep the euro weak which allows Germany to export it's manufactured goods more easily. That's the main way. The other side of it is just good governance on the part of the Germans.
The problem in Europe is that there was no stimulus as in the US to counteract the recession, just cuts and austerity for most nations. That, and we didn't let banks fail. That has prolonged the recession (in my opinion).
I am pro Federalising Europe to remove the technocracy from it- I want a more directly democratically accountable EU government, and I want the citizens of the EU to be more engaged with it. Stuff like the army and so on don't scare me so much, nor do they interest me- we're not a particularly warlike part of the world, bar Britain.
Federalising solves a lot of problems, unfortunately, many nations are pretty nationalistic and do not want to "lose" any sense of nationhood to join a larger whole. Britain is again my prime example here.
I'm also skeptical that in this age of corporate power we could federalise without massive corruption and capture of the insitutions by monied interests.
Edit: And yes, the Brits are obsessed with the Nazis. Unhealthily so.
Da Boss wrote: The other weaker nations keep the euro weak which allows Germany to export it's manufactured goods more easily. That's the main way. The other side of it is just good governance on the part of the Germans.
The problem in Europe is that there was no stimulus as in the US to counteract the recession, just cuts and austerity for most nations. That, and we didn't let banks fail. That has prolonged the recession (in my opinion).
I am pro Federalising Europe to remove the technocracy from it- I want a more directly democratically accountable EU government, and I want the citizens of the EU to be more engaged with it. Stuff like the army and so on don't scare me so much, nor do they interest me- we're not a particularly warlike part of the world, bar Britain.
Federalising solves a lot of problems, unfortunately, many nations are pretty nationalistic and do not want to "lose" any sense of nationhood to join a larger whole. Britain is again my prime example here.
I'm also skeptical that in this age of corporate power we could federalise without massive corruption and capture of the insitutions by monied interests.
Edit: And yes, the Brits are obsessed with the Nazis. Unhealthily so.
Germany also has an advantage that it spends less on defence than France or the UK. High time that changed.
whembly wrote: Doesn't the recent antics with Putin give you the willies yet? Any calls to arms by UK/France/Germany???
Yeah by me!
I wrote to my MP (member of parliament) about this last year. Never got a response. No surprise. He's gone now, he got voted out last month, and I've got a new MP, but he's anti-NATO.
Charles Rampant wrote: So an interesting post over in the (obviously inferior ) US thread concerning Scottish devolution was deleted as off topic; in response, here is a UK thread. The topic was this, or the subject of Full Fiscal Autonomy. Even as an SNP supporter, I've got mixed feelings on that particular issue, so I'm curious to hear others' views. As per usual, economists make wildly divergent claims about it, thus promoting the suspicion that they make it all up anyway.
The SNP want fiscal autonomy because it takes more of the power reins, and places them comfortably in their hands. Like all politicians, that's something they're always going to be in favour of, because all politicians in any sort of power tend to be deceptive autocrats.
I think the question here though, needs to simply be, 'What would Scotland or the Union gain/lose from this arrangement?'
Under such an arrangement, Scotland would be able to tailor it's own new version of the welfare estate, and allow Scottish MP's to play around with taxes. It would however, also suffer from the fact that Scotland would then be completely subject to the vagaries of it's own economy, for better or worse. If Scotland cannot raise the funds to pay for healthcare/education/benefits, than Scotland must take out it's own loans. There'll be no relying on the British exchequer.
From what I recall of my own reading during the independence referendum, Scotland paid more into the Union than it took out, but only if you included in the oil revenue (which ran contrary to what both sides were claiming, namely that either Scotland relied purely on Britain, or the SNP's claims that the oil was surplus to requirements). Since oil revenues have dropped significantly since that time however, Scotland is now in a slightly worse position, and is now relying on the British exchequer instead of contributing more than it takes out. This may be a long term thing, or a short term thing, such speculations are out of my range.
The point however, is that the minute Scotland goes fiscally independent, it's responsible for itself. Under the auspices of the British exchequer, Scotland is shielded from many of the vagaries of international economics. No matter how well or how poorly Scotland is doing economically, the people there are guaranteed a certain level of spending/funding (that of everybody else). That goes out the window with fiscal autonomy.
I personally believe however, that federalism weakens Britain's ability to deal with economic issues cohesively. It also sparks the possibility of further divisions along the lines of healthcare, benefits and education, where someone who lives five miles north or south of a border gets completely different levels of treatment ( in ten years time, it could be that the English side of the border is better). And I'm not so sure that would be a good thing.
Federalism is not the be-all solution that people suggest, and I'm not certain that bowing to rampant nationalism, in England or Scotland, is the way forward.
Oh, and David Starkey made some oddcomments: he thinks that the SNP are the new Nazis, and somehow compared the swastika and the St Andrews cross in the process. Asking around in the history department where I am doing my PhD, he has an interesting reputation as a good historian who talks a lot of mince about things not within his field.
From what I recall of Starkey, he's someone who got on television, and so everyone thought he was important . And because people thought he was important, he got grants. And using those grants, he got to hire lots of postdocs to do research for him that he published under his own name, although I don't think he even does much of that anymore.
Really, I haven't heard many historians speak well of the man, in an academic sense. I get the impression he was a perfectly adequate, but not particularly exceptional academic in a niche field, who struck it big on telly, and got inflated notions of his own stature.
The first graph shows that production remained the same or higher in those countries until the 2007 financial crisis but arbitrarily marks off the introduction of the Euro.
The second one seems to think that Greece had a higher production of total industry than Germany from 1973 to 2011 (approx) which seems rather unlikely. It also arbitrarily marks off the introduction of the Euro rather than the 2007 crisis.
They're not coincidences they don't even correlate.
Was that in reference to myself? I can't tell, because whilst I didn't provide any graphs, neither did anyone else that I can see...
No, it was a reference to the graphs. I went to their source on some blog page to check them. It is always good practice to check the sources. I don't know who posted them here.
Ketara made the point that Full Fiscal Autonomy and/or federalism could weaken Britain.
I'll nail my colours to the mast and declare my pro-Scottish independence stance, but taking a step back, and trying to be impartial, I can't see any alternative to be honest.
The Union, as it stands, will not last. It's not just Scotland wanting more powers, it's the rest of the UK as well. We need to shift away from London and the SE dominance.
HS2 will not reach Scotland, or even Wales, but I'm expected to pay my taxes towards it, when their are local projects up here that go unfunded, which are badly needed.
A northern powerhouse could re-dress the balance in England, but federalism is the only answer in my book. And scrap that house of lords retirement home as well!
Was that in reference to myself? I can't tell, because whilst I didn't provide any graphs, neither did anyone else that I can see...
No, it was a reference to the graphs. I went to their source on some blog page to check them. It is always good practice to check the sources. I don't know who posted them here.
Everyone knew that that the transition to the EU would be rocky.
I think you mean transition to the Euro common currency.
The point is not whether transition was rocky but that these graphs do not show evidence of it.
Do you want more powers for your part of England?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote: The first graph shows that production remained the same or higher in those countries until the 2007 financial crisis but arbitrarily marks off the introduction of the Euro.
The second one seems to think that Greece had a higher production of total industry than Germany from 1973 to 2011 (approx) which seems rather unlikely. It also arbitrarily marks off the introduction of the Euro rather than the 2007 crisis.
They're not coincidences they don't even correlate.
Same question to you: do you want more powers for your part of England?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ketara made the point that Full Fiscal Autonomy and/or federalism could weaken Britain.
I'll nail my colours to the mast and declare my pro-Scottish independence stance, but taking a step back, and trying to be impartial, I can't see any alternative to be honest.
The Union, as it stands, will not last. It's not just Scotland wanting more powers, it's the rest of the UK as well. We need to shift away from London and the SE dominance.
HS2 will not reach Scotland, or even Wales, but I'm expected to pay my taxes towards it, when their are local projects up here that go unfunded, which are badly needed.
A northern powerhouse could re-dress the balance in England, but federalism is the only answer in my book. And scrap that house of lords retirement home as well!
I would question as to why federalism is 'necessary'. Everyone talks about needing to 'shift away from London', but seems very sparse on what the alternative is. If London doesn't earn the money, who will? How? If we break down into individual fiefdoms of different nationalist politicians, how does a country maintain any kind of unified economic policy? How does it react to economic crises? How do you prevent living standards in different areas slipping in different provinces? How does your country control inflation, take out loans, or use any other key crucial financial levers?
Also, who says that delegating financial powers to a local Parliament will fix any problems? How? Also what are these massive problems that can only be solved by devolving economic policy? The truth is, I actually haven't even coherently heard why this needs to happen. The line is just, 'Financial devolution needs to happen because nationalism. And something about local investment. And fat cats in southeast england! Yeah!'.
The truth is, it's just a kneejerk reaction to Scottish nationalism. And Scotland voted to stay in the Union. Sure, chuck more local governance stuff up north, but full fiscal devolution? Utter madness that will economically break the Union far more certainly than any other alternative.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ketara made the point that Full Fiscal Autonomy and/or federalism could weaken Britain.
I'll nail my colours to the mast and declare my pro-Scottish independence stance, but taking a step back, and trying to be impartial, I can't see any alternative to be honest.
The Union, as it stands, will not last. It's not just Scotland wanting more powers, it's the rest of the UK as well. We need to shift away from London and the SE dominance.
HS2 will not reach Scotland, or even Wales, but I'm expected to pay my taxes towards it, when their are local projects up here that go unfunded, which are badly needed.
A northern powerhouse could re-dress the balance in England, but federalism is the only answer in my book. And scrap that house of lords retirement home as well!
I would question as to why federalism is 'necessary'. Everyone talks about needing to 'shift away from London', but seems very sparse on what the alternative is. If London doesn't earn the money, who will? How? If we break down into individual fiefdoms of different nationalist politicians, how does a country maintain any kind of unified economic policy? How does it react to economic crises? How do you prevent living standards in different areas slipping in different provinces? How does your country control inflation, take out loans, or use any other key crucial financial levers?
I dunno, ask the USA. Or Canada. Or Australia. Or Germany. Or Switzerland. I could literally keep going all day, half the developed world uses some form of Federal model of governance. Also, how do we do things like that now in the UK, because I don't know if you've noticed but living standards aren't even close to uniform across this country, our economic policy is schizophrenic, and our reaction to the financial crash was a shambles that first saw us pump vast sums of public money into the private banking sector, demanding virtually nothing in return, and then several years of growth self-harm via austerity which only began to improve once Gideon & chums abandoned their debt targets and began borrowing like crazy again.
As for London earning the money; it doesn't. London soaks up money from the rest of the country in the form of infrastructure spending(Crossrail, new sewers, HS2 - hell if we divvied up London based on who paid for things Scotland would own a population share of the Underground), which is used to support a low-wage service-based economy heavily dependent on a financial sector which offshores big chunks of the resulting profits rather than reinvest, and a cripplingly unhealthy property market propped up with vast amounts of private debt. Meanwhile the burgeoning renewables industry in Scotland, as an example of alternatives, which provides real, well-paying jobs and has tons of sustainable growth potential is about to have its funding slashed(hilariously losing said funding was one of the big arguments used against independence).
Also, who says that delegating financial powers to a local Parliament will fix any problems? How? Also what are these massive problems that can only be solved by devolving economic policy? The truth is, I actually haven't even coherently heard why this needs to happen. The line is just, 'Financial devolution needs to happen because nationalism. And something about local investment. And fat cats in southeast england! Yeah!'.
Then you've evidently not examined the issue particularly closely. Setting aside the fact that "full-Federalism" and "home rule" etc were what was promised to us during the referendum campaign, and FFA was in the manifesto of the SNP who won the election in Scotland both in terms of seats taken and share of the popular vote, and so should be delivered regardless of the justifications; FFA/devomax/home rule would allow a more tailored tax system, one with fewer loopholes, a bigger focus on SMEs(which are the vast majority of businesses in Scotland) over corporations, and the ability to target tax breaks based on our own priorities rather than The City's. It would enable us to roll back Thatcher's anti-trade union laws, to support the introduction of a living wage as the minimum wage, to target infrastructure investment and public spending generally in ways calculated to improve the situation in the most deprived parts of the country, to regulate the banking sector in a more prudent fashion to prevent another crash, to genuinely reform rather than "reform"(code for cut to the bone) the welfare system in a way that fully joins-up with our economic policy, again I could keep going all day, but I really shouldn't have to considering the internet is positively dripping with rational and extremely thorough arguments for and against FFA which you could have chosen to peruse before now, but evidently ignored in favour of indulging in a bit of nat-bashing.
The truth is, it's just a kneejerk reaction to Scottish nationalism. And Scotland voted to stay in the Union. Sure, chuck more local governance stuff up north, but full fiscal devolution? Utter madness that will economically break the Union far more certainly than any other alternative.
Scotland voted to stay in the Union on the back of a campaign that made certain promises, and subsequently voted for an SNP manifesto that included FFA. You want to know what will kill the Union far more certainly than anything else? Fobbing us off with token devolution while subjecting us to the legislative agenda of a government that took 1 seat and less than 15% of the popular vote up here(a record low vote share for them) for the next five to ten years.
I dunno, ask the USA. Or Canada. Or Australia. Or Germany. Or Switzerland. I could literally keep going all day, half the developed world uses some form of Federal model of governance.
Sure. But most of them don't use full fiscal autonomy. If you look at the US, each state does have individual taxes, but as far as I know (please correct me someone if I'm wrong, as foreign tax arrangements aren't my strongest point), there are overarching taxes that the central Government (or the IRS) still collects. It's not the case that individual states charge and tax everything as they see fit, and then decide how much they're going to contribute to the purse of central government.
Also, how do we do things like that now in the UK, because I don't know if you've noticed but living standards aren't even close to uniform across this country, our economic policy is schizophrenic, and our reaction to the financial crash was a shambles that first saw us pump vast sums of public money into the private banking sector, demanding virtually nothing in return, and then several years of growth self-harm via austerity which only began to improve once Gideon & chums abandoned their debt targets and began borrowing like crazy again.
Not quite. Economics and the markets are not so simple. But that's a whole other ball game, and quite frankly, the only answer to it is, 'there is no right answer'. Cameron and co aren't just foolish morons who randomly insisted on austerity for ideological reasons, and the economy didn't pick up purely because they started borrowing money. Economics is a convoluted mess that some of the brightest minds have failed to decipher, so trying to break it down in that way is a bit disingenuous.
As for London earning the money; it doesn't. London soaks up money from the rest of the country in the form of infrastructure spending(Crossrail, new sewers, HS2 - hell if we divvied up London based on who paid for things Scotland would own a population share of the Underground),
And England would own a share of the Edinburgh tramline, an SNP project which only benefited the Scottish, and ended up 375 million pounds overbudget. Or the Borders railway, which started off with a quote of £73 million, but has now hit £353 million, and is looking to be the most heavily subsidised line in the entire UK.
It's almost as if infrastructure projects are based where enough of a country's population live to utilise it, and the debt is taken on by Government under the assumption it will benefit those people.
which is used to support a low-wage service-based economy heavily dependent on a financial sector which offshores big chunks of the resulting profits rather than reinvest, and a cripplingly unhealthy property market propped up with vast amounts of private debt.
I agree with this. Unfortunately, there is no clear alternative. Your example below:-
Meanwhile the burgeoning renewables industry in Scotland, as an example of alternatives, which provides real, well-paying jobs
is on so many EU and UK government subsidies to keep it alive that the thought of leaving the EU renders the people who run it comatose. Renewable energy is a wonderful idea, but the fact is that Scotland itself simply doesn't generate enough cash to fund it. With the coal burning Longannet power station closing down, Scotland also physically doesn't even have the capability to generate enough power for daily consumption if the wind isn't blowing, without drawing on reserves from south of the border.
Renewables are a great idea, but they don't generate much power, and gobble up funding faster than the Tory Government does donations from rich foreigners.
and has tons of sustainable growth potential is about to have its funding slashed(hilariously losing said funding was one of the big arguments used against independence).
We've been urinating money at renewable power indiscriminately for quite some time, to the point where many of the companies are shells designed to pump money to various rich buggers, a bit like the farming subsidies in France. The policy you're referring is that basically automatic fixed-rate subsidies are being replaced by more selective processes. Which is a good thing, quite frankly.
Then you've evidently not examined the issue particularly closely. Setting aside the fact that "full-Federalism" and "home rule" etc were what was promised to us during the referendum campaign,
Sorry, I missed the devo max/full fiscal autonomy promise. Can you link to that? (seriously)
and FFA was in the manifesto of the SNP who won the election in Scotland both in terms of seats taken and share of the popular vote, and so should be delivered regardless of the justifications
Just to clarify, if Wales elected MP's who decided that they really wanted to give loans to Greece, or Ireland ones that had pledged to abolish income tax, would those somehow be binding upon the UK government?
The fact is squire, you're a region of a country. You don't get to pick what the rest of the country's financial policies are as they relate to that section, or we'd have Cornwall announcing economic blockades of their pasties to Russia.
; FFA/devomax/home rule would allow a more tailored tax system, one with fewer loopholes, a bigger focus on SMEs(which are the vast majority of businesses in Scotland) over corporations, and the ability to target tax breaks based on our own priorities rather than The City's.
It would be a more tailored tax system, because it would be a Scottish tax system. Which would be fine if Scotland was independent. But it's not. So it has to work with what everyone else does in this department. Otherwise the concept of a Union ceases to exist, both in reality, and in practicality.
Plus, let's be honest, the Scottish Parliament already has a considerable amount of power over local economic decisions. It's not like every single tax in Scotland is some diktat handed down on high from Westminster.
It would enable us to roll back Thatcher's anti-trade union laws, to support the introduction of a living wage as the minimum wage, to target infrastructure investment and public spending generally in ways calculated to improve the situation in the most deprived parts of the country,
Do you actually believe that would happen?
to regulate the banking sector in a more prudent fashion to prevent another crash,
I read, 'to guarantee we no longer have a banking sector' there.
to genuinely reform rather than "reform"(code for cut to the bone) the welfare system in a way that fully joins-up with our economic policy, again I could keep going all day, but I really shouldn't have to considering the internet is positively dripping with rational and extremely thorough arguments for and against FFA which you could have chosen to peruse before now, but evidently ignored in favour of indulging in a bit of nat-bashing.
I'm still waiting for you to present me with one. I actually know a bit (I'm not a direct specialist, but studied the subject ) about economics, and I've yet to hear one, either in your post or anyone else. How about you give me one instead of misrepresenting my statements?
Scotland voted to stay in the Union on the back of a campaign that made certain promises, and subsequently voted for an SNP manifesto that included FFA.
Wonderful. Did that campaign pledge FFA? If so, then I understand. If not? Suck it up I'm afraid.
You want to know what will kill the Union far more certainly than anything else? Fobbing us off with token devolution while subjecting us to the legislative agenda of a government that took 1 seat and less than 15% of the popular vote up here(a record low vote share for them) for the next five to ten years.
By the sounds of things so far, the SNP are dedicated to little else but trashing the Union one way or another (which is after all, their avowed aim more or less). Sadly, I think it probably will happen. And then everyone in Scotland will spend the following few centuries complaining about how their politicians cater to the rich, all the funding goes to Edinburgh, and how the people in a remote hill county are ignored and trampled on because all the people in the cities can outvote them.
I dunno, ask the USA. Or Canada. Or Australia. Or Germany. Or Switzerland. I could literally keep going all day, half the developed world uses some form of Federal model of governance.
Sure. But most of them don't use full fiscal autonomy. If you look at the US, each state does have individual taxes, but as far as I know (please correct me someone if I'm wrong, as foreign tax arrangements aren't my strongest point), there are overarching taxes that the central Government (or the IRS) still collects. It's not the case that individual states charge and tax everything as they see fit, and then decide how much they're going to contribute to the purse of central government.
The Federal Government is largely funded by three things (there are others, bear with me):
1) Federal Income taxes (on individual wages)
2) Federal Corporate taxes
3) Fees
The State could take a bite (usually smaller) at the wages/corporate level, but is mainly funded by property taxes and licensing fees.
It used to be that the Federal Government, for the lack of description, bills the state by "apportioned mechanism", and the State decided how to tax it's citizen. But, the 16th Amendment changed all that.
The State could take a bite (usually smaller) at the wages/corporate level, but is mainly funded by property taxes and licensing fees.
It used to be that the Federal Government, for the lack of description, bills the state by "apportioned mechanism", and the State decided how to tax it's citizen. But, the 16th Amendment changed all that.
So just to clarify, the State does have nation wide taxes? Fiscal matters are not completely controlled by each individual state (or FFA)?
The State could take a bite (usually smaller) at the wages/corporate level, but is mainly funded by property taxes and licensing fees.
It used to be that the Federal Government, for the lack of description, bills the state by "apportioned mechanism", and the State decided how to tax it's citizen. But, the 16th Amendment changed all that.
So just to clarify, the State does have nation wide taxes? Fiscal matters are not completely controlled by each individual state (or FFA)?
I think we're confusing each other.
The Federal Reserve, empowered by the Federal Reserve Act, set's monetary policies. Keep in mind that it's an independent board.
The individual State can set taxing policies... even within that state, the Cities could also devise other taxing provisions as well.
As a general rule, the Federal income taxes applies to all US territories.
Each state, in addition, can have their own as well. (ie, Missouri has a State income tax, but states like Florida/Texas/Alaska does not).
I think we're using the terms 'State' and 'Federal' in opposite ways. When I say 'State' I'm referring to the central Government, whereas you're referring to the individual State governments. And when I say 'Federal', I'm referring to a single individual chunk of the country (Scotland), whereas you're referring to the Central Government.
If that's the case, what you've written makes sense, and outlines how the USA, whilst federalised, does not confer fiscal autonomy on it's individual member states, but rather actually has a setup closer to the UK.
I'm not sure why you asked be but ok. Yes I's like to see a local parliament of some kind for the north, the south east and perhaps the south west following a similar model to that which currently exists for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I'd like to see Parliament's power reduced or more accurately, devolved amongst these regional powers. I don't see this as a move towards independence nor do I wish to see any part of the UK become fully independent nations.
One aspect of current policy that worries me that does not receive any attention is the situation with Scottish students, who for obvious financial reasons go to Scottish universities. It's a form of educational apartheid which causes university students, an important group in society, to become two separate groups. I saw more Scots in the Czech republic when I studied there than I did at my university.
Presumably the Czech Republic offers free tuition to EU citizens. I am thinking of sending my daughter to university in Sweden or somewhere for the same reason.
I dunno, ask the USA. Or Canada. Or Australia. Or Germany. Or Switzerland. I could literally keep going all day, half the developed world uses some form of Federal model of governance.
Sure. But most of them don't use full fiscal autonomy. If you look at the US, each state does have individual taxes, but as far as I know (please correct me someone if I'm wrong, as foreign tax arrangements aren't my strongest point), there are overarching taxes that the central Government (or the IRS) still collects. It's not the case that individual states charge and tax everything as they see fit, and then decide how much they're going to contribute to the purse of central government.
Or you could look at Germany, where the states have huge legislative competence and control most of their spending, with taxes set collaboratively with the central authority through the upper house. Or the Swiss Cantons, which control most of their own taxation, and even delegate some tax powers down to the level of municipalities. My point in bringing up a range of examples was to illustrate that your hair-pulling whataboutery is nonsense; there are options, there are various levels of federal autonomy and they all seem to work well enough, so this idea that the UK is somehow uniquely unsuited to it is nonsense.
Also, how do we do things like that now in the UK, because I don't know if you've noticed but living standards aren't even close to uniform across this country, our economic policy is schizophrenic, and our reaction to the financial crash was a shambles that first saw us pump vast sums of public money into the private banking sector, demanding virtually nothing in return, and then several years of growth self-harm via austerity which only began to improve once Gideon & chums abandoned their debt targets and began borrowing like crazy again.
Not quite. Economics and the markets are not so simple. But that's a whole other ball game, and quite frankly, the only answer to it is, 'there is no right answer'. Cameron and co aren't just foolish morons who randomly insisted on austerity for ideological reasons, and the economy didn't pick up purely because they started borrowing money. Economics is a convoluted mess that some of the brightest minds have failed to decipher, so trying to break it down in that way is a bit disingenuous.
And yet when you look around the world at the various responses to the financial crisis; stimulus-based responses mostly led to quicker recovery than austerity-based responses, to the point that even the IMF, no socialists they, now conclude that the Tory austerity plans are counter-productive. The economy did not pick up purely because they started borrowing heavily again, it was recovering prior to that, but it was recovering extremely slowly relative to stimulus-based responses, and the recovery only began to catch up once the government began pumping money back into the economy.
As for London earning the money; it doesn't. London soaks up money from the rest of the country in the form of infrastructure spending(Crossrail, new sewers, HS2 - hell if we divvied up London based on who paid for things Scotland would own a population share of the Underground),
And England would own a share of the Edinburgh tramline, an SNP project which only benefited the Scottish, and ended up 375 million pounds overbudget. Or the Borders railway, which started off with a quote of £73 million, but has now hit £353 million, and is looking to be the most heavily subsidised line in the entire UK.
It's almost as if infrastructure projects are based where enough of a country's population live to utilise it, and the debt is taken on by Government under the assumption it will benefit those people.
You're kidding, right? Scotland's share of HS2 alone will be £4billion, and that's assuming it comes in on-budget. That project will not benefit us one iota, particularly now that they're not even planning to bring it all the way into the North of England let alone to Scotland, and yet we'll be expected to pay interest on that debt taken out on our behalf by the UK government. London receives a vastly disproportionate level of investment compared to the rest of the UK, there have been years when it has gotten more than all other parts of the UK combined. The idea that it's based on population is laughable. Further, viewing infrastructure spending entirely as a passive response is short-sighted; infrastructure spending can spur new growth as well as support existing growth, and when our economy and government spending is already so massively unbalanced in favour of one section of the country, infrastructure spending should be being used as a tool to help alter that trend, not reinforce it.
which is used to support a low-wage service-based economy heavily dependent on a financial sector which offshores big chunks of the resulting profits rather than reinvest, and a cripplingly unhealthy property market propped up with vast amounts of private debt.
I agree with this. Unfortunately, there is no clear alternative. Your example below:-
Meanwhile the burgeoning renewables industry in Scotland, as an example of alternatives, which provides real, well-paying jobs
is on so many EU and UK government subsidies to keep it alive that the thought of leaving the EU renders the people who run it comatose. Renewable energy is a wonderful idea, but the fact is that Scotland itself simply doesn't generate enough cash to fund it. With the coal burning Longannet power station closing down, Scotland also physically doesn't even have the capability to generate enough power for daily consumption if the wind isn't blowing, without drawing on reserves from south of the border.
Renewables are a great idea, but they don't generate much power, and gobble up funding faster than the Tory Government does donations from rich foreigners.
As opposed to what, nuclear, that needs special deals done with government-mandated price-fixing to even be viable(indeed nuclear will cost the UK far more than renewables subsidy)? Coal, that gets £10bn in subsidies across the EU? Oil & Gas extraction, that benefits from hefty tax-breaks and shared decomissioning cost commitments? All forms of energy production are heavily subsidised, we do so because countries like to have control of their own energy supply, the only question is what we want to subsidise.
Also, what on earth are you on about? Scotland is a net-exporter of energy to the rest of the UK, variation in renewables output only determines the level of the export. Additionally our capacity for renewables generation even at current levels of technological efficiency is enough to power ourselves and still remain an exporter, if exploited fully. Incidentally, one of the projects that will now have to be shelved thanks to the cuts was an expansion of the hydro capacitor system, whereby existing and new hydro facilities were used to store generated renewables output. The Longannet closure, if it goes ahead, will eliminate our net positive status, but the Peterhead plant should still provide enough voltage support capacity to account for domestic use. It should also be noted that the reason the Longannet plant is in trouble in the first place is the ridiculous disparity in national grid Transmission Charges that see a Scottish power station told they have to pay £40million but sees plants in the SE of England given a subsidy.
Then you've evidently not examined the issue particularly closely. Setting aside the fact that "full-Federalism" and "home rule" etc were what was promised to us during the referendum campaign,
Sorry, I missed the devo max/full fiscal autonomy promise. Can you link to that? (seriously)
Did you look at a newpaper at all during 2014? Google is your friend.
and FFA was in the manifesto of the SNP who won the election in Scotland both in terms of seats taken and share of the popular vote, and so should be delivered regardless of the justifications
Just to clarify, if Wales elected MP's who decided that they really wanted to give loans to Greece, or Ireland ones that had pledged to abolish income tax, would those somehow be binding upon the UK government?
The fact is squire, you're a region of a country. You don't get to pick what the rest of the country's financial policies are as they relate to that section, or we'd have Cornwall announcing economic blockades of their pasties to Russia.
The fact is, "squire", my comment was in regards to what will be, not what is now. You're worried about what FFA/devo-max will mean for the future of the Union, I'm trying to tell you that whatever the constitutional facts regarding Scotland's nationhood(and you're right, we're a region as things stand), treating us like a region in rhetorical or legislative terms will end the Union faster than any FFA settlement ever could. Doubly so when the Tories are in charge.
; FFA/devomax/home rule would allow a more tailored tax system, one with fewer loopholes, a bigger focus on SMEs(which are the vast majority of businesses in Scotland) over corporations, and the ability to target tax breaks based on our own priorities rather than The City's.
It would be a more tailored tax system, because it would be a Scottish tax system. Which would be fine if Scotland was independent. But it's not. So it has to work with what everyone else does in this department. Otherwise the concept of a Union ceases to exist, both in reality, and in practicality.
See opening remarks, plenty of other places manage it, I doubt we're uniquely incapable.
Plus, let's be honest, the Scottish Parliament already has a considerable amount of power over local economic decisions. It's not like every single tax in Scotland is some diktat handed down on high from Westminster.
Erm, really, at this point I have to ask; where are you getting your info from? Because up until the very limited powers we'll be getting over the next few years, almost every tax in Scotland IS "some diktat handed down from on high from Westminster" - literally the only tax powers we had were over council taxes and the power to vary only the basic rate of income tax by +3p. Income tax rates & bands, corporation tax, inheritance tax, excise duties, capital gains - everything else was reserved.
Benefits and social security, immigration, defence, foreign policy, employment, broadcasting, trade and industry, energy policy, consumer rights, data protection, constitutional matters, almost all taxation, and dozens of other individual Acts of Parliament are all reserved to Westminster. We get control over education, Scots law(both of which were already effectively independently run pre-devolution), agriculture, most but not all environmental regulations, health & social services, local government, arts & sport, tourism, and partial control of housing and transport. Even if we were to use the new, extremely modest tax powers proposed by the Smith Commission to raise additional revenue, we can't actually spend that money on most of the major policy areas that drive economic growth because they will remain reserved.
It would enable us to roll back Thatcher's anti-trade union laws, to support the introduction of a living wage as the minimum wage, to target infrastructure investment and public spending generally in ways calculated to improve the situation in the most deprived parts of the country,
Do you actually believe that would happen?
Rolling back anti-trade union and anti-worker regulations was in the White Paper, and the SNPs 2015 manifesto contained a commitment to encouraging worker participation at board-level in companies, restoring the abolished consultation periods for large redundancies among other things, and a commitment to oppose the Tories' plans to further restrict the right to strike. The SNP aren't Old Labour, but they're more committed to collective bargaining than New/Nu/Neu Labour has been and is. The Scottish Government is taking a non-regulatory approach to living wage promotion, but support for a regulatory approach is growing and appears to be very popular among the tens of thousands of new members who joined the SNP in the wake of the referendum, so I expect that, if we were given the legislative authority, the leadership would be required to take a regulatory approach by the membership at Conference, and they'd get support in Parliament from the Greens, Independents, and a handful of the more enlightened Labour & Lib Dem MSPs. As for infrastructure spending, one of the proposals I most liked about the independence offering was the idea of locating government functions across the country rather than all in Edinburgh, so that not only the direct investment in new building and salaries would flow into various local economies but also the private sector buildup that inevitably surrounds government functions.
So, yes, given the powers I think those things, and many other things that we want to do differently than the UK at-large, would happen.
to regulate the banking sector in a more prudent fashion to prevent another crash,
I read, 'to guarantee we no longer have a banking sector' there.
Reading what you think someone said or wished they had said instead of what they actually said seems to be a recurring theme with your posts.
to genuinely reform rather than "reform"(code for cut to the bone) the welfare system in a way that fully joins-up with our economic policy, again I could keep going all day, but I really shouldn't have to considering the internet is positively dripping with rational and extremely thorough arguments for and against FFA which you could have chosen to peruse before now, but evidently ignored in favour of indulging in a bit of nat-bashing.
I'm still waiting for you to present me with one. I actually know a bit (I'm not a direct specialist, but studied the subject ) about economics, and I've yet to hear one, either in your post or anyone else. How about you give me one instead of misrepresenting my statements?
Then again, I would suggest you've not been looking particularly hard. Here's a 22-page report published by N-56, to get you started, then I suggest you have a wander around the evidently partisan but thorough Business for Scotland website.
You want to know what will kill the Union far more certainly than anything else? Fobbing us off with token devolution while subjecting us to the legislative agenda of a government that took 1 seat and less than 15% of the popular vote up here(a record low vote share for them) for the next five to ten years.
By the sounds of things so far, the SNP are dedicated to little else but trashing the Union one way or another (which is after all, their avowed aim more or less). Sadly, I think it probably will happen. And then everyone in Scotland will spend the following few centuries complaining about how their politicians cater to the rich, all the funding goes to Edinburgh, and how the people in a remote hill county are ignored and trampled on because all the people in the cities can outvote them.
'Here comes new boss, same as old boss'.
There's nothing I can really say to such naked cynicism, and frankly it makes me wonder whether I'm wasting my time discussing this with you at all, since you've evidently already made up your mind and have no intention of honestly reconsidering.
I'm not sure why you asked be but ok. Yes I's like to see a local parliament of some kind for the north, the south east and perhaps the south west following a similar model to that which currently exists for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I'd like to see Parliament's power reduced or more accurately, devolved amongst these regional powers. I don't see this as a move towards independence nor do I wish to see any part of the UK become fully independent nations.
One aspect of current policy that worries me that does not receive any attention is the situation with Scottish students, who for obvious financial reasons go to Scottish universities. It's a form of educational apartheid which causes university students, an important group in society, to become two separate groups. I saw more Scots in the Czech republic when I studied there than I did at my university.
I'm just testing the mood. The newspapers keep saying that most people across the UK are in favour of more powers for their region, so I'm asking everybody if they want devolution for their part of the country.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ketara made the point that Full Fiscal Autonomy and/or federalism could weaken Britain.
I'll nail my colours to the mast and declare my pro-Scottish independence stance, but taking a step back, and trying to be impartial, I can't see any alternative to be honest.
The Union, as it stands, will not last. It's not just Scotland wanting more powers, it's the rest of the UK as well. We need to shift away from London and the SE dominance.
HS2 will not reach Scotland, or even Wales, but I'm expected to pay my taxes towards it, when their are local projects up here that go unfunded, which are badly needed.
A northern powerhouse could re-dress the balance in England, but federalism is the only answer in my book. And scrap that house of lords retirement home as well!
I would question as to why federalism is 'necessary'. Everyone talks about needing to 'shift away from London', but seems very sparse on what the alternative is. If London doesn't earn the money, who will? How? If we break down into individual fiefdoms of different nationalist politicians, how does a country maintain any kind of unified economic policy? How does it react to economic crises? How do you prevent living standards in different areas slipping in different provinces? How does your country control inflation, take out loans, or use any other key crucial financial levers?
Also, who says that delegating financial powers to a local Parliament will fix any problems? How? Also what are these massive problems that can only be solved by devolving economic policy? The truth is, I actually haven't even coherently heard why this needs to happen. The line is just, 'Financial devolution needs to happen because nationalism. And something about local investment. And fat cats in southeast england! Yeah!'.
The truth is, it's just a kneejerk reaction to Scottish nationalism. And Scotland voted to stay in the Union. Sure, chuck more local governance stuff up north, but full fiscal devolution? Utter madness that will economically break the Union far more certainly than any other alternative.
You've made some sound points. Some I agree with, some I don't agree with. But the bottom line is this: more powers were promised to Scotland if it voted NO, and in the GE last month, the SNP campaigned on a FFA pledge, and swept the board in Scotland. Whether or not you think it's good or bad for Scotland, this is a question of democracy.
I watched the HOC debate on the Scotland bill, and the Tories were backing at a rate of knots on more powers for Scotland. This level of duplicity will end the Union pretty soon IMO.
Kilkrazy wrote: Presumably the Czech Republic offers free tuition to EU citizens. I am thinking of sending my daughter to university in Sweden or somewhere for the same reason.
That's a great idea... if you want her to get raped.
If hope you'll forgive my crass choice of words but I wanted to get the severity of the point across. I don't think it's a terribly great idea to send you Daughter to Sweden.
Child protection boss paid off with £134k after failing to speak out about abuse by Pakistani gangs is rehired as a consultant within 24 hours on £1k a DAY
Deputy children’s commissioner Sue Berelowitz criticised for not speaking out about sexual abuse by British Pakistani gangs
She took voluntary redundancy from her £99,333-a-year post on April 30 and received a pay-off worth £134,000
But the next day she was rehired to lead inquiry into family child abuse that she had been in charge of in her former role
A controversial child protection chief has quit her job with a six-figure payoff – only to be immediately rehired on almost £1,000 a day.
Deputy children’s commissioner Sue Berelowitz, who was criticised for failing to speak out about sexual abuse by British Pakistani gangs, took voluntary redundancy from her £99,333-a-year post on April 30.
She received a pay-off worth £134,000. But the next day she was rehired as a consultant, leading an inquiry into family child abuse that she had been in charge of in her former role.
The 61-year-old will be paid £960 a day under the new deal and will work for up to nine days a month. It means she will earn almost the same amount as she had been as a full-time employee – for much less work.
Last night, as MPs and victims’ groups described the deal as scandalous, the Treasury launched an inquiry into how it was agreed.
The case illustrated the revolving door culture in Whitehall, the NHS and local councils in which employees their jobs and receive large pay offs, only to be taken back on – often by the same organisation.
The Chancellor last night pledged to crack down on the abuse, putting an upper cap of £95,000 on the amount of redundancy that can be paid.
Keith Vaz, the former head of the Commons home affairs select committee, said the payoff received by Miss Berelowitz was ‘totally unacceptable’.
He added: ‘There is no justification for a public official to receive such a huge sum of money to then continue to do the same work.’ A Treasury spokesman added: ‘It’s wrong for someone to take redundancy payments then be immediately rehired as an external consultant.’
Miss Berelowitz caused controversy in 2012 when she wrote a report in the wake of high-profile abuse cases in Rochdale and Rotherham denying there was a growing number of Asian grooming gangs.
Despite finding that more than a quarter of perpetrators known to the authorities were Asian, Miss Berelowitz said there was no evidence to conclude that there was a particular issue with Asian gangs.
Instead, her report – branded ‘hysterical’ and ‘highly emotional’ – said simply that abuse is carried out by men of all backgrounds.
South African-born Miss Berelowitz started out as a speech and language therapist before gaining a masters degree in social work from Sussex University. The mother of two sons, who lives in a £950,000 house in Brighton with her husband, spent nearly five years as deputy director of children services at West Sussex County Council.
But some of its services were later labelled inadequate by Ofsted. And she caused controversy last year by warning against opening up secretive family courts to public scrutiny, claiming children might commit suicide if their names and troubled lives wereknown to the public.
Neither Miss Berelowitz nor the Office of the Children’s Commissioner were last night available for comment.
In essence a broad legal definition and a high rate of reporting (due to a high level of trust in the police and high levels of gender equality) severely distort the statistics. Does anyone really believe that Sweden could have a higher incidence of rape than India or somewhere like the UAE?
Or you could look at Germany, where the states have huge legislative competence and control most of their spending, with taxes set collaboratively with the central authority through the upper house. Or the Swiss Cantons, which control most of their own taxation, and even delegate some tax powers down to the level of municipalities. My point in bringing up a range of examples was to illustrate that your hair-pulling whataboutery is nonsense; there are options, there are various levels of federal autonomy and they all seem to work well enough, so this idea that the UK is somehow uniquely unsuited to it is nonsense.
Sorry, but you actually haven't made a point. I said, 'FFA is bad because the financial reasons and difficulties such as x, y & z'. Your response has been, 'But other countries do it to varying levels!'. This does not prove that it works, or that it makes economic sense, and that it wouldn't be a massive headache in several departments.
And yet when you look around the world at the various responses to the financial crisis; stimulus-based responses mostly led to quicker recovery than austerity-based responses, to the point that even the IMF, no socialists they, now conclude that the Tory austerity plans are counter-productive. The economy did not pick up purely because they started borrowing heavily again, it was recovering prior to that, but it was recovering extremely slowly relative to stimulus-based responses, and the recovery only began to catch up once the government began pumping money back into the economy.
I'm not going to go into this one, because I know enough to know I don't know enough, and neither does 99.9% of the population. If you're so certain you have the right of it, and that the Tories are just financially incompetent morons, that's your prerogative.
You're kidding, right? Scotland's share of HS2 alone will be £4billion, and that's assuming it comes in on-budget. That project will not benefit us one iota,
And the above quoted investment projects benefit people outside of Scotland not at all, but we'll be putting money in. And?
London receives a vastly disproportionate level of investment compared to the rest of the UK,
In what way? Define 'infrastructure'. Because to me, that means roads, sewers, power and water capacity, and so forth. Things that are, by their very nature, placed where:-
a) the bulk of the population is (because that's where it tends to be needed), and
b) where the population density is highest.
Scotland, with a mere six million people, less than a tenth of the Union, does not get the same levels of infrastructure spending. Because it doesn't have as many people, and therefore doesn't need it so badly. What people there are, are also spread out more. The reason that the railway I quoted above will be the most subsidised one, is because there'll be the least number of people on it for the distance, because people in Scotland also tend to be a bit spread out. But the fact is, there is still a very expensive, highly subsidised railway being built. No, it's not as expensive as HS2. No, it won't serve as many people. But that's because building a HS2 in Scotland is pointless, because there aren't enough people around to use it.
I'm really not getting why you're so angry that people in one region of a country contribute proportionately to infrastructure in another. I don't begrudge Edinburgh its tramline. I daresay if Scotland had more people, it would get more infrastructure investment.
there have been years when it has gotten more than all other parts of the UK combined. The idea that it's based on population is laughable. Further, viewing infrastructure spending entirely as a passive response is short-sighted; infrastructure spending can spur new growth as well as support existing growth, and when our economy and government spending is already so massively unbalanced in favour of one section of the country, infrastructure spending should be being used as a tool to help alter that trend, not reinforce it.
I think Spain is excellent example of why you shouldn't just splash out on infrastructure in obscure parts of the country willy nilly. That being said, investing in infrastructure is a pure tool for growth hasn't been the case since the 1950's. It helps certainly, and there have been movements in that direction, but at the moment, the problem is that it's very hard to drive local investment (both in infrastructure and the associated businesses) when nobody is too sure what it should be going into. Sheffield used to rely on the steel trade for example, but now Asia's taken over in that department, nobody's too sure what it should be producing. It's all well and good to suggest that we should be investing in alternative industries, but in a highly globalised market, we find it difficult to produce much competitively.
As opposed to what, nuclear, that needs special deals done with government-mandated price-fixing to even be viable(indeed nuclear will cost the UK far more than renewables subsidy)? Coal, that gets £10bn in subsidies across the EU? Oil & Gas extraction, that benefits from hefty tax-breaks and shared decomissioning cost commitments? All forms of energy production are heavily subsidised, we do so because countries like to have control of their own energy supply, the only question is what we want to subsidise.
Oh, the nuclear fiasco is ridiculous. But the renewables sector tends to be just as bad.
Logically, the most economic thing to do is stick with oil and gas, but that has it's own drawbacks.
Also, what on earth are you on about? Scotland is a net-exporter of energy to the rest of the UK, variation in renewables output only determines the level of the export.
A net exporter...when the wind is blowing right. And then we 'export' it back. It's the joys of having an integrated national grid.
Additionally our capacity for renewables generation even at current levels of technological efficiency is enough to power ourselves and still remain an exporter, if exploited fully.
In other words, if someone pays the vast subsidies needed to erect an insane amount of infrastructure.
Incidentally, one of the projects that will now have to be shelved thanks to the cuts was an expansion of the hydro capacitor system, whereby existing and new hydro facilities were used to store generated renewables output. The Longannet closure, if it goes ahead, will eliminate our net positive status, but the Peterhead plant should still provide enough voltage support capacity to account for domestic use. It should also be noted that the reason the Longannet plant is in trouble in the first place is the ridiculous disparity in national grid Transmission Charges that see a Scottish power station told they have to pay £40million but sees plants in the SE of England given a subsidy.
You are aware that it's still paid for at a substantial discount, right? The issue really isn't quite as clear-cut or unfair as you're making it sound.
Then you've evidently not examined the issue particularly closely. Setting aside the fact that "full-Federalism" and "home rule" etc were what was promised to us during the referendum campaign,
Did you look at a newpaper at all during 2014? Google is your friend.
Since you didn't link, I went and did a bit of digging around. Cameron apparently said that FFA was an option on the table. So fair enough. I think it's a foolish thing to do, but if it was mentioned as being in the ballpark, he has to give a damn good reason as to why it won't happen if it doesn't.
From what I can see though, the issue now seems to be that if Scotland goes independent, that means the Barnett formula ceases to be in effect, and with oil revenues at a tenth of what they were, that could be problematic. I found this synopsis interesting and highly informative. It tallies with what I worked out with regards to Scotland's economy last year, so I'm going to take it at face value for the time being.
If this is anywhere near accurate, it would seem to be irresponsible to hand full fiscal autonomy over to the SNP, purely on the basis of the fact that at the moment, that would result in even deeper cuts in Scotland, without even looking at any other economic factors. I had a scroll through the comments, and the only person disagreeing had some of the more insane economic ideas I've seen, so I'm assuming it's reasonably on target. If you disagree with it, I would be interested to hear as to why.
The fact is, "squire",
Relax. I use the word 'squire' in the same way many people do the word 'mate'. No need to get snarky.
my comment was in regards to what will be, not what is now. You're worried about what FFA/devo-max will mean for the future of the Union, I'm trying to tell you that whatever the constitutional facts regarding Scotland's nationhood(and you're right, we're a region as things stand), treating us like a region in rhetorical or legislative terms will end the Union faster than any FFA settlement ever could. Doubly so when the Tories are in charge.
Possibly true. But the fact is, you are a region, and giving you too much of a different status is unfair to everybody else. Not only that, I very much get the feeling that you could put Florence Nightingale merged with Gandhi merged with Jesus Christ himself at the head of the Tory party, and most of Scotland would scream blue murder about every economic decision he made. I saw an interesting set of interviews with Scottish people where they gave out Tory policies, but pretended they were SNP ones, and practically all of the Scots asked were totally in favour of them. The ones told they were Tory though?. Instant opposition.
I've come to think it's not actually so much about facts anymore as it is Thatcher's legacy. It's just the same election being refought over and over.
Erm, really, at this point I have to ask; where are you getting your info from? Because up until the very limited powers we'll be getting over the next few years, almost every tax in Scotland IS "some diktat handed down from on high from Westminster" - literally the only tax powers we had were over council taxes and the power to vary only the basic rate of income tax by +3p. Income tax rates & bands, corporation tax, inheritance tax, excise duties, capital gains - everything else was reserved.
Benefits and social security, immigration, defence, foreign policy, employment, broadcasting, trade and industry, energy policy, consumer rights, data protection, constitutional matters, almost all taxation, and dozens of other individual Acts of Parliament are all reserved to Westminster. We get control over education, Scots law(both of which were already effectively independently run pre-devolution), agriculture, most but not all environmental regulations, health & social services, local government, arts & sport, tourism, and partial control of housing and transport. Even if we were to use the new, extremely modest tax powers proposed by the Smith Commission to raise additional revenue, we can't actually spend that money on most of the major policy areas that drive economic growth because they will remain reserved.
Sloppy wording of mine. I apologise.
Rolling back anti-trade union and anti-worker regulations was in the White Paper, and the SNPs 2015 manifesto contained a commitment to encouraging worker participation at board-level in companies, restoring the abolished consultation periods for large redundancies among other things, and a commitment to oppose the Tories' plans to further restrict the right to strike. The SNP aren't Old Labour, but they're more committed to collective bargaining than New/Nu/Neu Labour has been and is. The Scottish Government is taking a non-regulatory approach to living wage promotion, but support for a regulatory approach is growing and appears to be very popular among the tens of thousands of new members who joined the SNP in the wake of the referendum, so I expect that, if we were given the legislative authority, the leadership would be required to take a regulatory approach by the membership at Conference, and they'd get support in Parliament from the Greens, Independents, and a handful of the more enlightened Labour & Lib Dem MSPs. As for infrastructure spending, one of the proposals I most liked about the independence offering was the idea of locating government functions across the country rather than all in Edinburgh, so that not only the direct investment in new building and salaries would flow into various local economies but also the private sector buildup that inevitably surrounds government functions.
So, yes, given the powers I think those things, and many other things that we want to do differently than the UK at-large, would happen.
I wish I had your optimism.
Reading what you think someone said or wished they had said instead of what they actually said seems to be a recurring theme with your posts.
No, it was more just an idle comment/speculation on what would likely happen if what you propose were effected. Whether it would be a good thing or not is another debate altogether, but I suspect if you tried instituting particularly harsh regulatory controls, every bank remaining in Scotland would pull out as far as it was able to do so. And with Scotland remaining in the EU, I fear that all their lovely foreign tax havens would be affected not a jot.
Then again, I would suggest you've not been looking particularly hard. Here's a 22-page report published by N-56, to get you started, then I suggest you have a wander around the evidently partisan but thorough Business for Scotland website.
The link is dead?
I went to the Business For Scotland website, and took a gander at this one here:-
As far as I can see, most of the points seem to be generalities, 'Scotland spends lots of money therefore it will be a prosperous nation', cherrypicking of years to look good, and vague future predictions about the value of oil. The article I just linked earlier in this response drew from the same figures (the Scottish Governments GERS report) and seemed to reach a far more logical and nuanced conclusion.
There's nothing I can really say to such naked cynicism, and frankly it makes me wonder whether I'm wasting my time discussing this with you at all, since you've evidently already made up your mind and have no intention of honestly reconsidering.
I'm simply working from what I know of basic economics. You are, of course, free to disagree.
Although in all fairness, arguing on the internet has never been anything but a waste of time!
I'm not sure why you asked be but ok. Yes I's like to see a local parliament of some kind for the north, the south east and perhaps the south west following a similar model to that which currently exists for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I'd like to see Parliament's power reduced or more accurately, devolved amongst these regional powers. I don't see this as a move towards independence nor do I wish to see any part of the UK become fully independent nations.
One aspect of current policy that worries me that does not receive any attention is the situation with Scottish students, who for obvious financial reasons go to Scottish universities. It's a form of educational apartheid which causes university students, an important group in society, to become two separate groups. I saw more Scots in the Czech republic when I studied there than I did at my university.
I'm just testing the mood. The newspapers keep saying that most people across the UK are in favour of more powers for their region, so I'm asking everybody if they want devolution for their part of the country.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ketara made the point that Full Fiscal Autonomy and/or federalism could weaken Britain.
I'll nail my colours to the mast and declare my pro-Scottish independence stance, but taking a step back, and trying to be impartial, I can't see any alternative to be honest.
The Union, as it stands, will not last. It's not just Scotland wanting more powers, it's the rest of the UK as well. We need to shift away from London and the SE dominance.
HS2 will not reach Scotland, or even Wales, but I'm expected to pay my taxes towards it, when their are local projects up here that go unfunded, which are badly needed.
A northern powerhouse could re-dress the balance in England, but federalism is the only answer in my book. And scrap that house of lords retirement home as well!
I would question as to why federalism is 'necessary'. Everyone talks about needing to 'shift away from London', but seems very sparse on what the alternative is. If London doesn't earn the money, who will? How? If we break down into individual fiefdoms of different nationalist politicians, how does a country maintain any kind of unified economic policy? How does it react to economic crises? How do you prevent living standards in different areas slipping in different provinces? How does your country control inflation, take out loans, or use any other key crucial financial levers?
Also, who says that delegating financial powers to a local Parliament will fix any problems? How? Also what are these massive problems that can only be solved by devolving economic policy? The truth is, I actually haven't even coherently heard why this needs to happen. The line is just, 'Financial devolution needs to happen because nationalism. And something about local investment. And fat cats in southeast england! Yeah!'.
The truth is, it's just a kneejerk reaction to Scottish nationalism. And Scotland voted to stay in the Union. Sure, chuck more local governance stuff up north, but full fiscal devolution? Utter madness that will economically break the Union far more certainly than any other alternative.
You've made some sound points. Some I agree with, some I don't agree with. But the bottom line is this: more powers were promised to Scotland if it voted NO, and in the GE last month, the SNP campaigned on a FFA pledge, and swept the board in Scotland. Whether or not you think it's good or bad for Scotland, this is a question of democracy.
I watched the HOC debate on the Scotland bill, and the Tories were backing at a rate of knots on more powers for Scotland. This level of duplicity will end the Union pretty soon IMO.
i think there is a growing feeling in the English population (which is by far the largest of the four home regions) that a lot of devolution has already been given away to the Scots, Welsh and Irish, which has benefitted them by things such as zero NHS prescription charges, and free university (in Scotland), on top of any previous national redistribution spending like the Barnett formula.
People in England who aren't part of the magic 10% at the top are feeling hard done by and blame the Westminster government, which let's face it currently represents the interests of only 25% of the voters, so it is not surprising that there is a growing movement for regional English autonomy. London, the supposed fount of wealth to power the UK, also contains several of the poorest and most deprived boroughs in the whole union.
But we should not take things too far. Opinion polling on the topic has not revealed a strong desire for regional parliaments so much as dissatisfaction with Westminster and the great deals the other regions are getting compared to the English.
Kilkrazy wrote: Presumably the Czech Republic offers free tuition to EU citizens. I am thinking of sending my daughter to university in Sweden or somewhere for the same reason.
I think they do but we were all exchange students. It was just odd to have to travel halfway across Europe to meet them.
In essence a broad legal definition and a high rate of reporting (due to a high level of trust in the police and high levels of gender equality) severely distort the statistics. Does anyone really believe that Sweden could have a higher incidence of rape than India or somewhere like the UAE?
It's still massively higher than equivalent European countries.
Ketara wrote: I think we're using the terms 'State' and 'Federal' in opposite ways. When I say 'State' I'm referring to the central Government, whereas you're referring to the individual State governments. And when I say 'Federal', I'm referring to a single individual chunk of the country (Scotland), whereas you're referring to the Central Government.
If that's the case, what you've written makes sense, and outlines how the USA, whilst federalised, does not confer fiscal autonomy on it's individual member states, but rather actually has a setup closer to the UK.
In essence a broad legal definition and a high rate of reporting (due to a high level of trust in the police and high levels of gender equality) severely distort the statistics. Does anyone really believe that Sweden could have a higher incidence of rape than India or somewhere like the UAE?
It's still massively higher than equivalent European countries.
I really see no point in keeping this scumbag alive.
People like that make me quite sick.
Speaking of rape, the average conviction rate is incredibly low. It's somewhere in the region of only 1 in 28 actual rapes get convicted. So when looking at a country's rape statistics, multiply it by 30 and you get a better estimate. Seeing as Sweden posts their report rate, I imagine that the actual rate is far lower.
Well, it is either discuss the constitutional issues arising from Scotland's place in the UK, or the intensely depressing and increasingly daft policies of the government.
Up to 30,000 overseas nurses face the axe under barmy Tory immigration laws that will spark an NHS staffing crisis.
Non-EU staff on less than £35,000 after six years here are to be kicked out. The Royal College of Nursing said: “This will cause NHS chaos.”
Already buckling under the pressure of savage Tory cuts, the NHS faces further turmoil with the axing of 30,000 foreign nurses.
But critics warn it will leave hospitals with a critical shortage of nurses at a time when more and more will be needed to cope with an aging population and the devastating effects of social care cuts.
And it could also mean up to £180million spent recruiting foreigners only to kick them out six years later will be wasted.
Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tories-plan-kick-30000-nurses-5925812. Not my usual paper, but the first result that came up on Google. It is worth noting that £35,000 apparently puts you in the top 20% of all British wages. And according to [url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-average-salary-26500-figures-3002995the Mirror[/url] (yet again, bad trend, but they google easily apparently) most of the usual 'good jobs' fall beneath that level. So it seems to me that this £35,000 level is not very economically sound.
[EDIT: I misread this article. But I'll leave it here, since it is pretty interesting number crunching concerning immigration.
And England would own a share of the Edinburgh tramline, an SNP project which only benefited the Scottish, and ended up 375 million pounds overbudget. Or the Borders railway, which started off with a quote of £73 million, but has now hit £353 million, and is looking to be the most heavily subsidised line in the entire UK.
Minor note - the SNP themselves were very much against the Tram, which was signed in as a last gasp decision by the previous (Labour/Lib Dem) parliament precisely to make the looming SNP government look bad.
You would be hard pushed to find many people who think that the tram project "benefited the Scottish". Still, every civil engineer in Edinburgh made at least something off the ensuing debacle, so I can't be ENTIRELY against it...
And England would own a share of the Edinburgh tramline, an SNP project which only benefited the Scottish, and ended up 375 million pounds overbudget. Or the Borders railway, which started off with a quote of £73 million, but has now hit £353 million, and is looking to be the most heavily subsidised line in the entire UK.
Minor note - the SNP themselves were very much against the Tram, which was signed in as a last gasp decision by the previous (Labour/Lib Dem) parliament precisely to make the looming SNP government look bad.
You would be hard pushed to find many people who think that the tram project "benefited the Scottish". Still, every civil engineer in Edinburgh made at least something off the ensuing debacle, so I can't be ENTIRELY against it...
He's got you on this one, Ketara. The SNP were dead against it, refusing extra funding and all, but it was Labour/Libs/Tories that combined to railroad it through. No pun intended.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, I'm going to raise a hobby horse of mine - BBC licence fee. Yes, it could probably do with a separate thread, but the issue with licence fee funding is getting decided this year. It could be replaced with a general taxation, which obviously makes it a political issue
I guess that it would change from being a flat fee that everyone has to pay, to part of your overall taxation which would then make it means-tested and all the rest.
ITV were perfectly happy with the licence fee while they were the only game in town for small screen advertising sales. In the internet era of course ITV has suffered like many other media channels from computer based competition, which does not affect the BBC at all. In fact the BBC arguably have taken advantage of the Internet to launch an extremely successful web site and a range of computer and app services that complement their normal TV and radio programmes.
The downside of financing the BBC through general taxation is that they will be a lot more dependent on the year to year whims of the government of the day.
Personally I believe the BBC and ITV make a very good range of programmes aimed at many different audiences. The BBC can do this because of the licence fee. ITV used to be able to do it because they had to compete with the BBC and they had the advertising revenue.
However if there is a problem now it is not the licence fee, it is the financing of ITV.
In my view the licence fee versus ITV system has produced a rich and successful TV and radio culture which is supplemented in the modern world by subscription based services including Sky and Netflix.
All this for about £1 per person per week for an average household. Not a bad deal in my view!
-Shrike- wrote: In terms of licence fee, I don't know much about the legality, but what's the difference between a tax and the current method? Semantics?
I may be wrong, but as it stands, dodging the licence fee is a civil matter, I think, and the penalty is less severe, and difficult to prove anyway!
But tax avoidance is obviously much more serious.
As it is, I know plenty of people who don't pay for a TV licence, simply because it's tricky to prove you were watching live TV without a licence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charles Rampant wrote: I guess that it would change from being a flat fee that everyone has to pay, to part of your overall taxation which would then make it means-tested and all the rest.
I bet our MPs would find a way to wiggle out of it!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: ITV were perfectly happy with the licence fee while they were the only game in town for small screen advertising sales. In the internet era of course ITV has suffered like many other media channels from computer based competition, which does not affect the BBC at all. In fact the BBC arguably have taken advantage of the Internet to launch an extremely successful web site and a range of computer and app services that complement their normal TV and radio programmes.
The downside of financing the BBC through general taxation is that they will be a lot more dependent on the year to year whims of the government of the day.
Personally I believe the BBC and ITV make a very good range of programmes aimed at many different audiences. The BBC can do this because of the licence fee. ITV used to be able to do it because they had to compete with the BBC and they had the advertising revenue.
However if there is a problem now it is not the licence fee, it is the financing of ITV.
In my view the licence fee versus ITV system has produced a rich and successful TV and radio culture which is supplemented in the modern world by subscription based services including Sky and Netflix.
All this for about £1 per person per week for an average household. Not a bad deal in my view!
I like a lot of BBC's programmes, and if given the choice, would happily pay for them. But I resent the fact I don't get that choice. People decry Rupert Murdoch, but nobody forces me to buy Sky TV or The Sun.
When I lived in the UK, I had forgotten to sort out my license (moving was hectic, I did honestly forget). But I never hooked up the TV to anything except my X Box, so I never thought about it. The dude came around one day and came in, and was shocked to find it wasn't hooked up. So he was going to let me off but I signed up for it anyway because I figured the BBC was worth paying for for all the wildlife documentaries I'd watched as a kid.
The modern BBC I'm less keen on, though, having seen some shockingly poor reporting especially on their website in recent years. Their coverage of Europe is really often wrong. My girlfriend has written to them to correct things in the past and gotten pretty snotty responses.
Could you NOT pay for TV license and just stream movies/shows over the 'Net?
Better than being subject to the horrors of advertising, the sheer quantity of advertising on US TV is outrageous. Commercial TV channels in the UK carry around half the adverts that US channels carry and they are still infuriating.
Essentially you don't need a TV license if you don't watch TV on a TV. You can still watch the BBC Iplayer without a license, or listen to the BBC radio channels, but that would make you a naughty person.
Could you NOT pay for TV license and just stream movies/shows over the 'Net?
Better than being subject to the horrors of advertising, the sheer quantity of advertising on US TV is outrageous. Commercial TV channels in the UK carry around half the adverts that US channels carry and they are still infuriating.
That's why god created the TV remote... we can flip it to another channel during commericals.
That, and DVRs too.
*shrug*
It's a cultural thing.
Essentially you don't need a TV license if you don't watch TV on a TV. You can still watch the BBC Iplayer without a license, or listen to the BBC radio channels, but that would make you a naughty person.
Silent Puffin? wrote: Essentially you don't need a TV license if you don't watch TV on a TV. You can still watch the BBC Iplayer without a license, or listen to the BBC radio channels, but that would make you a naughty person.
If you are watching or recording any live broadcast, in any way, you need a TV licence.
You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.
Watching TV on the internet You need to be covered by a licence if you watch TV online at the same time as it's being broadcast on conventional TV in the UK or the Channel Islands.
Video recorders and digital recorders like Sky+ You need a licence if you record TV as it's broadcast, whether that's on a conventional video recorder or digital box.
Mobile phones A licence covers you to watch TV as it's broadcast on a mobile phone, whether you're at home or out and about.
-Shrike- wrote: In terms of licence fee, I don't know much about the legality, but what's the difference between a tax and the current method? Semantics?
I may be wrong, but as it stands, dodging the licence fee is a civil matter, I think, and the penalty is less severe, and difficult to prove anyway!
But tax avoidance is obviously much more serious.
As it is, I know plenty of people who don't pay for a TV licence, simply because it's tricky to prove you were watching live TV without a licence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charles Rampant wrote: I guess that it would change from being a flat fee that everyone has to pay, to part of your overall taxation which would then make it means-tested and all the rest.
I bet our MPs would find a way to wiggle out of it!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: ITV were perfectly happy with the licence fee while they were the only game in town for small screen advertising sales. In the internet era of course ITV has suffered like many other media channels from computer based competition, which does not affect the BBC at all. In fact the BBC arguably have taken advantage of the Internet to launch an extremely successful web site and a range of computer and app services that complement their normal TV and radio programmes.
The downside of financing the BBC through general taxation is that they will be a lot more dependent on the year to year whims of the government of the day.
Personally I believe the BBC and ITV make a very good range of programmes aimed at many different audiences. The BBC can do this because of the licence fee. ITV used to be able to do it because they had to compete with the BBC and they had the advertising revenue.
However if there is a problem now it is not the licence fee, it is the financing of ITV.
In my view the licence fee versus ITV system has produced a rich and successful TV and radio culture which is supplemented in the modern world by subscription based services including Sky and Netflix.
All this for about £1 per person per week for an average household. Not a bad deal in my view!
I like a lot of BBC's programmes, and if given the choice, would happily pay for them. But I resent the fact I don't get that choice. People decry Rupert Murdoch, but nobody forces me to buy Sky TV or The Sun.
That seems to me like a misplaced ideological argument.
If the BBC were funded by taxation, you would be more forced to pay for their programmes than now, as it would come out of your PAYE.
You would have less choice in the matter as even people who don't have TVs and don't need a licence would end up paying for the BBC.
That's why god created the TV remote... we can flip it to another channel during commericals.
That, and DVRs too.
*shrug*
As adverts tend to be screened by all commercial channels at the same time all you are really doing by flipping channels is...watching different adverts
Personally I just record what ever I am going to watch and fast forward through all the crap.
A lot of people these days watch TV on catch-up services like BBC iPlayer on a computer or tablet.
TVs as such are not really TVs any more. They are computers that have a built-in digital TV frequency receiver. SmartTVs can at least in theory get all the programme data using the built-in web browser and a WiFi connection.
Da Boss wrote: When I lived in the UK, I had forgotten to sort out my license (moving was hectic, I did honestly forget). But I never hooked up the TV to anything except my X Box, so I never thought about it. The dude came around one day and came in, and was shocked to find it wasn't hooked up. So he was going to let me off but I signed up for it anyway because I figured the BBC was worth paying for for all the wildlife documentaries I'd watched as a kid.
The modern BBC I'm less keen on, though, having seen some shockingly poor reporting especially on their website in recent years. Their coverage of Europe is really often wrong. My girlfriend has written to them to correct things in the past and gotten pretty snotty responses.
I'll address this point to everybody: The TV licence man HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT to enter your property. If they turn up and ask for entry, tell them where to go.
In fact, tell them they can be done for trespass if they don't leave.
The only way they get in my house is if they have a policeman with a search warrant.
-Shrike- wrote: In terms of licence fee, I don't know much about the legality, but what's the difference between a tax and the current method? Semantics?
I may be wrong, but as it stands, dodging the licence fee is a civil matter, I think, and the penalty is less severe, and difficult to prove anyway!
But tax avoidance is obviously much more serious.
As it is, I know plenty of people who don't pay for a TV licence, simply because it's tricky to prove you were watching live TV without a licence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charles Rampant wrote: I guess that it would change from being a flat fee that everyone has to pay, to part of your overall taxation which would then make it means-tested and all the rest.
I bet our MPs would find a way to wiggle out of it!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: ITV were perfectly happy with the licence fee while they were the only game in town for small screen advertising sales. In the internet era of course ITV has suffered like many other media channels from computer based competition, which does not affect the BBC at all. In fact the BBC arguably have taken advantage of the Internet to launch an extremely successful web site and a range of computer and app services that complement their normal TV and radio programmes.
The downside of financing the BBC through general taxation is that they will be a lot more dependent on the year to year whims of the government of the day.
Personally I believe the BBC and ITV make a very good range of programmes aimed at many different audiences. The BBC can do this because of the licence fee. ITV used to be able to do it because they had to compete with the BBC and they had the advertising revenue.
However if there is a problem now it is not the licence fee, it is the financing of ITV.
In my view the licence fee versus ITV system has produced a rich and successful TV and radio culture which is supplemented in the modern world by subscription based services including Sky and Netflix.
All this for about £1 per person per week for an average household. Not a bad deal in my view!
I like a lot of BBC's programmes, and if given the choice, would happily pay for them. But I resent the fact I don't get that choice. People decry Rupert Murdoch, but nobody forces me to buy Sky TV or The Sun.
That seems to me like a misplaced ideological argument.
If the BBC were funded by taxation, you would be more forced to pay for their programmes than now, as it would come out of your PAYE.
You would have less choice in the matter as even people who don't have TVs and don't need a licence would end up paying for the BBC.
I'm opposed to any form of non-voluntary funding of the BBC. This is 2015 for feth's sake
If the BBC want money to fund themselves, they should allow adverts or go to subscription like Sky. That's the moral solution in my view.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If the BBC want money to fund themselves, they should allow adverts or go to subscription like Sky. That's the moral solution in my view.
The BBC do run a subscription service; it is called the TV licence
Personally I am much happier paying a TV licence than I am paying BT line rental. I would much rather that the BBC have the ability to produce different and educational programming, rather than the cheap, low brow crap that seems to flood the rest of the airwaves most of the time. Not that the BBC doesn't contribute its fair share every so often of course, but they are generally miles ahead of most other channels/stations/etc.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If the BBC want money to fund themselves, they should allow adverts or go to subscription like Sky. That's the moral solution in my view.
The BBC do run a subscription service; it is called the TV licence
Personally I am much happier paying a TV licence than I am paying BT line rental. I would much rather that the BBC have the ability to produce different and educational programming, rather than the cheap, low brow crap that seems to flood the rest of the airwaves most of the time. Not that the BBC doesn't contribute its fair share every so often of course, but they are generally miles ahead of most other channels/stations/etc.
Sky arts is pretty good. HBO do some good programmes that puts the BBC to shame.
Issue is that the BBC panders to the public as much as everyone else and has to deal with government induced budget cuts. As a result anything political and they're shilling themselves out to whoever's in charge at the time, leading to rather schizo views. That and yes, though they apparently set a high bar, they're no better than the rest when it comes to fact checking and making things up when it benefits them (to show my bias, I recall during the independence referendum here they had one of their reporters ask the First Minister a question. Immediately it cut to the commentator saying the First Minister "didn't answer". Ah, he did actually, went on for a good bit too. Though during answering and calling bullgak on the question he was calling the BBC a bunch of snakes for their overly biased handling of the campaign).
Which is to say yes, as I said, they're passable for anything outside of actual news. When it comes to that though they're like Fox is to American Conservatives. Heh, though given that they are state sponsored they are in effect the government's mouthpiece, so its to be expected.
Wyrmalla wrote: Issue is that the BBC panders to the public as much as everyone else and has to deal with government induced budget cuts. As a result anything political and they're shilling themselves out to whoever's in charge at the time, leading to rather schizo views. That and yes, though they apparently set a high bar, they're no better than the rest when it comes to fact checking and making things up when it benefits them (to show my bias, I recall during the independence referendum here they had one of their reporters ask the First Minister a question. Immediately it cut to the commentator saying the First Minister "didn't answer". Ah, he did actually, went on for a good bit too. Though during answering and calling bullgak on the question he was calling the BBC a bunch of snakes for their overly biased handling of the campaign).
Which is to say yes, as I said, they're passable for anything outside of actual news. When it comes to that though they're like Fox is to American Conservatives. Heh, though given that they are state sponsored they are in effect the government's mouthpiece, so its to be expected.
Agreed. BBC bias during the Scottish referendum campaign was shocking. People may say that the clue's in the name, so of course they were going to be pro-Britain, but as a publicly funded broadcaster, it should have been neutral.
Not Scottish people crying about the referendum again?
Take a look at the complaints made against the BBC for bias and you will find they come from all political and social groupings in a roughly even amount over time (even those currently in power). They are a hell of a lot better at being unbiased than almost any other news source I have ever seen.
SilverMK2 wrote: Not Scottish people crying about the referendum again?
Take a look at the complaints made against the BBC for bias and you will find they come from all political and social groupings in a roughly even amount over time (even those currently in power). They are a hell of a lot better at being unbiased than almost any other news source I have ever seen.
Nah, besides, if you take into account the number of TV licences and how many of them are held by people in Scotland, you can work out how "biased" any BBC reporting should be based on how much money Scottish people add into their coffers
notprop wrote: Oh man this thread is tragic, even a reasonably interesting tangent on TV Licences turn into anther chance for the Jocks to piss and moan again.
Can we have some sort of vote to get rid of the pastey blighters?
Never mind that, we've got bigger fish to fry.
Protestors, campaigning against cuts to disability benefits, have gotten into Parliament, and are attempting to break into the chamber
I wish them luck. Glad to see somebody's standing up against these Tory idiots.
SilverMK2 wrote: They are a hell of a lot better at being unbiased than almost any other news source I have ever seen.
They are, and an unbiased news source is probably an impossibility but the BBC could certainly do better.
The Indyref was not their finest hour and I have never heard BBC news call the Chinese government anything other than the "Communist government of China".
Generally speaking I am favour of the license fee, even though the only BBC content I use are Radio 4 current affairs programmes, the odd BBC 4 documentary and not much else.
The backslapping over the BBC is a bit much. I do not think it is as unbiased as everyone makes out, as an outsider, especially when it comes to European issues.
Personally I like the BBC and generally approve of how they do things compared to the alternatives.
However the Licence fee is a solution to a problem that no longer exists.
The Licence Fee was a way to get people to pay for (therefore fund) a service which is broadcast, that is, available to any and all with the means to receive it.
The only other model available in the '30s(?) would have been advertising but without an audience who'd do that?
Now we have the ability to enforce a subscription type service with a broadcast by using encryption (digital TV, Sky) or "narrowcast" by users connecting to the supplier (net flicks et al).
On this basis the BBC should convert themselves into a subscription service, for which I'd happily pay (and currently do via the licence fee). That way Old Murdoch would not get his cut (he does, because of reasons) and the likes of Channel 4 could do like wise or run a hybrid free to air + subscribed content model.
By all means keep the BBC a not for profit org, with a the BBC board and General Director and be held to "higher" levels of quality than other broadcasters, but the very reason for the licence fee no longer exists.
) 
It was my message that was deleted on the other politics thread 
