Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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 odd comments: 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.

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?

 Charles Rampant wrote:


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.

 Yodhrin wrote:


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.

 Da Boss wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


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.

See, I think a Federal Europe is the only way the EU is going to survive.

But I'm gloomy as hell about that actually happening in a way that isn't awful and dystopian.

 Da Boss wrote:
See, I think a Federal Europe is the only way the EU is going to survive.

But I'm gloomy as hell about that actually happening in a way that isn't awful and dystopian.

What do you mean by "Federal Europe"???

As in, Europe becomes one Federal Country?

Having said that, I don't think the Euro monetary system is going to last much longer if what's happening to Greece spreads.



Seems like Germany is the only country doing okay under the EU monetary system?

What do you mean by "Federal Europe"???

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

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

What do you mean by "Federal Europe"???

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.

As to the charts, check out:
http://www.firstrebuttal.com/

Be careful, as it can get wonkey and just plain weird like Zero Hedge.

Wait, production drastically drops during a recession? Say it ain't so!

The above graphs would do well remembering that correlation does not prove causation.