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.

 whembly wrote:

 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.

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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
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.

Sure... but, how do you explain how awesome Germany been doing? (relative to other EUnations)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 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.

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 the Brits need to build bigger gunz.

Whembley, you don't know the British public.

WW2 films, documentaries, memorabilia - it's a national obsession and a billion pound industry.

The history curriculum in schools was notorious for its focus on Nazi Germany at one time.

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.

True, but they also take in more asylum seekers than you guys. Give and take

Plus, you guys could spend less on defense too. We're not at war.

Doesn't the recent antics with Putin give you the willies yet? Any calls to arms by UK/France/Germany???

Not worried that Putin will invade Europe. He'd have to be completely nuts to do that.

Annoyed that he bit off a chunk of Ukraine alright. But he won't pick a fight with the EU is my feeling.

 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.

Sometimes you can't win

 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 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.

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.

https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/letters/starkeys-ignorance-is-hardly-work-of-history/417236.article
http://leftfootforward.org/2011/08/david-starkey-race-theories-would-disgrace-a-first-year-undergraduate-say-academics/
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/23/david-starkey-magna-carta_n_7124440.html

The above graphs are cherry picked bs.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The above graphs are cherry picked bs.

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...

Whembly did, on the previous page.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The above graphs are cherry picked bs.

Uh... okay. It's simply coincidental.

Everyone knew that that the transition to the EU would be rocky.

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.

 Ketara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The above graphs are cherry picked bs.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The above graphs are cherry picked bs.

Uh... okay. It's simply coincidental.

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.

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!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The above graphs are cherry picked bs.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The above graphs are cherry picked bs.

Uh... okay. It's simply coincidental.

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The above graphs are cherry picked bs.

Uh... okay. It's simply coincidental.

Everyone knew that that the transition to the EU would be rocky.

It just occurred to me: what are you doing here, you damn Yankee!

 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.

The UK doesn't have an economic policy. We have pandering to the banking industry.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK doesn't have an economic policy. We have pandering to the banking industry.

Not sure if serious.....

 Ketara wrote:

 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.

 Yodhrin wrote:


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.

'Here comes new boss, same as old boss'.

 Ketara wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

'Here comes new boss, same as old boss'.

Exactly.

 whembly wrote:


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)?

 Ketara wrote:

 whembly wrote:


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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Same question to you: do you want more powers for your part of England?

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.

 Ketara wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


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.

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Same question to you: do you want more powers for your part of England?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 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.