Governing from afar
A little light relief today from the grim economic news. Let's consider the future of a once great (OK, moderate) office of state, that of Scottish secretary.
If faintly discomfited with the notion of stepping aside momentarily from the topic of finance, I can comfort myself with the thought that I posted on the economy yesterday.
The early responses dealt with . . . Belgian federalism and conspiracy theorising. What are you guys like?
To Scotland then - and talk on the Tory fringes here in Birmingham.
Firstly, they say they would retain the post of Scottish secretary. Perhaps combined with another office of state, such as transport - but not combined with Wales and Northern Ireland in a department for the territories.
Specifically, if Labour combines liaison with the three devolved governments into a single post, the Tories will shadow that at Westminster - but would restore distinct representation, if returned to power.
For why? For the same reason that the Scotland Office, once near moribund, has found itself somewhat reinvigorated by the election of an SNP government.
Scottish 'ambassador'
The UK Government, of whatever colour, wants to keep a close and constant eye on Edinburgh.
That may not be particularly elevated statespersonship. It may contain partisan elements which should play little role in public funding. However, it's a fact.
The office of Scottish secretary now partly resembles that of an ambassador, scrutinising the SNP government and reporting back.
Equally, there is a role in advocating Scottish interests within the UK Cabinet, particularly on reserved matters like taxation, welfare and defence.
But how could the Tories govern Scotland? They currently have just one MP north of the Border, David Mundell. They might gain one or two seats.
Their absolute best hope is a handful. A lower figure is more likely.
So how to govern? The answer is: they won't, at least not in those areas devolved to Holyrood.
Respect parliament
Ironically, devolution - which they opposed - saves them from the impossible prospect of attempting to impose a domestic agenda upon Scotland with, perhaps, a single Scottish seat.
So they seek, inevitably, to make a virtue out of their continuing relative weakness in Scotland.
They say they will respect the right of the Scottish Government and parliament to control the domestic, devolved agenda.
Specifically, they will not invoke the powers contained in the Scotland Act to legislate from Westminster over the heads of Holyrood.
Big deal, I hear you say. What else could they do, given relative electoral strength and the pre-existence of a devolved parliament?
Well, yes, that's true. But bear in mind history and instinct here. Some Tories are tempted to say: let Scotland go hang, focus on England, focus on "English votes for English issues".
David Cameron is deliberately cooling such thoughts. He is playing down angst over West Lothian.
His team are backing Calman Commission reform - but privately playing down the notion this might be dramatic: for example, I hear Tories backing assigned tax revenues for Scotland but not big new powers to vary that taxation.
Which leaves the deal on offer as this: a Tory UK Government would respect the right of the Scottish Government to control the Scottish domestic agenda.
In return, they would demand respect for their own right to govern Scotland in reserved areas.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~12~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
If Brian is correct that the deal on offer in 2010 is that "a Tory UK Government would respect the right of the Scottish Government to control the Scottish domestic agenda" then it will play very well for the SNP in the 2011 elections, especially if the unionists combine to prevent a 2010 referendum or in the referendum itself if they don't.
I'm not sure who Cameron listens to re Scotland, but I find it hard to believe that this is the line being peddled by Aunty Annabel.
If the LibDems are ever going to get their federal ideas on track, they should be shouting against this at least as loudly as the SNP.
Complain about this comment
How exactly do they Tories square this extra bureaucracy with their aspirations of smaller, more efficient government? They're not even in power yet and they're breaking promises!
Can I suggest that people watch Channel 4's Dispatches called Cameron's Money Men which should still be available on 4OD...
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/camerons+money+men/2471062
Complain about this comment
You've gotta love the conspiracy theories!
Anyway, we finally an 'official' opportunity to debate the constitution!
I do find it depressing that out of all the major parties in the UK/Scotland, only the LDs have any real interest in devolving more powers out of 'their control', through their federalist agenda.
Labour, Conservative and SNP are all after having maximum power in their hands. Labour may have introduced devolution but devolved responsibilities have been grudgingly handed out. Even the SNP are power-grabbing from the councils in the form of the so-called Local Income Tax (hardly 'local' when with centrally set and collected), ending all local fiscal autonomy....bizarrely while demanding fiscal autonomy for themselves from Westminster.
I'm not personally convinced about the case for federalism within a codified constitution, which I consider too rigid to be able to adapt to what are constantly changing social and economic landscapes.
However, I do believe in devolving down the entire 'domestic' policy portfolio to the lowest possible level. For us, this would involve relinquishing not just Westminster, but also Holyrood, of many of its current responsibilities and handing them to local councils.
There are many US towns of less than 50,000 inhabitants that prove it is entirely possible for such small communities to run the vast majority of their own services; including planning, social services, development, housing, education, health, police, fire, transport (incl any light rail services and local airports lying within city limits) and environment with minimal involvement by 'higher' government.
Holyrood should only concentrate on running matters that cross council boundaries; major roads/rail/airports, higher education etc.
Equally, Westminster should only concentrate on UK-wide issues; the macro-economy, foreign affairs, defence, welfare and trade regulation being examples.
Most importantly, instead of most taxes being collected centrally and then distributed out, all three tiers of govt will raise and spend their own taxes totally independently of any other level. Borrowing within limits should also be allowed (as Westminster is now).
In a fit of enthusiastic thought and calculation, I even guesstimated the budgets for each level at #4,500 per person at local level, with a similar amount split between national and UK tiers ie. a 200,000 city would have a budget of ~#900m, Holyrood's would be reduced to ~#11-12bn and Westminster's would be reduced to ~#200bn.
Complain about this comment
#3 Finally a well structured and pointful post!
I'm sure many other nationalists including myself agree in devolution down to the local level, this would be beneficial for the councils/areas and the business of government itself.
Complain about this comment
Well, let's have Scottish votes for Scottish issues, and no more interfering from Westminster.
And that'll be Scottish oil for Scottish coffers, Scottish Tax, Income Tax, VAT, VED, Stamp Duty, etc, etc. for Scottish collection, and to be spent on Scottish needs, or to be placed in a fund for the future.
It will happen, not sure when, but it will.
Complain about this comment
and by the way, latest reports estimate another 4o years or so of oil left.
Complain about this comment
There WILL BE an Tory govt. in office, soon enough it seems.
This begs many a question. For example, what exactly will the Labour strategy be in the Scottish Parliamentary Elections thereafter? Given that they are woeful failures of a staggering magnitude.
Getting back to the Tories - I'm not quite sure where Cameron is coming from here. I mean, in his 'warning' to our first minister, he suggests his [future] office will not let him muck with the union.
Now, given a referendum in 2010, that's down to the Scottish people - and there is nothing he can do about that.
Brian - BIG question for you. Calman Commission *reform*.
Is this merely a unionist device for stripping our devolved govt. of powers - or powers that matter at least?
I believe Brown has specific Calman needs. Similar to the generic needs of any unionist govt. I'd expect.
- Be seen to be 'battering' the Scots as a measure to mitigate English anger, post-devolution. And they have been treated dreadfully, at that.
- Be seen to be convincingly 'empowering' the Scots, via [pointless] additional powers
- Thoroughly damage this SNP govt. as best it can, with respect concerns that matter to the UK. Such as the need to build more nuclear power stations. Something they cannot do because of planning responsibility currently.
At the end of the day, unionists act on concerns that push forward the needs and feeding requirements of the busiest part of the union [England] - and they call it 'Britain'.
Quite outside the fact that issues like war, energy - or indeed planning for the future generally, logically equate to Scotland requiring a different path from 'Britain'.
Second question Brian - one I never see analysed in any meaningful way. What do countries like Scotland and Wales give to 'Britain' and why are people like Cameron and co. so adamant that they CANNOT and WILL NOT let them slip from the union?
Park the fact that we have a politically different country. Park the fact we have a nationalist administration far removed from Conservative England even. What does Cameron's 'Britain' get from it? Why do they insist on our [Scottish] 'Britishness'? C'mon - you know the answer...
...anyone? Anyone?
Complain about this comment
and no more of Westminster raiding our pension funds.
Complain about this comment
#3 Reluctant-Expat
For once, I agree with almost all of a post from you - unsurprising as most of what you say is Liberal Party policy.
However, I don't understand how you can combine this with your:
"I'm not personally convinced about the case for federalism within a codified constitution, which I consider too rigid to be able to adapt to what are constantly changing social and economic landscapes."
Unless there is a constitutional codification, there will inevitably be turf-wars wherever the edges meet. That's not to say the constitution needs to be immutable. Quite the contrary, in fact, provided proper safeguards are included for change.
The Swiss and the USA cope quite well with theirs, although personally I would prefer the Swiss model.
Complain about this comment
7. Wow!
I think I'll dust off my list of 'Six Anti-Nationalist Conspiracies' and see how many this one believes in!
Complain about this comment
#5 HughEdinburgh
That, I'm sure will be the key battleground, and the definition of "the Scottish domestic agenda" would, of course, still be in the hands of Westmidden via the Scottish Office - presumably including the broadcasting powers we wrangled on recently, let alone fiscal responsibility.
Much too little, much too late, I think.
Complain about this comment
Quote, Brian Taylor, "But how could the Tories govern Scotland?"
The answer is they can't, and they won't.
The Tories have only relevance in English terms, and as such any mandate they may gain at the next UK general election will only ever extend to the border.
Any attempt by a Tory government at Westminster to assert control over Scotland will be rebuffed by Scots.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Talk about governing from afar, any more information on the large tax hikes for North Sea oil workers imposed by HMRC?
It was the BBC who highlighted it, so there must be more information somewhere, and when is a ship not a ship???
Let's have some debate on this, please.
Complain about this comment
#7 Gingerbadger
Great questions, but I doubt there'll be many answers ant time soon.
Complain about this comment
It seems to be taken as fact that the Tories will win the UK General Election, but do poorly in Scotland.
In the present financial crisis, which, however it pans out, will still be affecting us all badly, possibly worse, come election time, the only question for voters will be: Who do you trust with the nation's (UK) finances? The ONLY question.
The traditional answer is: the Tories. And they will play heavily, and only a little bit unfairly, upon a script which begins: See, Labour have screwed up again.
Labour will cry: No return to Thatcherism. But it will ring hollow.
Annabel will tell Scots: If you want a say in UK Government, you must vote Tory. That will be true, and possibly very effective.
I expect the SNP to do very well, barring accidents, but the Constitutional issue will be lost amid the macro-financial arguments, which cross all borders.
We may see adjustments in powers, but the Independence issue will fade away as an urgent topic, possibly for a decade.
People are just too afraid for their homes, their jobs, and their personal solvency to be rearranging deckchairs to little effect.
Complain about this comment
I don't think there could ever be federalism in the UK.
Does anyone know of any federation in the world, where there are 4 federal "states" or components, with just one federal state comprising 85% of the entire federation? That to me, seems to be a recipe for grief and anger, rather than a solution to those supposed problems?
What we'd essentially have is an English Government in the federation that would be inter alia as powerful and as dominant as the federation itself.
The English government would be able to put enormous pressure on the federal UK Government to comply with what it wanted, given that it would be the source of much of the federal revenue. Where does that leave, Scotland and Wales?
That leads to some further complications? How would we finance this federation? What taxes would be reserved to Westminster? Would those taxes, reserved to Westminster, cover Scotland's pro-rata share of federal spending? What if Scotland's taxes didn't cover this share? Would Scots be taxed more heavily to contribute towards these federal expenditures? What if Scotland objected to many federal policies? With an 85% in built English majority, the federal parliament would simply recreate the situation that Scotland had to live with prior to 1999.
In this increasingly interdependent world, the problem is the Union. The Union is too big to deal with the intracacies of the disparate countries of the UK, yet it is too small in the globalised and interconnected context, when we have powerful supranational organisations like the EU and the UN when it comes to issues like trade and markets. In those regards it is inefficient and inefficient for Scotland to be part of. The Union is too lop-sided to ever be equitable, no matter how many times we reform it.
Complain about this comment
9. There are a great number of federal constitutions in the world that are certainly not applicable to the modern world and the US one is a prime example ("the right to bear arms" anyone?). Another example is the German constitution, which demands that all media is Lander-managed, the result of Allied post-war concerns of centralised propaganda. In today's world of the global media and as many Germans will tell you, this needs to change.
We should keep our systems of government flexible and adaptable, something a codified set of rules will not allow.
I agree that without a constitution, there will inevitably be turf-wars but such still exist in federal countries too. Many constitutions do not include lists of specific responsibilities for states, but only the right to conduct their own affairs as long as they do not interfere with those of higher government. The scope for conflict is still large as any glimpse at a relevant Supreme Court's itinerary will demonstrate.
An Act of Devolution that does list specific responsibilities (as did the Scot/NI/Wales Acts) will of course automatically negate many disputes (Salmond may stamp his feet but he would never win a court battle over reserved powers). All that is needed for this to work is a Westminster government who is genuinely willing to hand the powers out in the first place.
Any power-grab by national/UK parliaments would still need the backing of the electorate. If devolution is introduced by a referendum, then you can't take it away without another one.
Complain about this comment
10. Hoho. :o)
Well, doesn't it all boil down to rational thought and rather simple conclusions - politicking asides?
Perhaps you can tell me? Go on.
Will Calman 'change the goalposts' in a manner that plays against the SNP?
Why does Cameron insist the hearts and souls [cough] of some 5-million non-Tories is really crucial to his vision of union?
I wont even say space, land, oil and water - ok? Because that'd be waaaaaaaaaay out there, right?
Oooops. Sorry.
Complain about this comment
Wouldn't it be nice if there were someone to advocate English interests within the UK Cabinet, particularly on reserved matters like taxation, welfare and defence!
Complain about this comment
Well said #16. Federalism cannot work either, and simply will not put an end to cross border meddling - from the perspectives of people in Scotland and England.
Complain about this comment
#19 - another glorious benefit of union. Never more clear for the English as post-devolution 'Britain'.
First, you'd need a parliament - and currently you have about 300 MPs who are not interested in chasing that. Why?
Because they - unlike most English parliament activists - know that it means the end of the UK, period.
And they - unlike most English parliament activists - know that this in turn would spell real problems for England.
England needs her parliament, and deserves it, but I think few English peeps are fully aware of the state of England in Europe, 2008. Your MPs will not give you your parliament, because they do not wish to lose Scotland and Wales in doing so.
Complain about this comment
Much as I'd love Scotland to be an independent nation, the thought that at some time in the future we might find ourselves governed by Wendy and co. (The SNP will have it's ups and downs ) It's unimaginable that any country should be subjected to governance without control by the numpties of the Scottish Labour party. It would be akin to life in East Germany before the wall came down.
Complain about this comment
Benign paternalism from the Conservatives, a party on the fringe of Scottish politics, and a party rejected time and again by Scotland; union dividend? Keep it...
Complain about this comment
# 22 - much as I share your aspirations kaybraes - you're allowing your mind to scuttle in sayso land. Scotland would be fine. It really is time.
Complain about this comment
16. Excellent batch of questions!
I disagree that there would be an imbalance in a federal UK as all domestic issues will be separated so England/Wales/NI will have little involvement in Scottish issues and vice versa.
The only forum in which the nations do meet will be at 'federal' level. However, there is this bizarre perception among many Scots (or is it just the nationalists again?) that we somehow have markedly different social attitudes to the English. A scan of any selection of opinion polls would show that there are many ideological similarities throughout the UK, see [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]for some quick examples. When it comes to UK-wide matters, I suspect there will be considerable cross-UK consensus on many issues.
As for voting weights and England's numerical advantage, I believe a second attempt at empowering the regions which involves maintaining an English identity (which Prescott's proposal didn't) would be more successful. The nine regions could then vote separately on federal matters.
Failing that, the EU's double-majority system could be used, a voting system designed to protect Europe's many smaller states from being bullied by the Big Four. In the UK, this would block England forcing through 'federal' bills on its own and also protect it from being forced to accept Scotland/Wales/NI-only bills.
Funding-wise; as with other federal states, each raises and spends its own taxes, also deciding what taxes to levy. There is no opportunity for conflict here.
An option is that HMRC is adapted to allow councils/national parliaments to vary the various tax rates, HMRC then collecting and distributing directly back to the relevant authority. This would minimise bureaucracy and people/companies having to file multiple returns.
Most federal states (and I don't know of any that don't) also maintain an 'equality fund' where wealthier states subsidise the poorer states, providing a safety net for when individual states hit hard times. This way, the states are rewarded for success and protected from failure.
As for this comment:
The Union is too lop-sided to ever be equitable, no matter how many times we reform it.
Compare Bavaria to Brandenburg, NSW to Tasmania or California to Alabama if you want to see true 'lop-sidedness'. The UK is a lot closer than you appear to think!
Complain about this comment
21. Gingerbadger, you are clearly one of those fanatical arch-nats that will not even consider anything other than full independence (at any cost?).
However, could you elaborate on this little comment:
I think few English peeps are fully aware of the state of England in Europe, 2008.
Complain about this comment
I don't think they liked the links in my first attempt at this post! Anyway, here goes again:
16. Excellent batch of questions!
I disagree that there would be an imbalance in a federal UK as all domestic issues will be separated so England/Wales/NI will have little involvement in Scottish issues and vice versa.
The only forum in which the nations do meet will be at 'federal' level. However, there is this bizarre perception among many Scots (or is it just the nationalists again?) that we somehow have markedly different social attitudes to the English. A scan of any selection of opinion polls would show that there are many ideological similarities throughout the UK. When it comes to UK-wide matters, I suspect there will be considerable cross-UK consensus on many issues.
(And to the inevitable nat wails about Iraq, read the YouGov poll on 9-10 Aug 2007.)
As for voting weights and England's numerical advantage, I believe a second attempt at empowering the regions which involves maintaining an English identity (which Prescott's proposal didn't) would be more successful. The nine regions could then vote separately on federal matters.
Failing that, the EU's double-majority system could be used, a voting system designed to protect Europe's many smaller states from being bullied by the Big Four. In the UK, this would block England forcing through 'federal' bills on its own and also protect it from being forced to accept Scotland/Wales/NI-only bills.
Funding-wise; as with other federal states, each raises and spends its own taxes, also deciding what taxes to levy. There is no opportunity for conflict here.
An option is that HMRC is adapted to allow councils/national parliaments to vary the various tax rates, HMRC then collecting and distributing directly back to the relevant authority. This would minimise bureaucracy and people/companies having to file multiple returns.
Most federal states (and I don't know of any that don't) also maintain an 'equality fund' where wealthier states subsidise the poorer states, providing a safety net for when individual states hit hard times. This way, the states are rewarded for success and protected from failure.
As for this comment:
The Union is too lop-sided to ever be equitable, no matter how many times we reform it.
Compare Bavaria to Brandenburg, NSW to Tasmania or California to Alabama if you want to see true 'lop-sidedness'. The UK is a lot more equitable than you appear to think.
Complain about this comment
#26 - the Reluctant-ExPat.
Another one who freely likes to tag images of fanaticism on individuals who - shock and horror - think that Scotland would do pretty well by itself, in Europe and in the larger world.
Firstly, let me explain that one of the things I look forward to as a nationalist is a proper, grown-up and rewarding relationship with our neighbouring countries - especially England.
Now, that is stated clearly - should you wish to further bleat on about fanatics and what not.
My comment? OK - I think that England has had a VERY rough deal post-devolution. Ironic, yes - but true none the less. Politicians North and South of the border seem to waste vast quantities of energy banging on about Scotland and what she actually 'puts into the union'.
That is, a device to keep Scots under the opinion that Britain sustains us.
What I'm saying is that I see very little evidence of discussion surrounding the impact Scotland and Wales leaving the union would have on England. Little evidence, or none, in fact.
I do not believe that most English people ponder such a question, thanks to the media - straddled as they are by the central unionist myth [used by both Tories and Labour at will, when required] of 'poaching Scots on hand-outs - who needs 'em'
Clear enough?? I think you'll agree, it just doesn't add up to the racism you were apparently banking on?
Complain about this comment
25,27. That's the first time I've seen a post edited by the mods, however minor the edit!
Complain about this comment
28. As you didn't elaborate on your earlier question regarding 'the state of England in Europe'....
....no, it's not clear enough.
And you again show yourself to be one of those who has taken on one or more of the various anti-Scotland/anti-nationalist conspiracies that surface on an almost daily basis (you are the first I've seen today though).
Complain about this comment
Really - are you suggesting that the nature of this political union is in some way anti-Scottish Expat? That I'm suggesting that
Well done lad, that's precisely the point - or rather - it really does mean that Scotland can't fully be a country. Not if we cannot comment on the nations POV with regards war, defence and all manner of issues soon to be in the control of an unelected [from a Scot's point-of-view] establishment.
Now that - that is fanatical - not to mention entirely absurd.
The union is a non-nonsensical, maddening, illogical, unrepresentative, archaic and FANATICAL state of affairs. No newsflash expat.
Complain about this comment
#15 brigadierjohn
A thoughtful post making some good points. I hope you're wrong re the Scottish Tories (except in the few Labour - Tory marginals where I hope you're right!) but there'll certainly be all to play for and Aunty Annabel may well pursue the line you suggest.
I still think retaining the Scotland Office is not a winning strategy locally, and at the same many voters in England may well object to the lack of devolution for England, irrespective of their views on electoral reform reducing Cameron's majority there.
Complain about this comment
#30 - do the maths ex-pat. No degree required.
My point is that, in the full context of broadcasting media etc. - no one really ponders the impact of England minus Scotland and Wales.
The British infrastructure, for example, with water - supports England. It takes one good summer to put the SW and large cities therein in peril.
England lacks skilled resource, lacks real estate and has massive natural resource concerns.
All I'm saying is 'Where is the documentary' on that scenario?
Complain about this comment
#16 Globaltraveller
"Does anyone know of any federation in the world, where there are 4 federal "states" or components, with just one federal state comprising 85% of the entire federation?"
I don't, but the situation in Switzerland in not dissimilar, where the German speaking cantons comprise roughly two-thirds of the population and they rub along pretty well together with their French and Italian speaking confreres.
I do agree that a strong federal government would not be on, and that a conferation with the federal government having minimal powers: Say military, border control and diplomatic corps but very little more. We would not even need a federal treasury once we join the Euro.
Complain about this comment
#17 Reluctant-Expat
That's why I prefer the Swiss model to any top-down one. The Swiss citizenry delegate certain of their powers to the commune, canton and confederation, but retain the right to accept or reject any changes by referendum, with 2% of the relevant population having the right to demand a referendum at the relevant level. One Sunday per quarter is reserved for referenda and other voting. The foregoing is oversimplifying slightly - Google "swiss referenda" if you want all the details.
Complain about this comment
#22 kaybraes
ROFL but to be fair I don't think Wendy could possibly do a worse job than the present household in 10 Downing St.
Complain about this comment
#25 & #27 Reluctant-Expat
A good post, although again I would prefer the Swiss model where the cantons collect the taxes to stop the feds getting too big for their boots.
Complain about this comment
33. England does not have water supply concerns! LOL! Everyone (other than you it seems) knows England is a wet place! The problem lies in distribution which is currently being dealt with as their north and south canal networks are linked up.
Lacks "skilled resource"? Elaborate.
Lacks "real estate"? There are many other countries with high population density; Netherlands, Belgium and Japan are three
examples that immediately spring to mind. How does their population density negatively affect them? They are (or were until the crunch hit!) planning scores of 'skyscrapers' across the country as one response to lack of real estate.
"Massive natural resource concerns"? They have a #1trillion+ broad-based economy which I suspect more than covers our dwindling oil supply (which is a quarter of our #100bn economy!). Their financial sector alone still dwarfs our entire natural resource sector, existing and proposed, and is comparable to our entire economy. I doubt the faint possibility of losing the oil is a concern (we get our full share of revenues as it is).
Maybe you meant renewables?: The proposed Severn Barrage would provide more energy than the much-trumpeted Pentland barrage. A Thames Estuary barrage is also a possibility. Then you have Cumbria, the Pennines, the Downs and Anglia as possible wind turbine sites (I've done a lot of reading on UK renewables recently!). Cumbria and Pennines also as Hydro possibles....and then there's Wales' potential.
The main reason many of these possibilities are yet to get off the drawing table is an unwillingness to permanently scar the countryside in the name of slightly cheaper electricity in the long-term. Something Salmond clearly has no problem with!
All in all, I suspect the reason that there is no sign of a debate on major problems to a post-UK England......is because there aren't any of significance.
(I also suspect you have put too much credibility in what you are being told by fellow nationalists!)
35. I'll have a look tonight!
Complain about this comment
Re #27
I think you would find that if a single state in the USA had 85% of the population (and voting power) then the US federal state would not work as it currently does. It requires a level of balance for a federal state to work.
There is an interesting point being made in some o fthe posts here - what is the facination that the Westminster ruling parties have with retaining Scotland? they are all prepared to label us as a drain on England's taxes and resources, so why are the so adamant that they want Scotland to stay? anyone???
Complain about this comment
I think the key point in this debate is to remember that the referendum spoken about in 2010 is by no means garunteed. Even if one is held then the result is by no means garunteed.
In the meanwhile it is essential that all parties focus on making devolution work. I don't think Calman will be any more effective than the National Conversation, but some refining of devolution may be necessary to deal with the taxation issue.
I would like to see powers in Scotland devolved more to a local level. The current system of local government is constantly being eroded by Holyrood, if LIT lives then it will be eroded further. I think we need a debate on how we are governed locally.
Personally I would like to see autonomy for local areas over as wide an area as possible. Local people should have local solutions to their problems. they should also be free to raise taxes in the way best suited to their area.
None of the parties really support this, but areas like Highland and Dumfries have such huge areas they cannot ever be regarded as local. It needs reworked in a more sustainable solution.
It also seems that none of the parties have adopted a decentralisation strategy, which is quite strange in the current climate.
Surely a vote winner for somebody?
Complain about this comment
#25/27 Reluctant Expat,
Thanks for your replies to my questions before. I'll take your points individually, if I may:
(1) I disagree that there would be an imbalance in a federal UK as all domestic issues will be separated so England/Wales/NI will have little involvement in Scottish issues and vice versa"
It is the imbalance in the federal system that I was referring to, rather than the individual federal components.
(2) As for voting weights and England's numerical advantage, I believe a second attempt at empowering the regions which involves maintaining an English identity (which Prescott's proposal didn't) would be more successful. The nine regions could then vote separately on federal matters."
I'll leave that to some of our English contributors to rebut, suffice to say, I very much doubt giving strong equivalent powers to the English regions, that Scotland has, is possible, whilst trying to maintain a coherent political English identity. It is still asking the English to sacrifice the political integrity of their country on the alter of the Union. If it came to a choice between England or the Union, I suspect most folks in England would plump for the former. If we were to have equal federal units in the UK, Scotland, Wales and the English regions, then they would have to have transparent and symmetric powers - education, law, perhaps social security would have to be equally given to the federal components.
(3) Failing that, the EU's double-majority system could be used, a voting system designed to protect Europe's many smaller states from being bullied by the Big Four. In the UK, this would block England forcing through 'federal' bills on its own and also protect it from being forced to accept Scotland/Wales/NI-only bills.
I doubt that would satisfy anyone, in fact it sounds like a recipe for a total disaster. England would be the dominant partner in the Union, the simple logic of democracy - a double majority system for the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish would mean in certain circumstances that the vote of a Scot was equal to two votes of an Englishman! Hardly fair or equitable in the ideal of a fair democracy! It violates the principle of "no taxation without representation". As for the second part you are right about England not needing to accept bills with only Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish backing - that brings us full circle back to the problems that I had been outlining in the first place! It doesn't ameliorate the problems that I posed before, it just highlights the inequitable nature of such a system!
(4) Funding-wise; as with other federal states, each raises and spends its own taxes, also deciding what taxes to levy. There is no opportunity for conflict here.
In terms of the states themselves, that would be correct. But that isn't the point. I'm talking about the funding of the federal government, and federal departments.
(5) "An option is that HMRC is adapted to allow councils/national parliaments to vary the various tax rates, HMRC then collecting and distributing directly back to the relevant authority. This would minimise bureaucracy and people/companies having to file multiple returns."
You mean earmarking? That is what is proposed here by the Conservatives. But that doesn't answer these questions, I posed before - What taxes would be reserved to Westminster to fund federal departments and the federal government? Would those taxes, reserved to Westminster, cover Scotland's pro-rata share of federal spending? What if Scotland's taxes didn't cover this share? Would Scots be taxed more heavily to contribute towards these federal expenditures? What if Scotland objected to many federal policies?
(6) Most federal states (and I don't know of any that don't) also maintain an 'equality fund' where wealthier states subsidise the poorer states, providing a safety net for when individual states hit hard times. This way, the states are rewarded for success and protected from failure.
They do, and the fund that you talk about is with regard to funding the governments of the federal states, rather than the federal government itself. Which is not the point about funding the federal government itself. Also these federal funds are hot political potatoes. Two federations I can think of - Canada and Belgium the "equality fund", or "fiscal transfers" are a source of political contention, even in an equitable federation like Canada. Albertans and Ontarians believe that they subsidise Quebec (the Canadian province that benefits most and continually from federal transfers in Canada). There is vigorous political debate in Belgium (a federation that is ultimately ungovernable and close to unravelling) about fiscal transfers from the larger and wealthier Flanders in the north, to the smaller, poorer and more industrial Wallonia in the south.
According to Unionist logic, Scotland is a continual net recipient of UK funds, as is Northern Ireland and Wales. Now it is not logic I agree with in Scotland's case (although I think Wales and especially Northern Ireland are hugely subsidised by the UK state - Northern Ireland has a public sector that is two thirds of its economy - higher than in some communist countries!). However I'm happy to play along with it to illustrate a point. It we codified those deficits or "subsidies", by having easily identifiable fiscal transfers, is that likely to reduce of increase the English complaint that they "subsidise" the Celtic fringe?
(5) "As for this comment: The Union is too lop-sided to ever be equitable, no matter how many times we reform it.Compare Bavaria to Brandenburg, NSW to Tasmania or California to Alabama if you want to see true 'lop-sidedness'. The UK is a lot closer than you appear to think! Compare Bavaria to Brandenburg, NSW to Tasmania or California to Alabama if you want to see true 'lop-sidedness'. The UK is a lot closer than you appear to think!"
If you think that, then you don't appear to understand how federalism works. NSW does not dominate the Australian federation - it cannot outvote the rest of the Australian federation alone, even Tasmania, because of the counterbalance of the other large Australian states - Victoria and Queensland, as well as the relatively smaller states and territories ie the Northern Territory, ACT and Western Australia. This is similar to the constellation of US states of varying sizes, ensuring that California does not dominate the US federal state or Bavaria dominate the German federal state. In the UK, England would dominate the UK federal state, and as I posited before, it would be (at 85% of the state) as powerful as the federal state itself. No amount of logic twisting will eliminate that simple and irreconcilable fact.
#34 Brownedov,
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that.
The Swiss cantonal system is the structure that defines the confederation - each of the 20 odd cantons are the federal states, if you like, rather than the linguistic divisions, which are not so politically charged.
In essence, even though the German speaking tranche is the largest linguistic division of the Swiss confederation, it doesn't make up "one" political unit. The Cantons of Zurich, Lucerne, Schaffhausen, Grisons etc are all Swiss-German (and the complexities of the differences of Swiss-German itself are an interesting topic!), ergo they do not form one "political unit" in the way we are talking about political federalism for the UK.
In certain circumstances c.f Canton Valais and Bern (where there are dual-linguistic elements) this feature is removed still further
Complain about this comment
39. The US constitution gives all states, whatever their size/population/wealth, the same two votes in the Senate.
This is then balanced out by the larger states having more seats in the House.
The EU is combining both of these into the one 'double-majority' voting system where a proposal requires a vote from the majority of countries representing 60% of the EU's population. Without this, the Big Four could force through their own policies. Whether the scheme gets implemented as planned is another question!
And as for the teeeeeeedious question as to why 'they' want Scotland to stay: Perhaps 'they' believe Scotland is better off in the UK. Just like the majority of Scots also believe. Just like the facts also show.
Just because you believe Scotland would be better off independent, doesn't mean you are right.
Complain about this comment
3 Reluctant Ex
Council tax was set up by the Government - it would not be possible for Councils to replace it with something else fairer or otherwise - they just administer the Governments wishes which makes so called local deomocracy a load of mince, even more so as all but a handful of the items being paid for are national issues with laws laid down by Parliament.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
"Just because you believe Scotland would be better off independent, doesn't mean you are right."
The same could be said for those who support the Union. Just because they believe Scotland is better off in the Union, doesn't mean they are right either.
;-)
Brian's Blog:
I am quite pleased that the Tories realise they will not be major in Scotland. I find it a complete waste to assign tax revenues to Scotland without the ability to vary those taxes, are they afraid of competation from Scotland?
I see their attitude towards Scotland has not changed since Thatcher, I see why support for Independence increases if the Tories are in power.
http://toque.co.uk/blog/?p=1278-http://tinyurl.com/3gz7fu%20-http://tinyurl.com/4pkfg9
"The creation of the team has been opposed by the Football Associations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who are concerned it may compromise their individual status within Fifa.
But he said the BOA, which selects teams for the Games, has decided to press ahead with a football squad despite the opposition.
When asked last night about the opposition from the Welsh and Scots, Coe replied bluntly: '(bad word) em!'"
Future of Scotland:
I would support a Federal UK along as Scotland and the other smaller parts were equal to England. England should not be able to out vote the other Nations to chase her agenda, we should also make sure England and Scotland are not able to team up against the Wales or Northern Ireland to force her agenda through. Perhaps each state could have a veto? Don't like something veto it. Ah well, I would also press that each Nation has full control over taxes etc etc and sends a certain amount to the UK Treasury to cover reserved matters.
Complain about this comment
38. At 5:53pm on 01 Oct 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
33. England does not have water supply concerns! LOL! Everyone (other than you it seems) knows England is a wet place! The problem lies in distribution which is currently being dealt with as their north and south canal networks are linked up.
I think you might like to change that fictional story. Last time I was England the fumes of chlorine emiting from the tap was horendous, but I suppose it had already used 10 before I went to use it.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Re #42
Great, I'll take it - Scotland has the same number of votes as England - it's a deal.
Put that to the English and Scottish people and see which way everyone votes ..... please .......
As to the idea that a load of English politicians are concerned about the welfare of Scotland, I have to say I've never heard such a load of rubbish. frankly it's laughable. It may be teeeeedddiiioouuusss to you, but for some of us it's an important question and one that is only ever dismissed with the 'oh, we're just looking after you' load of bull.
They want Scotland because it's valuable and it makes them feel more important (don't they just love to interchange England with Britian), it harks back to the old colonial past when they ruled other countries
Complain about this comment
Reluctant ex-pat
England does have water supply concerns, and not merely because of infrastructure. WALES has water concerns because of infrastructure - not because they are semi-dependent on consistent fall. You have seen the long-term effects of climate change on the SE, right? You have heard of climate modeling, the kind currently being used by Natural England? We'll see the affects on farming in 2040 shall we? And you can base that experience on the kind currently being suffered by farmers in areas LIKE Belgium and Portugal etc.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/too-little-rain-raises-fear-of-water-shortage-736978.html
Skills shortage? In what sector? Tourism? IT and tech? Traditional skills? Engineering? There are just the eight billion articles redundant ex-pat - have a look see on Google. Perhaps we could talk about the long cited impact on England's productivity? OK - ummmm - the tie ins with poverty? For example, with Birmingham etc [who are, curiously, quite semi-dependent on Welsh water - hmmm]. The English North-South divide, which is widening?
Lacks real estate - yes, that's right. LOL! You're citing Belgium and the Netherlands as examples of similar states? Please ex-spat, go and do some reading. England is surely THE most congested country in Europe, no? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html
No high-concern immigration concerns to discuss here then, eh? Noooo, that's not an issue in England.
Massive natural resource concerns. Yes - other than the fact that England has relatively few mineral resources, and is bordering on emergency planning for huge swathes of agricultural land under threat due to climate change. Oh - and sorry - 40-years worth of oil might be left - this would mean a great deal to Scotland, and you must think we nats are stitched up the back if you think this doesn't dent England or 'Britain' any? While, in the meantime, we are all left waiting for whatever unionist Westminster govt.is in power to 'discover' possible fields to the West.
www.oilofscotland.org
Nothing proves the natural and logical argument for an independent Scotland more than the entire energy debate. Whereas Scotland HAS unique opportunities in terms of renewables, we are dragged down by the 'British' question and the unionist insistence on UNSAFE nuclear power - with the disposal argument completely unsolved ['cos it cannot be].
As to your sarcastic remark about Wales, look back at my question - which, after all - only amounted to a request for an adult answer - WHAT would the impact be to England should Scotland and Wales leave the union?
Because NO ONE believes FOR A MOMENT that Westminster would insist on union if it didn't bring tangible and REAL benefits to the UK. Govts. think 25 years in front of themselves. Don't be so naive ex-mat.
So, sorry you find the question so teeeeeeedious ex-flat, but yes - we still need an answer, though we already know the answer, of course.
Yet you actually think - lol! - that Scots are unanimous in their belief that the UK is the place to be! You could barely cut that yarn 30-years ago, and in this climate, you certainly cannot.
Scotland is better off as Scotland. As you'll soon see. As the majority of Scots are also starting to believe.
Just like the facts show.
Your alternative, that Westminster is, on threat of death, hanging on to Scotland because people 'want to be British' [yes?] is laughable.
You actually don't think it might be down to British futures? British 'options' in 2025 and beyond? That it doesn't figure in - alllllllll that land and fresh water, and the lime rich North West?
Please. Give yourself a wee shake son.
Complain about this comment
38. At 5:53pm on 01 Oct 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
33. England does not have water supply concerns! LOL! Everyone (other than you it seems) knows England is a wet place! The problem lies in distribution which is currently being dealt with as their north and south canal networks are linked up.
"Environment Agency."
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Serious doesn't mean plenty!
Complain about this comment
This is the third time that I tried to post this link and each time it has been referred.
Here goes again.
38. At 5:53pm on 01 Oct 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote.
33. England does not have water supply concerns! LOL! Everyone (other than you it seems) knows England is a wet place! The problem lies in distribution which is currently being dealt with as their north and south canal networks are linked up.
"Environment Agency."
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Serious doesn't mean plenty.
Complain about this comment
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]No4 chopped
"Environment Agency."
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/finalclassification_1935752.pdf
Complain about this comment
SNP on 42% vote share, Tories on 15% in Scotland.
SNP vote share jumps to 50% in Scotland if there is a Tory Government in Westminster.
Cameron says he will turn the Tories fortunes in Scotland around in the first five years of his premiership ignoring the case proven by King Canute.
The bottom line is the Union is now moribund and declining rapidly to its last repose. To pretend other wise is to wreck Scottish Tories hopes for any further recovery, a recovery they deserve due to the hard work and common sense of Aunty Annabelle - I say that as an SNP supporter.
At least she seems to care about what is best for Scotland and not simply dancing to what ever tune Brown whistles up in Downing Street. An independent Scotland will need a strong Scottish Tory Party other wise, left to the Labour rabble at Holyrood, Wee Eck will be able to get away with what ever he fancies and that will not be good for an Independent Scotland.
Complain about this comment
tories are for tories...
inside they have no interest in any form of devolution or power sharing with Wales Scotland or Northern ireland...
in my view...they are greedy, want all for themselves,
cameron's speech today was okay...interesting
but was a bit thaterist!
we all know wat thacher did to us...Scots and Welsh...yes nothing...just nothing... they let us all down...
agree?
these unonist parties seem to worry about getting as much power as they can...and also pleasing there leaders in london of course!
tories would win with the majority of people from england voting them rather than people of Wales and Scotland....
seen is warning to Salmond?
now what is he going to do to prevent the people of Scotland from voting yes to independence from he's greedy party!
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
The moderation here is either being done under the watchful eye of the CIA or an embarressed Englander who is running out of bottled water due to the serious water shortage in more than half of that country. The link I have been reffered for was a published gov.co.uk .pdf by the environment agency, could you please sort it out. Thank You.
Complain about this comment
#52.
Thatcher hurt quite alot of the United Kingdom, mainly Scotland and Wales but also Northern England. To be honest, the only reason I feel that Scots dislike Thatcher was her complete attitude towards Scotland. Thatcher took on the Trade Unions and defeated them (they were inefficient anyway) and took away the many opportunites for Scots to find work. The worst is to come when in several years time London slowly becomes one of the wealthiest places in Europe, at a time when generations of Scots live on beneifts because of the lack of opportunites (thanks to Thatcher) but then where is our oil wealth at this time... ?
It's crazy. The United Kingdom was bankrupt (almost), the oil discovery was a huge bonus to our economy, yet the Scots remain unemployed and continued living in poverty. It was a rotten deal. How London became successful when the United Kingdom was struggling is beyond me but I think we all know where that investment came from and that hurts the most. It came at Scotlands expence.
Complain about this comment
Well, I'd vote Tory but in Scotland where I live that is not very effective (yes, yes I know the arguments about 1 vote them means 2 less for the others etc etc).
Last Scottish election I voted Labour. Not because I am a particular fan but my local SNP candidate is a poor list consituency MSP who (a) fails to respond to routine enquiries and (b) presents poor arguments. Added to the fact that Labour were the only people who actually knocked on doors, whereas the SNP candidate got spotted in the shopping centre.
This general election I don't want to vote Labour but I am yet to be convinced by all the SNP arguments and policies. Recent events in the Scottish Parliament also make me a little apprehensive to the political maturity of the SNP. I am referring to the witch-hunt of Wendy Alexander. She did wrong, is a poor politician but did it require a full day debating the issue when the prime objective of the SNP MSPs was to nail her to the wall?
Some of the SNP policies are sound and a few of the main personalities are usually professional in their approach.
One issue is because Labour are the Government in Westminster, the Scottish Government at times behave like the Opposition. ie stating how they would deal with issues. eg Use 100 billion to prevent banks falling over - where the hell is that money coming from? Closely followed is the continuous "we want" demands from the FM.
Don't get me wrong, I want to see Scotland succeed. But I'd rather stick with the devolved approach until we seem some stability return to the world's economy for starters. If the SNP continue to prove themselves then they have nothing to worry about. If people are satisified with the Government of the day then they will keep returning them to power.
The Tories will not gain much short term in Scotland, but have the opportunity to start longer term plans. If, as is likely, David Cameron becomes Prime Minister, then much will depend on how Scotland is treated.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147:
I am quite confident that the Liberal Democrats also believed Wendy should be punished...
It was only till the change of leader came that their stance also changed.
However should Wendy have got off free for breaking the rules?
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147.
my position with regards to slease, is it does not matter which party the member belongs to, until some of them are charged and found guilty under the law of the land, we will never be able to clean up politics.
someone in the labour party leaked details about McLIESH, O,CONNEL and ALEXANDER, so you should not blame the SNP for using it against them.
WENDY, i believe thought that she was above the law and also false information was given to the independent parliamentary standards officer on her behalf.
in the end, allthough a day was wasted, it may have done some good as others may now be more careful with listing their donations.
an odd thing i noticed about IAIN GRAYS donations, was that a MIKE RUMBLES donated 500 quid to his fund, and i thought could it be the lib-dem ?.
Complain about this comment
#53 cynicalhighlander
For some reason that I don't know, .pdf documents are not accepted. Usually the best you can do is give the google reference to it.
Good thread folks, and the most positive for a long time.
Complain about this comment
#58 oldnat
Thanks I had to go a through different links, I'll try this way first.
38. At 5:53pm on 01 Oct 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
33. England does not have water supply concerns! LOL! Everyone (other than you it seems) knows England is a wet place! The problem lies in distribution which is currently being dealt with as their north and south canal networks are linked up.
"Environment Agency."
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Serious doesn't mean plenty!
Complain about this comment
Can we agree to stop chattering on about federalism. It's merely the latest red herring to stop people gravitating towards independence.
As this post has already vividly established you can argue the individual details and degrees of federalism for the next fifty years and that is exactly what will happen if the silly idea gets any life. We would very soon be bogged down.
Anything federalism can do for us independence can do better and in fact it would be easier to negotiate a federal UK (if anybody really wanted such a thing) from a position of empowered independence of the proposed component parts.
Complain about this comment
56. At 9:01pm on 01 Oct 2008, Thomas_Porter wrote:
Neil_Small147:
However should Wendy have got off free for breaking the rules?
Absolutely not! What concerned me was the manner of the debate. A group of so-called professional politicians behaving like a lynch mob.
Maybe there is, but is there not a standards committee in the Scottish Parliament? (I honestly don't know).
Every day that Parliament sits costs money. For goodness sakes a small committee could have decided the punishment and that's it over within a couple of hours.
I'm not defending Labour at all, since they are well known for attacking sleaze in opponents, as are all parties.
But we need a sense of perspective here. An MSP breaks the rules, there should be a quick investigation followed by a punishment if appropriate.
The whole debate - in my view anyway - was a waste of public money, and achieved nothing for Scotland.
#57
I doubt if politics will ever be cleaned up either. And it's the same story almost anywhere.
As for donations, the SNP received a substantial donation from a well known transport company. I would like to see the reasons for the change in policy on regulation of buses.
Although I loathe the idea, if political parties were funded by the taxpayer it might (?) reduce the influence businesses have on politics.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
57. At 9:44pm on 01 Oct 2008, vote_nat.
disregard the bottom sentence on my 57 as its not in his gifts declaration now.
wonder what happened to it.
Complain about this comment
#41 Globaltraveller
Point taken but the cantons really are a diverse lot, ranging in size from Graubuenden at over 7000 sq.km to Basel-Stadt at 37 sq.km and in population from Zuerich at over 1.2m to Appenzell Innerrhoden at around 15,000.
Possibly more analagous to Scotland, Italian speakers are tiny minorities outside Ticino which has just over 300,000 of the Swiss population of over 7 million yet rub along very well with their neighbours.
More to the point is the bottom-up nature of their democracy which allows communes and cantons to combine, divide or switch - Jura was part of Bern until the late '70s and Freiburg has enclaves surrounded by Vaud and Vaud has an enclave surrounded by Freiburg. One day, the citizenry of the two Appenzells or the two Basels could decide to re-combine and nobody would bat an eyelid.
Basically, the domestic map is whatever the Swiss people want it to be rather than what some civil servant thinks is convenient to govern. That's hard to comprehend for those of us coming from what was a completely unitary state until the last decade, and where city, county and regional boundaries are determined by fiat from the top. But few could accuse the Swiss of being anarchists!
Complain about this comment
#53 cynicalHighlander
Some but not all of the mods hate PDFs under the house rule about links that need "extra" software.
Best thing to do, if you can find it, is to post the HTML reference with the PDF on it.
If that's too hard, try constructing a Google search phrase which will guarantee the PDF you want coming in the first first few hits.
Complain about this comment
61. At 10:51pm on 01 Oct 2008, Neil_Small147.
neil, the standards commisioner found that wendy had broken the rules.
it was then passed to the standards committee, who recommended that a 1 day suspention should be the punnishment.
it has then got to be put to the parliament members to uphold the findings of the standards committee.
it was not, and that is what all the fuss was about.
remember labour set the procedure, and labour made these rules, and wendy broke these rules.
there is no point in having a standards commisioner or committee if you do not uphold their findings - recommendations.
personaly, i was very dissappointed with annabel for voting against the committee recommendation as i previously was very immpressed with her. no nonsence from her.
as for the donation from soutar to the SNP, it was above board, and it may well be that the SNP policy makers decided that it would be to financialy to dear to re-regulate the buses as well as other policies that they wanted to put in their manifesto, who knows exactly why.
can anyone tell me who it was that spat at winnie ewing when she first went to the uk parliament.
Complain about this comment
#60 sneckedagain
"Can we agree to stop chattering on about federalism."
I certainly hope not!
It would be nice to have better opinion poll data, but my understanding is that broadly there are 6 options, none of which currently commands a majority, viz:
- Return to direct rule from London
- Holyrood as it is now
- Full fiscal powers for Holyrood
- Autonomy for Scotland within a federal UK
- Independence for Scotland within a cofederal UK
- Independence for Scotland within the EU
It's clear that the Tories would probably prefer the end of Holyrood but they are also realist enough to know they're not going to get it. If they're not, then Aunty Annabel will soon sort them out.The $64,000 questions are:
and/or
Complain about this comment
#63 vote_nat
Maybe the cheque bounced.
Complain about this comment
Well i'm an SNP supporter 'Naaaw !! i hear you say' but i to thought maybe that not deregulating the buses might look dodgy .... but then if you think about it .... Stagecoach has been allowed to grow to such extent by the previous administrations that how can you stop it or give the contracts to others . Who would be able to provide the bus services at such short notice .... anyway buses don't really matter to me ... i cant use any so take the car .
Complain about this comment
Federalism shouldn't be viewed as a stopgap, it's an inherently better system of government.
Complain about this comment
#70 Anaxim
"Federalism shouldn't be viewed as a stopgap, it's an inherently better system of government."
I think that's going a little to0 far - it depends on the constitution and how much it empovers the individual, and certainly sneckedagain's #60 has a point when it says: "in fact it would be easier to negotiate a federal UK ... from a position of empowered independence of the proposed component parts".
Any federal constitution which did not give its constituent parts the right to secede would be little better than the current situation, for example.
Complain about this comment
Can the Conservatives be trusted?
Answer, potentilly some Scottish ones, British ones, including Scotbrits, NO.
For me its a balance, they (Conservatives, English national Party by any other name), wish to keep what has become the jewel in a less than glamaous and faded crown, i.e. Scotland.
That said, Tories are minded that they can have almost continual rule in England if they relax their grip on Scotland.
They are a pragmatic party, they will follow their own interests, Scotland should do like wise.
A McG
Complain about this comment
Was the slave-owning Confederacy right to secede?
Complain about this comment
#73 Anaxim
"Was the slave-owning Confederacy right to secede?"
Well, the UK government was quite quite supportive of it at the time. My understanding is that the US Constitution is silent on the matter but I'm certainly no expert on that document.
In any event, that document was very much a top-down arrangement, written and accepted by the great and the good, most of whom were slaveowners. Again, I'm no psephological scholar, but I don't believe that the people of the USA have ever voted on it.
In the age of universal franchise surely the most important thing is that any such arrangement should be bottom-up.
Complain about this comment
Just copy and paste in browser, hopefully.
Identifying areas of water stress
Complain about this comment
I'm not a natural Tory supporter but I must say that I've been impressed by David Cameron and the Tory conference, not only because they have outlined their beliefs and principles clearly but also because they have explained the reasoning behind them (unlike the dogmatism of the SNP and the dithering of Labour). Although I do not necessarily agree with all their policies, I now have a clear concept of what Cameron's Tory party stands for. This is I'm afraid not true of the other four parties (apart from Independence what does the SNP actually stand for?). I was especially encouraged and reassured by Cameron?s clear statement on the future of the UK. Rumours abound, but this has clearly scotched the one that the Tories will do some sort of deal with the SNP to 'get rid of Scotland'.
I?m also impressed by the small Tory group in Holyrood whose debating skills seem head and shoulders above most other MSPs (FM included). I would particularly single out Annabel Gouldie (not an 'aunty' or 'matron' as patronisingly described by many commentators but an intelligent and courageous woman) and Murdo Fraser who is surely a rising star.
Unlike Labour and the SNP, The Conservatives have nothing to lose in Scotland and all to gain. Paradoxically, this is a real opportunity for them to make a come-back and is healthy for democracy in Scotland.
In short, for the first time in my life and, to my great surprise, I an seriously considering voting Conservative (and yes I do remember the Thatcher years).
Complain about this comment
47. Well, Gingerbadger, that post just confirms all my preconceptions about you!
Feverish nationalist spin, childish name-calling and denial of basic facts.
You're...what, 16 years old? Younger?
Regarding this oft-quoted and again teeeeeedious quote about "40 years of oil".....it's all about production levels, not how long the reserves last. This is another matter that is obvious to all but our precious young nationalists.
If they reduced production to a barrel a day, the oil would last centuries, but how does that help Scotland?
Production has been steadily dropping by ~10% a year for nine consecutive years. Total production is now less than 50% what it was in 1999.
The oil may last for "40 years" but it will be a far smaller % in less than 20.
Have you grasped the concept yet? Any light-bulbs above your head? Anything?
And the rest of your post is as ridiculous.
Again, you rant on about England's population density ranking in Europe. So what? You just ignore my point about other densely populated countries: How does high population density negatively affect Netherlands, Belgium and Japan?
What sarcastic remark about Wales?
Where did I say anything about unanimity?
Tell you what, you just go back to reading up on those nationalist beliefs about how crocked England is, how Scotland has been crushed by countless vicious international/political-industrial conspiracies and especially how "independence is inevitable".
Freedom!
All the best to you.
Complain about this comment
#33 Gingerbadger
You're new, are you a new contributor or simply a retread of one of the usuals (5 hard blogging activists do not equate to a massive groundswell in popular opinion).
You show your colours too soon by this predictable "England will collapse without the support of Scotland" stuff. It may play well when you're having these passionate agreement sessions with fellow nats but it doesn't really stand up much to scrutiny.
So we want the oil...well I'd say that we've had it already wouldn't you;-). The predictions of 40 years production can only be based on extrapolations by non-experts. If it's true then good luck but speaking as a petroleum geologist I would be very, very surprised if the North Sea was much more than a cottage industry in 20 years time.
England is not as wet as Scotland but it still faces out onto the Atlantic and gets plenty of rain. The problem, mostly confined to London, lies in collection and storage. You'll probably find that water pipes leak in Scotland too. By the way, your post talks about the SW...I live here and it's plenty wet enough thank-you. Perhaps you should have listened more at school.
England lacks resources. Interesting...in a renewables world we have some of the best prospects in Europe with regard to wind, wave and tide. There are still abundant coal reserves should we need them (assuming that clean coal can take off). We have abundant fertile farming land and relatively little in the way of unproductive bog, rock and heather. We have our remaining gas resources plus good pipeline interconnections elsewhere. I'm not aware that any UK skills shortage is confined to England, although it may be more obvious here due to the much higher levels of economic activity.
One of the central conceits of Scottish Nationalism is that Scotland is such a wonderful place and peopled by near geniuses that England relies upon it utterly. It's the difference between patriotism and nationalism. The former is an affection for and pride in your country, the latter is a belief that you are better than others and, as history shows, is frequently ugly and dangerous.
I am a unionist in the sense that I don't really see the point in seperating, other than to create yet more tiers of politicians and intrusive bureaucrats, although I assume that this is where most of the youthful blogging apparatichiks expect to find a job. Regardless of the xenophobes, the English and Scots are culturally almost identical and very extensively intermarried.
If independence is what the majority of Scots want (not some half-way house "all the benefits but none of the risks" type of federalism) then let it come about. As I've posted before, Alec Salmond has a far better chance of getting his way by angering English voters with relentless demands for special treatment, than he has from engaging support North of the Border. There is a limit to where he/you can take this "first amongst equals" demand before you are simply told to go away.
Complain about this comment
#77
Isn't FREEDOM the name of the recently successful Austrian Fascist Party?
This must be the most abused word in any language.
Complain about this comment
#77 Reluctant-expat
Perhaps I should copy and paste this post just like the one above.
If the production levels drop slower than the oil price rises then there is a net value increase.
This is basic economics, it should not take an oil and gas engineer (myself) to tell you that.
Moreover, is it not a shame that Scotland has a true range of natural resources and business sectors to supply its future economy?
You forget these things in your, understandably, juvinile analysis.
Freedom indeed.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#78 Anglophone
In regards to your skill shortage, perhaps the proof in the pudding are the number of Scottish government members currently running the country.
Shame there aren't enough 'skilled little Englanders' to fill those posts.
Complain about this comment
Just read this about the SNP's new proud announcement of free school meals for 3-5 year olds:
However, the government will not be allocating extra money to fund the roll-out of the initiative.
It expects councils to find the money from the funding settlement already agreed.
Brilliant work, SNP!
Complain about this comment
82 Brian SH
I have often wondered why English people with a lametably narrow world-view are pilloried as Little Englanders (as they are usually promoting a Daily Express type Britishness)
Wouldn't you also be a Little Scotlander given the tone of your posts?
I would have said that the gross over-representation of Scots in public life stems from their gross over-representation in government. Labour relies for power on its Scottish MPs. There is a Labour government and hence the barrel has to be scraped ever lower to find ministers and junior ministers. I don't think that it's down to superior intelligence...that's pushing nationalism too far!
Naturally, once Scotland is independent, all these high-fliers will hasten home to boost the economy of the Heather-Clad Paradise...or possibly still ply their trade out in the real world...who knows?
Are you really a petroleum engineer...I mean a real one? We must have extremely different subsurface views or maybe you don't get involved in the economics?
Complain about this comment
80. So all we need is for oil prices to continue rising and rising as the oil runs out.
Brilliant.
No harm done.
Genius.
(We'll ignore the teeny-weeny matter that oil prices were already crippling the economy before the credit crunch came along, driving up inflation, driving up interest rates, preventing people from heating their homes, putting fuel in their cars/vans/lorries.....)
I do find it funny when nats say something so unbelievably stupid.....and then also insult others' intelligence.
82. You're clearly on a roll, BrianSH.
Complain about this comment
I wrote an elegant piece on the question that many people seem to be posting i.e. what does Westminster seem so keen on keeping Scotland in the Union. But it got moderated out.
So I'll try a less inflammatory summary of the hypothesis.
Scotland has a long history of being a nuisance as far as England is concerned. There is no reason to believe that this will change with independence. You are less of a nuisance inside the big-tent than outside where you might make alliances with unfriendly types. Independent Scottish politicians will not waste any opportunity to stir up antagonism.
errr...that's it
Complain about this comment
#72 Alasdair_McGray
"That said, Tories are minded that they can have almost continual rule in England if they relax their grip on Scotland."
I'm sure that's the key dilemma Cameron is thinking about - not so much because he's actually a unionist but because he's unsure how it would play to his party faithful.
As PM, he could not be less pragmatic on the issue than Labour (old or new) with their built-in centralism.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat, you simply can not have it both ways. The Oil Industry is either vital to our economy (higher the price the better) or is not that vital compared to other areas of business Scotland has to look after (high prices would damage these).
I come from Aberdeen as you may know, higher the oil prices the better. Of course families would suffer but business is about profit and that is what oil companies aim for and specifically my family are employed because of the amount of investment is put into Aberdeen. Why would a person like me want lower oil prices at the end of the day?
Besides the higher the oil prices the more money the Scottish Government could collect from the Oil Companies directly. Fuel duty may be lowered or scrapped to keep the fuel prices from effecting the population to much (the main reason why we suffer now).
Complain about this comment
38. At 5:53pm on 01 Oct 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
33. England does not have water supply concerns! LOL! Everyone (other than you it seems) knows England is a wet place! The problem lies in distribution which is currently being dealt with as their north and south canal networks are linked up.
Rain doesn't mean that one has plenty of water to drink.
Try to copy/paste the following link and look at page 9 and let us know if your plenty is their equivilent of serious.
Identifying areas of water stress
Complain about this comment
#88 Thomas Porter
This is of course the imponderable in the independence debate. At what oil price does Scotland benefit, before high prices crash the unbalanced economy? All answers on a recyclable postcard please.
The "tipping point" price for oil in the global economy is around $150 i.e., the point at which it becomes untenable to carry out energy related economic activity. We have already brushed with this price this year and it has had a serious effect. The banking sector was poised to fall, but the sharp rise in the cost of oil had a major part in pushing it off the edge. In short, there is no such thing as free lunch...exponentially expensive oil is unsaleable.
It may be academic. If production is declining at 10% per annum (current trends) then a simple sum says that you are down to 25% of current production in 14 years. How expensive would oil need to be to maintain fiscal revenue at current levels. Production levels can only be maintained by exploration effort, which is, in turn driven by fiscal terms for the oilcos. Raising exploration tax, as Gordon Brown did 10 years ago during his blameless tenure as Chancellor can have a very negative effect. You can't reduce fuel duty or its equivalents to "subsidise local business and expect to get it back somewhere else without pain.
Of course the SNP could raise income and stick to its policy aims on health by doubling the duty on alcohol and tobacco! No?? I thought not.
Complain about this comment
Thomas #88,
You are clearly too young to bother with trivia such as filling a car up or paying energy bills.....
Put very simply, high oil prices are VERY VERY bad for the economy. They simultaneously drive inflation, and take money out of OUR pockets into the pockets of already rich corporations (I should know, I work for one).
I estimate the personal cost of high oil to me is 200 pounds per month. Thats 200 pounds not being saved, or spent at shops, restaurants, cinemas, on DIY etc etc etc. Repeat that across the nation's households and then try again explaining to me why a high oil price is vital to the economy.
Complain about this comment
Let us not be silly Anglophone; I work in early conceptual engineering and I can tell you are bitter that the 'big guns' left the north sea and then found those who took over the assets made considerably more profit on the back of their underinvestment and mismanagement.
I'm going to be honest; there is ample opportunity in the North Sea for many years yet. Aberdeen has such a skills base that companies come from around the world now to Aberdeen (not London) looking for technical expertise and at a lower cost.
Perhaps this is the source of your bitterness?
Complain about this comment
92. And the roll continues.
Stick to your sketches, BrianSH.
Complain about this comment
#92 Brian SH
You have plenty of time to blog so you can't be that busy. Do you work for a service company or a exploration company?
You're wrong...I'm delighted that the North Sea has proved so resilient and equally pleased that the smaller independents are making a good go of maximising the remaining resources. The majors made a big mistake in bailing out too soon in my view. I take pride in the fact that projects that I worked on are still up and running and that exploration wells with discoveries 20 years ago that I worked on are being developed.
I am pleased that Aberdeen has of a future once the explorers move out and it is indeed a "centre of excellence for oil industry technology", although why you think that the engineering and technology part has somehow migrated from London beats me? It was never there in the first place!
I agree with you that the North Sea has years of production left but how many years? When I was a frontline geologist, a find of 300 - 400 million barrels was a good find but already becoming rare. Where are we 15 years later? Drilling up small prospects of 10 - 25 million barrels is good profitable business on mature infrastructure without a doubt, but it lacks the scale required to create the tax base that some dream of. Whichever way you look at it, there is an economic limit to North Sea production and that is not the same as there" being no oil left". That economic limit may have been pushed back a few years by new pricing assumptions but I can assure you that it is still there.
We probably look at these things differently. Maybe to you, working on a new sub-sea design or suchlike is vigorous proof of viability. To me, seeing a 15 million barrel field with a production life of 8 years is a sign of inevitable decline and I will seek bigger opportunities elsewhere. This isn't bitterness or "anti-something", it's just reality.
Of course, the biggest issue facing the UK oil industry is the age profile of its skill base with most engineers now in their 50s and the industry not regarded as attractive by youngsters. The people may well run out before the oil.
Complain about this comment
LOL! :o)
Reluctant ex-spat and spanglebone. Let's return to my, admittedly, rather simple question, shall we?
- Is CALMAN a stitch-up for unionist meanderings. Brian? If you please?
- WHERE - with all reason - can I see report one about the impact on England should Scotland [and thereafter Wales] gain their independence?
It's not a racist question. It's not a hateful question. In essence, my question boils down to a general answer that I assume most people - with half a brain - already know.
People like the the moon-units mentioned above love to paint Scotland as 'hangers-on', or worse. They never - EVER - have a straight answer when it comes to WHY unionist govts. are terrified at the very notion of Scotland leaving the union.
Scottish Labour cite the seven plagues, and then some.
Reluctant spanglebone and their ilk would have us belief that Westminster's insistence on union is due simply to considering 'what's best' for Scotland etc with out really baring down on either logic, or current fact.
The facts - as always - are simple ones.
Fairly scary horizons. Vast amounts of good land. Water. Oil. Resource.
Tedious indeed.
See through the Labour lies Scotland. See through the Tory lies Scotland. See through Westminster, period.
Complain about this comment
Brian:
i think that governing afar is often a good thing...and not having everything centralized....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS