Finding the formula
I was once told that every incoming Scottish Secretary was welcomed by the Treasury with the suggestion that there might be a review of relative spending needs across the United Kingdom.
In response, every incoming Scottish Secretary buried said request in the longest, thickest, most tangled patch of grass available.
That is because, on the face of it, a needs review would not be likely to provide benefits for Scotland. In short, Scottish public spending would be cut.
Now, there are many who would argue that such a development is desirable. Few of them, I would suggest, reside in Scotland. Fewer still occupy Dover House.
Of course, the days of unalloyed power for the Scottish Secretary, heady and uplifting as they no doubt were for the incumbents, have long gone. Post devolution, it is the job of the devolved Scottish government to allocate expenditure in Scotland.
However, the funding mechanism still remains in the hands of Westminster - and so it is sensible for Scotland to track opinion on such matters across the UK.
Today the Campaign for Fiscal Responsibility in Scotland is doing just that, commenting upon proposals from an official independent report upon funding in Wales.
The Holtham Commission wants financial powers for Wales which bear some comparison with the Calman Commission for Scotland - although the two organisations have fundamental differences, not least the point that the Welsh version was endorsed by the Welsh Assembly government. Not by its opponents.
Broadly, Holtham wants half of each income tax band devolved to Wales with the ability to vary each rate separately. As for Scotland under Calman, banding, allowances and thresholds would remain with Westminster.
Further, Holtham wants the Barnett Formula scrapped. Its replacement? A calculation based on need.
There have been sundry efforts by a range of parties to collate joint interest between Scotland and Wales, to conflate the different systems and to suggest that the two nations might find common cause. I believe this is steadily becoming a more challenging task.
Wales, collectively, loathes the Barnett Formula, believing that it robs the Welsh of funds. Despite signs of a squeeze, Scotland still gains from it.
Scotland has repeatedly resisted a needs review. Wales is now explicitly demanding one.
This presents a potential challenge for those Liberal Democrat and Conservative politicians to whom it falls to implement Calman. It is also a challenge for the governing SNP and their Labour opponents.
Ideologically, the SNP has an answer - one noted today by the CFR - which is that the solution for Scotland is full fiscal control.
That, of course, prompts different disputes within Scotland as to impact and sustainability.
However, short of such a development, it will be intriguing to watch the UK government attempt to respond to two distinct, if not competing, visions from devolved Scotland and Wales. Perhaps we might be spared the fiction that the two nations are pursuing a common path.
Re a needs assessment, two questions instantly arise. Who would conduct it? The Treasury alone? The Treasury in the lead, taking evidence from the devolved governments? An independent body?
The Treasury would frankly veto the notion of an independent assessment and would be very keen to retain control. In which case, the devolved governments would be obliged to make their pitch.
Secondly, what is meant by "need"? Does Wales need free prescriptions? Does Scotland need free personal care? Or would these be judged to be luxury goods, excluded from an assessment of fundamental need?
One begins to see why the incoming UK coalition government said that dealing with Barnett was simply too complex for now, in these troubled times.
Equally, however, there is ample and growing evidence of disquiet with the current funding set-up.
Despite the apparent eagerness of the coalition to implement Calman at the earliest opportunity, I do not believe that the questions here and in Wales will easily subside.
PS: Contributions for July and August are likely to be limited. Enjoy the silence while you can
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~44~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"In response, every incoming Scottish Secretary buried said request in the longest, thickest, most tangled patch of grass available."
Would that be the incoming Liberal Democrat Scottish Secretary, who promised in their manifesto that the actual post of Scottish Secretary would be buried?
As far as I'm concerned I would just bury the Lib Dems in the longest, thickest, most tangled patch of grass available.
Complain about this comment
Brian, your discussion of "need" is brief yet it gets right to the heart of the issue. Now lets look at a few simple truths:
Scotland has a parliament and that parliament costs the people of Scotland quite a sum of money each year.
It is not unreasonable for the Scottish people to want value for money from their parliament.
It is, I suggest, easy to accept that different peoples have different values and, hence, place differing values on their "needs."
Given the foregoing, it is hard to see how a devolved parliament, with the powers that Scotland's has, can ever work efficiently or effectively in any recession (never mind the economic disaster we have on our hands just now). You see, if you get the economy right, everything else is so much easier because there is more wealth to go around. Economic policy is the primary role of any government (in that it affects people's lives on a daily basis). Without proper control over taxation, it is hard to see how Scotland can control its economic fortunes right when it needs to control them the most.
You have written a couple of well-balanced blogs lately addressing the economic challenges that Scotland faces within the union. Based on those blogs, I struggle to see how any intelligent, well-informed person can conclude that remaining with the current union set-up is advantageous to Scotland. Full Fiscal Autonomy does not mean "Separation." It does mean the ability to spend most of Scotland's money as Scots see fit. Why is this such a scary idea to unionists? Is there a single unionist passing by who would care to present a reasoned argument for the status quo?
Complain about this comment
Sometimes it's helpful to think of how others may see us?
Scotland has higher personal incomes than either the North of England, Wales, N Ireland or the southwest of England. Each of those regions (bar NI where security considerations are paid for) gets less public funding, and they know that too. Arguably, Scotland therefore has less 'need' of exceptional public funding than any of those regions.
Moreover, more taxes are collected in London than anywhere else because of the concentration of major taxpaying corporates there: major banks, BP, BT et al. And wages, Council Taxes and the cost of living are all much higher in London than elsewhere on our island.
Arguably, those vast Corporation and VAT receipts are an integral part of London's heritage - in the way that some folk imagine there's such a thing as Scotland's oil & gas royalties.
Whilst this argument about who should get what and how much could go on forever, it's notable that Labour seats are much more numerous in most of the distant parts of our island. Another common characteristic is that antipathy toward the London domination exists in all areas distant from that City. Maybe co-operations with the North of England - Scotland’s biggest neighbour - would be better strategy than annoying them?
Complain about this comment
3. At 6:55pm on 09 Jul 2010, leftie wrote:
"Council Taxes and the cost of living are all much higher in London than elsewhere on our island."
On what do you base this information? - I think if you check the figures you will find that we in Scotland pay higher council taxes based on the value of our houses than the equivalent in London or anywhere else in England.
There was an article in a newspaper some time ago that gave figures showing the Queen pays lower council tax than I do at £1400 pa and that one of her neighbours pays £1800 a year for a house valued at double mine, whereas I currently pay £2k pa.
Complain about this comment
#3 Leftie
You put your finger on something there, citing London as the location of so many major institutions, corporate enterprises as well as mechanisms of state - as a critical factor in London's significant UK tax contributions. Yet, while so much revenue is attributed to London because these enterprises and public institutions are inevitably sited there, Scotland receives no return for being the source of the mass of oil revenues, which also flow directly to the London Treasury - indeed we are invariably 'penalised' in numerous ways for being 'distant from the markets', while even our power generation companies who supply the national grid are financially penalised for being 'too far from the (London) consumer'.
#2 Skip_NC
Agreed entirely.
The inescapable truth is that Scotland's 'needs' will inevitably continue to be an ever-decreasing allocated portion of UK resources, even whilst new revenue sources, such as this past week's latest new oil discovery, continue to be subsumed by London. Under this farcical 'union', 'regions' such as Scotland will self-evidently never enjoy the benefits of their own resources, however abundant, because we will only ever be allocated resources based on UK-defined 'need', while London will never cede ultimate control over its own priorities, or over those of the 'regions'.
It must be recognised, in particular, that as the Calman proposals were specifically concocted to preserve the so-called-union at the clear expense of any opportunity to create a successful self-governing Scotland; that the (deliberate) flaws in the Calman proposals have been identified and well exposed, and that, as such, they should now be ditched in favour of true fiscal autonomy - the only genuine proposal, short of full independence, for a successful Scotland to be truly accountable and to build a better future on its own successes.
Complain about this comment
#2 Skip_NC
"Full Fiscal Autonomy does not mean "Separation." It does mean the ability to spend most of Scotland's money as Scots see fit. Why is this such a scary idea to unionists? Is there a single unionist passing by who would care to present a reasoned argument for the status quo?"
Although I am not "a single unionist passing by", here is a response to your post.
Even an anglo-unionist should be able to concede that fiscal autonomy (devolution of all taxes and spending) would arguably provide transparency between what is spent and what is raised in taxes and incentives for individuals and companies. It would present Holyrood with incentives for making efficient use of public revenues. As rational decisions tend to be made when the agents who benefit from spending pay the costs, own-source revenue should parallel spending.
Scottish politicians better reflect Scottish preferences on, for instance, education, innovation, private capital and infrastructure. This can have implications for growth. Having the fiscal tools allows politicians to alter the incentive structure and address frictions. Currently Scottish parliamentarians have no incentive to improve economic growth, as they are merely given a lump sum to be spent on public services and goods, any increased tax revenue due to growth accruing to London.
Under the Barnett formula there is little or no incentive to cut government spending and taxes. Horizontal tax competition between fiscal jurisdictions reduces the scope for wasteful government spending and, therefore, increased fiscal decentralization should limit the size of the public sector.
A fiscally autonomous devolved Scotland would have complete control over income tax, corporation tax and minor taxes such as fuel duty, car tax, etc. VAT revenues would be assigned and, of course, oil revenues would go to the Scottish Government. The volatility of oil prices could be addressed with an oil-revenue stabilization fund, such as Norway, Alberta and Alaska have provided themselves with. The Scottish Government would, furthermore, have borrowing powers; it would issue bonds.
Any administration which is funded by a block grant, however it is calculated, is by definition effectively a department of the government which provides its funding and, therefore, is not in a position to be properly subject to and accountable to the will of the people who elected it. The constitutional status quo in Scotland can, therefore, not be said to constitute meaningful self-government. It is largely an illusion, which is what it was intended to be.
Full fiscal control would provide Scotland with meaningful self-government, within which framework it should be able to balance its budget, according to GERS reports. Such control would, however, deprive the UK government of revenue streams which it may be hazardous for it to part with, not least at a time when its public finances are in an unprecedentedly parlous condition.
From an anglo-unionist perspective the subordinate status of Scotland, which the block-grant system involves, preserves the unity of the UK state, which is essential to the authority and arguably the prosperity of England. Refusal to countenance fiscal autonomy for Scotland would constitute a refusal to abdicate what anglo-unionists presumably regard as legitimate power. Such an abdication of power would mean renouncing the imperative anglo-unionist duty to protect the interests of the UK at the expense, even the extreme expense, of Scotland.
Complain about this comment
#6 Frankly
A thoroughly commendable assessment, not just of the topic regarding projected fiscal alternatives for the Scottish economy, but the fundamental predicament and consequentials of labouring under Westminster control.
Although it is implicit to your assessment, I would highlight the point that the anglo-unionists (an excellent term) who berate Scotland for being (in their view) 'subsidised', are the very same in whose self-interests it is to deny Scotland the opportunity of fiscal, or any other real form of, autonomy - a stance whose inherent hypocrisy has strong parallels in the anglo-unionist stance on several other issues of core and current debate concerning Scotland's governance.
Complain about this comment
Proposed Formula:
Taxes raised in Scotland = taxes spent in Scotland
Complain about this comment
8. Innocent Bystander
"Proposed Formula:
Taxes raised in Scotland = taxes spent in Scotland" = "In-dee-pen-dence"
Complain about this comment
#9 cynicalHighlander
The fact that sovereign independence would be merely a short skip and jump away from full fiscal autonomy within the UK is, of course, as much a problem for anglo-unionists as is the fact that the present devolution settlement is widely perceived by Scottish electors to leave Westminster with too much influence in Scotland while there is an ever-growing resentment of it among the neighbours:
“There is a growing perception of unfairness in England. (…) it’s slow-burning, it’s inchoate. It’s imprecise. It’s founded not on hard fact but upon grumbling disquiet. It’s there and it’s understandable, and it requires a response, in my opinion.
You can almost sense the English lion stirring herself and sleepily stretching out a paw and roaring gently, and just wondering what’s going on in the world. What are they doing to us?
I would relate this phenomenon – it’s not scientific – but I would relate this phenomenon to a wider sense of uncertainty in England about identity, linked to the European question as well as devolution. For decades, identity south of Hadrian’s Wall was absolutely certain. They were English. Silly question – why bother asking? Wasn’t everyone?
They might use the word ‘British’ rather than ‘English’, but they used those words interchangeably. They meant the same. There was no real uncertainty, but, slowly, doubt began to seep in. What did it mean to be English when power was seemingly slipping across the Channel to Brussels? What did it mean to be English when the Scots were running their own affairs? Don’t they like us any more? What’s going on?”
(from Brian Taylor's Donald Dewar Memorial Lecture in the National Library of Scotland on August 23rd 2006)
Even though it seems to be the case, according to opinion polls, that a clear majority of the Scottish electorate currently prefers fiscal autonomy and devolution max to sovereign independence, the English dimension is a factor which may be expected to complicate matters increasingly, or so it would appear. There is, after all, a sense of 'déjà vu' here. In what remains of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland the problems associated with schemes for legislative devolution are not exactly new or wholly unfamiliar. Indeed, anglo-unionists are still clearing up the wreckage from earlier failure to prevent home rule:
"It must also be considered that an examination into the different forms of Home Rule, while it shows that no scheme of legislative independence for Ireland offers any promise of finality, also suggests that the form of Home Rule least injurious to England is the form which gives Ireland most independence. The inference from these facts cannot be missed. Home Rule is the half-way house to Separation. Grant it, and in a short time Irish independence will become the wish of England. If any thorough-paced Home Ruler admit this conclusion, and suggest that Home Rule is a desirable transition towards Separation, the answer is that Home Rule is such a transition, but assuredly that such a transition is not to be desired. If one country is destined to become independent of another it is better for each not to experience the disappointment and the heartburning which accompany a period of unwilling connection."
(Albert Venn Dicey, England's Case Against Home Rule, 1886)
As the distinguished constitutional theorist Dicey argued, devolution is an open-ended process rather than an event. Events have demonstrated this in the past and, unfortunately for anglo-unionists, they appear to be moving in the direction of doing so again.
Complain about this comment
BT wrote; "Does Scotland need free personal care?".
Simple response: "Does Scotland need Trident on the clyde?".
C McK
Complain about this comment
6. frankly francophone, very well said.
Complain about this comment
#11 Calum McKay
As it happens, Dicey, whom I quoted in my #10, is clear on the anglo-unionist position in respect of questions of this nature:
"(..) the welfare of thirty millions of citizens must, if a conflict of interest arise, be preferred to the interest of five millions of citizens." (AV Dicey, England's Case Against Home Rule, 1886)
Now, the UK government may very well be mistaken in its conviction that it is acting in the best interests of the population of the 60 million or so souls who now reside within its territory in prioritizing maintenance of its nuclear deterrent at a time of extreme public-spending constraints, not least as the European Union already benefits, if that is the word, from the existence of such a deterrent in France, but there can be no doubt that that government is entitled to take this view and to act upon it, even of it means that a result of this action and other actions on behalf of the UK population as a whole is that the Scottish block grant may become insufficient to permit the Scottish Government to make all of the provision for its population of five million or so that it considers to be appropriate.
As, logically, the anglo-unionist position cannot but be that Scottish interests are subordinate and indeed subservient to those of the UK as presently constituted, funding arrangements which would give the Scottish Government scope to defy this principle must logically never be permitted for so long as Scotland is bound to that state or until the anglo-union is fundamentally reconceived and reconstituted as a confederal partnership of equal nations. Logic, however, needless to say, does not necessarily determine outcomes, least of all in politics.
Complain about this comment
#13 Frankly
Again, you called it perfectly incisively, illuminating the key obstacles, as presented by anglo-unionism, on our path to self-determination.
Contrary to the notional principles of equality and respect, the vision represented by anglo-unionism, and the clear reality of Scotland's status within the UK, is one of inescapable subordination and subservience to our neighbouring and governing nation - whereby our own distinct priorities, and very identity, are inevitably and ever-increasingly marginalised out of existence.
When will any 'leader' or adherent of our three "Scottish" anglo-unionist parties - committed as they are to the perpetual writ and rule of Westminster - openly admit that their parties' priorities are not those of Scotland???
Complain about this comment
#13 - understand what you say, specifically -
"Scottish interests are subordinate and indeed subservient to those of the UK as presently constituted".
That's from a governmental perspetive, what about the punter in the street?
Take all those generataions of labour voters in the central belt, past and present who 100% believe in Trident should be removed from the Clyde. But they vote labour, knowing that unionist party is pro nuclear weapons. Are these people actively or passivley "subordinating Scottish interests to remain within the larger herd out of perceived safety concerns"?
It puzzles me!?
I do think the "Economic Argument" is a bogus argument, you either believe Scotland should be free or ruled from London. Staying with the herd is easier for some. They don't have to think or look at others. Nationalists should have put the economic argument to bed years ago, that they are only doing this now is a combination of poor presentation and the media Scotland gets, i.e. controlled outwith Scotland.
In short, what will motivate the punter in the street to break from tradition and do what is right from her / him and their country?
C McK
Complain about this comment
#14 Dougie-Dubh
"Criticism is easy, art is difficult." (Destouches)
Turning to a more creative approach to the fiscal question within the Scottish Question, it may be worth considering the plight of the Scottish Government in relation to the situation of an arguably comparable entity.
FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT AS THEY WOULD BE IF BASED ON PROVISIONS OUTLINED IN THE STATUTE OF AUTONOMY OF THE GENERALITAT OF CATALONIA:
THE FINANCES OF THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT
PRINCIPLES
1. Taxation and financial relations between the UK Government and the Scottish Government are to be regulated by statute.
2. The funding of the Scottish Government is to be governed by the principles of financial autonomy, coordination, solidarity and transparency in fiscal and financial relations between the Public Administration bodies, and also by the principles of sufficiency of resources, fiscal responsibility, equity and institutional loyalty between the afore-mentioned Public Administration bodies.
3. The development of the contents of this Title is to be the responsibility of a UK - Scottish Government Joint Economic and Fiscal Affairs Commission.
4. The financing of the Scottish Government shall not entail discriminatory effects for Scotland with respect to other autonomous communities. This principle shall fully respect the criteria of solidarity.
THE RESOURCES OF THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT
1. The Scottish Government is to have autonomous finances and sufficient financial resources for the proper exercise of self-government.
2. The Scottish Government is to enjoy full autonomy of expenditure so that it can use and apply its resources freely, in accordance with the political and social guidelines set by its self-government institutions.
3. The financial resources of the Scottish Government are to consist of:
a) Taxation income, rates, special charges and other taxes raised within the jurisdiction of Scotland.
b) The income of all ceded UK taxes.
c) Surcharges on UK taxes.
d) Revenues arising from an Inter-Territorial Compensation Fund and from other allocations established by statute, as appropriate.
e) Other transfers and allocations charged to the general budget of the UK.
f) Revenues from payments for public services.
g) Incomes earned on the assets of the Scottish Government.
h) Private law revenues.
i) Income yielded by debt issues and credit operations.
j) Revenues arising from fines and sanctions applied in areas falling within the powers of the Scottish Government.
k) Resources originating from the European Union and from community programmes.
l) Any other resource that may be established by virtue of competent statutory provision.
FINANCIAL POWERS
1. The Scottish Government is to have the capacity to determine the volume and composition of revenues falling within its financial powers, and also to freely apply its resources to expenditure items as it deems fit.
2. The Scottish Government is to share in the income arising from UK taxes ceded to Scotland. To this end, these taxes are as follows:
a) Totally ceded taxes, that is, taxes the entire income and regulatory power of which corresponds to the Scottish Government.
b) Partially ceded taxes, that is, taxes part of the income of which and, where appropriate, regulatory power of which corresponds to the Scottish Government.
3. Within the framework of the powers of the UK Government and of the European Union, exercise of the regulatory power referred to in Section 2 includes participation in establishment of the tax rate, exemptions, reductions and rebates on the tax base and deductions in the quota.
4. The Scottish Government is to be responsible for the management, collection, settlement and inspection of totally ceded UK Government taxes and the same functions in the measure attributed, in accordance with the provisions regarding partially ceded taxes.
5. The Scottish Government is to have the power to establish, by means of an Act of Parliament, its own taxes, over which it has regulatory power.
6. The regulatory power of the Scottish Government to act in the taxation sphere is based on the principles of equity and efficiency. In its taxation policies, the Scottish Government is to promote social cohesion and welfare, economic progress and environmental sustainability.
THE SCOTTISH TAXATION AGENCY
1. The Scottish Taxation Agency is to be responsible for management, collection, settlement and inspection of all Scottish Government taxes and also, when delegated by the UK Government, of UK taxes which are totally ceded to the Scottish Government.
2. The Taxation Administration of Scotland is to be responsible for management, collection, settlement and inspection of other UK Government taxes collected in Scotland, without prejudice to any delegation to the Scottish Government in this respect or to any collaboration that may be established especially when required by the nature of the tax. For implementation of the content of the previous paragraph, a consortium, or an equivalent entity, shall be constituted, with parity of participation by the Taxation Administration Agency of the UK Governemnt and the Scottish Taxation Agency. The Consortium may be transformed into the Taxation Administration in Scotland.
3. The two taxation administrations shall establish the necessary mechanisms to permit presentation and reception in the respective offices of tax forms and other taxation-related documentation which may have a bearing on the other administration, with a view to facilitating compliance with tax obligations on the part of taxpayers. The Scottish Government is to participate, in the form to be established, in the UK Government taxation entities or bodies with responsibility for management, collection, settlement and inspection of partially ceded UK Government taxes.
4. The Scottish Taxation Agency shall be created by means of an Act of Parliament and shall have full power and attributes for organization and exercise of the functions referred to in Section 1.
5. Management functions in relation to local taxes may be delegated to the Scottish Taxation Agency by the local authorities.
I am, of course, not actually advocating the adoption of arrangements as outlined above, as I am not an anglo-unionist. I merely present them to illustrate the point that it is not difficult to find a formula that may seem fairer to the Scottish Government than what it has at present or appears very likey to be offered in the foreseeable future.
In any case, anglo-unionists may be ever so slightly inclined to be put off by the fact, if they have noticed it, that a monster demonstration of over a million Catalans processed through the streets of Barcelona on Saturday demanding independence and declaring that Catalonia will be "the next European state". Devolution is indeed an open-ended process.
Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can try reasoning with him, pulling the wool over his eyes, cajoling him, pushing and shoving him about and even ordering him to get back into the bottle, but he just won't do it. Genies are like that, and there is no getting round it.
Complain about this comment
#15 Calum McKay
"(...) what will motivate the punter in the street to break from tradition and do what is right from her / him and their country?"
You may have put your finger on it, of course: the media. Improbable though it may seem, Catalonia, which I have referred to in my #16, seems to have stolen a march on Scotland so far as broadcasting is concerned . . . and in other domains, or so it would appear. I refer you to Section Four, Article 82 of the Statute of Autonomy of the Generalitat, as amended in 2006 following an overwhelmingly favourable vote in its devolved parliament after a public referendum in which the amended statute received majority support:
"The Catalan Broadcasting Authority is the regulatory independent authority in the field of public and private audio-visual communication. The Catalan Broadcasting Authority acts with full independence from the Government of the Generalitat in carrying out its functions. The criteria for election of its members and its specific fields of action shall be established by an Act of Parliament."
It is the case, admittedly, that the CBA shares responsibility for broadcasting content and that elements of the Statute of Autonomy have just been ruled against by the Spanish Constitutional Court. Hence the kerfuffle at the weekend.
Where is your Scottish Broadcasting Authority, though? And what difference might it make to what may or may not be in the mind of "the punter in the street"?
Complain about this comment
#16, #17
You do successfully demonstrate the potential scope for a form of fiscal autonomy which could prove greatly beneficial to Scotland's economy whilst still part of the UK, providing a situation equitable to both parties - accompanied by the customarily even-handed recognition of the standard objection from the anglo-unionist perspective: that any such moves may ultimately lead to independence, which 'must be resisted at all costs'.
From where we actually find ourselves, however, it is that objection, and not the potential solution, that informs the priorities and actions of our anglo-unionist opponents, of which the three Westminster parties operating in Scotland are an integral part.
Constructive as it would be to the good of Scotland to see a debate where all parties prioritised Scotland's best interests from their distinct perspectives, what we have instead is the SNP striving to promote a Scotland-first agenda, while the London parties betray exactly where they stand through outright opposition to any initiative such as the National Conversation, with their persistent opposition to Scottish Government policy being so often in outright contradiction to their own parties' UK policy.
In parallel, we have their launch of the Calman Commission, which was not so much aimed at finding an optimum fiscal solution for the Scottish economy, but, as per their own declared aim 'to cement Scotland into the union'. In other words, they expect the Scottish public to buy into a set of proposals concocted for the primary purpose of frustrating the aims of the elected Scottish Goverment.
Before we can have any faith in the aims and actions of any of the anglo-unionist parties, they owe us at least a demonstration that they understand and are prepared to uphold the rights of the Scottish people - including our specific right to self-determine our own government - as opposed to prioritising their overriding adherence to perpetual Westminster control at all costs.
With regard to broadcasting, Scotland having control over our own broadcasting content could well be one of the main factors in our view of ourselves as a people, in demonstrating that we can combine a healthy range of Scottish-based programming with an international outlook that connects us to the wider world, without everything being systematically filtered through an anglo-centric prism.
Complain about this comment
#6 frankly francophone, the World Cup final, a sick wife and work mean that I have only just seen your post. You are, of course, correct - a unionist, by definition, must support continuance of the Union, along with all the consequences that follow. That, though, does not mean that a unionist cannot make the economic case as to why it is to Scotland's benefit to remain within the Union. Where's DeantheTory when you need him?
Complain about this comment
By the way, following Mr Webb's performance in the aforementioned footie match, has the English media taken to describing him as "British"? Just curious, because on this side of the pond there isn't quite as much coverage.
Complain about this comment
#18 Dougie-Dubh
On the subject of the Calman Commission proposals I readily defer to the now-famous and highly respected Andrew Hughes Hallett and Drew Scott paper entitled Scotland: A New Fiscal Settlement (March 30th 2010), in which one finds the following telling remarks:
"(...) the Calman proposals (and the UK government proposals that followed) are unworkable because, to function, they require information that the policy makers cannot possibly have; and because, without borrowing for current activities, they contain no mechanism to reconcile contractual spending (most of the budget) with variable revenue flows – which is to invite an eventual breakdown. But in its attempt to fix these problems, the UK White Paper introduces three further difficulties: new grounds for quarrels between the UK and Scottish governments, a long term deflation bias, and a loss of devolution."
"Unworkable" is quite a strong condemnation, or would be if the object of the exercise were not to sabotage the whole devolution project, which is all that the Calman recommendations would appear to be fit for.
Complain about this comment
#19 and #20 Skip_NC
Don't worry. Dean - I blog, therefore I am - will turn up one of these days.
As for why anglo-unionists are failing to make an economic case for Scotland staying in the UK while Blighty's economy is going down the toilet, keep thinking about it and the answer will come to you.
I take your point about Mr Webb.
PS. I hope your wife is all right now.
Complain about this comment
#22, frankly francophone, Oh, I already know the answer. Or perhaps that should be non-answer. It would be nice to hear a reasoned unionist viewpoint, though.
My wife is feeling much better today, thanks for asking.
Complain about this comment
#23 Skip_NC
I know you know, and you know I know you know.
If I come across a "reasoned unionist viewpoint", I'll pass it on.
Complain about this comment
#23 Skip_NC
Since undertaking to search high and low for a "reasoned unionist viewpoint" this is the nearest that I have come to one so far:
"This situation is just a reflection of what we have become, and are becoming as a Nation - Respect through secure employment and providing has been systematically eroded - Manufacturing Industry has been decimated or sold off - Support Industries eg Fishing, Farming , Agriculture are in terminal decline.
We no longer talk in salary terms or wage terms of a livable secure wage rising with costs, we talk in hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds per year which can never be earned !
Morals, Standards, Behaviour patterns have all fallen and are in terminal decline - crime levels are rising !
This is what we are becoming - Out of Control, Unmanaged, Greedy, Not at all Respected, No longer effective - Dying as a Nation !
Where on earth has the Great gone from Great Britain !!"
(David Bale, Nick Robinson blog this morning)
So there you have it. England awakes to discover that the ship of state is holed below the water line . . . and then goes back to sleep, no doubt, to await the inevitable outcome with its eyes closed.
Complain about this comment
It would seem that the powers that be have successfully managed to kill this blog stone dead....
Look back 12 months ago and some blogs regularly had contributions exceeding 1000 posts... this blog has been open 5 days now and has been reduced to 5 posts a day...
What does this say about the state of Scottish political debate on the BBC?
Complain about this comment
#26, Gaavster, you raise a good point. mind you, ask a hundred people why the blog has dwindled away to a handful of replies and I daresay you will get a hundred different answers. Just a few thoughts off the top of my head:
Did the blog comments focus overly much on the constitutional questions Scotland has to answer at some point, thus resulting in repetition, repetition and repetition?
When debate on constitutional matters was appropriate, did the unionists resort to name-calling? Did nationalists refuse to acknowledge that the unionists may have had a point?
Has the blog merely suffered the same problems as any other blog on the internet? Problems such as people spouting off just because they can, people arguing the same point over and over, relevant or not, and people arguing over the merest perceived inflection in what someone writes?
Given the "audience," did Brian Taylor sometimes fail to discuss the most important matters and, when he did, fail to discuss them in enough depth for his audience?
Would it help if Brian responded to comments much more than he does (ie, almost never)? (In that respect, perhaps he could ask Betsan Powys for a few pointers. When she comments on comments, it does one of two things. It either illuminates the discussion or it shuts up a trouble-maker.)
A final thought to ponder. I am writing this from North Carolina. I believe frankly francophone resides in continental Europe (apologies if that is incorrect). What does it say about political discourse in general if a significant number of contributors to this post currently reside outside Scotland?
Complain about this comment
27. Skip_NC
"A final thought to ponder. I am writing this from North Carolina. I believe frankly francophone resides in continental Europe (apologies if that is incorrect). What does it say about political discourse in general if a significant number of contributors to this post currently reside outside Scotland?"
I give in. Do tell me.
Complain about this comment
#27 Skip_NC
My heart's in the Highlands, where the rest of me is too at this time of year, midges notwithstanding.
As for the mystery of the disappearing posters, I think a combination of the specific characteristics of the BBC's system of moderation and an increasing tendency to shut down threads rather too soon for some posters has produced a number of alternative Scottish political blogs, to which a migration has occurred.
Complain about this comment
#25
Further to my quotation in my #25 from a post that appeared in the Nick Robinson blog this morning, the teachings of the polymath Paul Jorion on the subject of ultra-liberalism and related matters come to mind. Applied to the final stages of the decline and fall of the British empire, a vision of which David Bale evoked with such dismay and indeed angst today, a recent item in the Jorion francophone blog can be summarized as follows:
Hegel attributed the fall of the Roman empire to the prevalence of individualism. Preoccupied with pursuing their own personal interests, Romans became less concerned with society and came to identify less and less with the state of which they were citizens.
Decadence results from this loss of a sense of the common good as the only agency which ultimately can assure the wellbeing of the individual. Civil society conceived simply as a collection of individual interests is not enough to keep this sentiment alive. Decadence develops when the individual values his or her immediate personal freedom more than the wellbeing of the community as a whole.
There is an ideology which values this type of liberty above all else: ultra-liberalism in its various forms, such as libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, from the second of which the present financial and economic crises may be said to be derived. Contemporary society in the UK is characterized above all by the fact that an ideology bearing the seeds of its own decline and fall has taken root within it, extolling values which cannot but undermine it systematically and ineluctably.
Whereas not so long ago on either side of Hadrian's Wall there were citizens of a state which was held together by a great solidarity founded upon a strong sense of the common good in an alliance of mutually respecting societies, now we have decadence and dissolution. Woe and lamentation.
On the northern side of the Wall, fortunately, arguably, society still means something to a greater extent than and in a way in which it no longer seems to in the south, which may give some reason to believe that, as British society and the UK state disintegrate, Scotland may have a chance of pulling itself together as a distinct and cohesive society valuing the common good and the welfare of every citizen above and beyond individual greed and licence.
Nighty night.
Complain about this comment
Good morning Frankly et al!
Good to see your assessment Frankly , it is usually better than what is on offer from our "professional" commentators.
Speaking of commentators there is a wee profanity working its socks off for the benefit of those less interested in spin and more interested in facts.Hope y'all find it!
Theres a lot of news caught in its net for the benefit of scotland.
Complain about this comment
Why have contributions to this blog reduced to a shadow of their former abundance??
Having subscribed and contributed to it since around 2006, I have to agree with all the reasons given above by both Skip_NC and frankly francophone.
The tendency for all topics to be 'dominated' by the constitutional question has, I believe, greatly served to enliven the debate, reflecting the vitality of the constitutional question in contrast to the anglo-unionist* political and media-driven agenda to completely suppress it.
If the same debating points were inevitablly rehearsed, the continued absence of a constructive, passionate or meaningful case for the union, as called for repeatedly, and again above, speaks for itself - but debate on this blog has never been livelier or more stimulating than when the topic of the day is thrashed out against the flame of the burning constitutional question.
Ultimately, the rapid 'downgrading' of this blog can only be due to the actions of its operators, having imposed ever-more stifling moderation, including slower moderating times, upon the debate - not to mention the number of nonconforming' contributors whose accounts have been closed for them.
Such a relatively high-profile BBC blog being so largely dominated and driven by an wealth of contributors, several based at locations around the globe, in favour of either independence or real political autonomy for Scotland, must have been a real thorn in the side to many to the anglo-unionist political establishent, therefore actions taken to suppress it could be considered virtually inevitable.
* The term 'anglo-unionist', incidentally, is arguably far more apt to the constitutional debate than simply 'unionist', which may imply one who supports a union of equality between nations, where in reality the UK is of course not a union of equals, but a centralised anglocentric state.
Complain about this comment
I have just made a strange discovery!
It would seem that BwB has never attracted more than 50 commnets.
Now ,unless my memory is failing me greatly, and it has been known to let me down , I well rmember blog upon blog in excess of 200.
Where have they all gone I ask?
Or is it yet another little spin and twist?
Complain about this comment
I take that back , when the actual blog is pulled up the hundreds remain!( Sadly - because I was looking for particular information which I could pass on to a wee profanity!)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS