The Dirty Independence Question

[kaosmark2]

'twas only a bit of fun

Yeah, while what I wrote was mostly serious, I posted the smiley to try and show that I wasn't taking it that seriously

[LJS]

here is an article that talks a bit about grassroots & the rise of a new radical politics in Scotland

The third Scotland won't be denied - whatever the referendum result

Outside Scotland's two dominant parties a group of radical young voices is blazing a trail for a fresh kind of left politics

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/11/third-scotland-referendum-radical-left-politics

[OneLittleFish]

Well, of course you are right - however you have chosen to make your first contribution to this debate for some considerable time & comment on (I think) the only graphic I have posted from the yes campaign - one of the things I enjoy about the debate here is that unlike a lot of the on line stuff elsewhere its not full of people cutting & pasting stuff or endlessly repeating the same stuff.

If you look through the discussion we have been having, I hope you will agree it is generally free of folk taking "cheap shots" - it would be easy for me to take the piss out the No campaign because BNP, Ukip, George Galloway support them but I realise the debate is a bit more important than that.

I'd actually had a few drinks last night so probably wasn't in the greatest state to be debating the independence referendum!

What I'm really wanting to know from the yes campaign is this; when additional powers are handed to our Scottish government in Hollyrood for further tax raising powers and also from that the ability to spend them as we wish, is this not a Scottish government acting in the best interests of Scotland, but with the added democracy to be able to vote for our representatives in Westminster to continue to have a say on our currency, pensions and other issues that affect us all as Scots? Why would we be stronger when we lose our say over UK wide issues when it is clear that we would still be likely to be using the pound for at least a few years without any influence over it whatsoever?

[Comfy Bean]

I forgot to say I was amused at Ricky's vision of the 'for sale' signs outside every English hospital, a surprise to everyone in England in fact. And then for him to be told that the perfect Scottish NHS was being run in a very similar way to in England.

And he quickly moved on, the truth being a bit too hot for him there.

I realise you were fair to Ricky Ross in your early post but wanted to make a quick point about him and also his view on the future of the NHS.

Went to see him last year down Somerset way in the Acoustic tent. Was really interesting and enjoyable. He`s had some darker times in the past and he spoke about how happy he was to be spending the week camping with his boy and enjoying life. His kid was stage side, pretty emotional stuff plus some nice tunes on the piano.

Anywayz, he spoke passionately between songs ( as he does ) about how in the coming weeks Nelson Mandela would likely lose his fight for life and how Dave would make a heart warming speech about the great man with a tear in his eye. He highlighted to the crowd that Dave and his Uni mates used to hold a very different view on Mr Mandela and his politics. Sadly, not longer after, Dave was making that speech but he didn`t have an ounce of the passion that RR had / has.

In my opinion, Ricky may also be on to something about Dave`s plans for the NHS down South. Nothing will happen of course until after the general election but Dave and his pals have things set up in a " similar way " in England as you say Neil but there are a few subtle differences between " Trusts" and the " Board " structure we have up here. We may all share different views on the Indy stuff but I`m sure we all pretty much agree on the NHS and would rather keep Dave and his mates away from that trough. Ricky`s no idiot. I would keep an eye on his prediction - after the election.

[Comfy Bean]

Of course, Alex says in years beyond that the oil will flow like jam from a Robertson*'s factory, but that only stands a chance of really happening if major new fields are discovered. And I know there's some big hopes for the west, but the facts say that the finds were poor when drilling was done in the most likely spots; do note that now-privately-owned BP is not clamouring to get back there to drill again.

(* do they even still exist? I don't buy jam)

It`s dangerous for anyone on the YES side to even mention Oil on here without leaving themselves open to " there you go it`s all about the oil. greed, jam ". Of course it`s not as most of us realise. Couple of oil related points though :

Can anyone name another country who has discovered oil and become poorer.

Did last year not see the biggest investment to date in the North Sea infrastructure and exploration.

There is oil on the west coast of Scotland but there are also nuclear submarines.

Does anyone know who owns the first 12 miles ( out to sea ) of that coastline.

Does anyone think that long term the value / price of oil will go down.

Would the people of an independent Scotland be likely to vote for a party that didn`t create an oil fund.

The smart move would be to reinvest our oil revenues into renewable energy / science / jobs / manufacturing and lead the world in this field. We do after all have access to pretty much the best resources in Europe. See Patrick Harvie of the Greens for more detail.

[kaosmark2]

What I'm really wanting to know from the yes campaign is this; when additional powers are handed to our Scottish government in Hollyrood for further tax raising powers and also from that the ability to spend them as we wish, is this not a Scottish government acting in the best interests of Scotland, but with the added democracy to be able to vote for our representatives in Westminster to continue to have a say on our currency, pensions and other issues that affect us all as Scots? Why would we be stronger when we lose our say over UK wide issues when it is clear that we would still be likely to be using the pound for at least a few years without any influence over it whatsoever?

I'd like to know.

[LJS]

I'd actually had a few drinks last night so probably wasn't in the greatest state to be debating the independence referendum!

What I'm really wanting to know from the yes campaign is this; when additional powers are handed to our Scottish government in Hollyrood for further tax raising powers and also from that the ability to spend them as we wish, is this not a Scottish government acting in the best interests of Scotland, but with the added democracy to be able to vote for our representatives in Westminster to continue to have a say on our currency, pensions and other issues that affect us all as Scots? Why would we be stronger when we lose our say over UK wide issues when it is clear that we would still be likely to be using the pound for at least a few years without any influence over it whatsoever?

If I understand you correctly you are arguing that with the promise of additional powers which are on offer from all 3 Westminster parties, we are better off rejecting Independence because we will have additional control over what happens in Scotland plus still having an input in the big stuff that the UK will still do.

That is obviously a perfectly valid argument & would certainly appear to make sense. So why don't I buy it?

1: Let's assume that the Westminster 3 are serious about their promises for additional powers, They all have different proposals, some better than others - Labour's seem a bit incoherent from what I have seen. So by voting "No" we won't know which of the 3 we are likely to get. There is also the issue of whether they can deliver their promise. The next election looks likely to be close. Would a Labour or Tory government with a small majority be able to deliver - both have significant factions within their ranks who are not totally sympathetic with Scotland.

2: Much is made of us having seats at various "big tables" as part of the UK - UN security council, EU, Nato etc - now I wouldn't dispute for a minute that iSco's influence will be massively less than the UK's. My concern is how much influence Scotland has within the UK? This is obvious when we have a Tory government in London because you can be sure that will not have been voted in by Scots voters (well at least not for the last 60 years) but I would argue that even when we have a Labour government it doesn't represent Scotland because it has reinvented itself to appeal to middle England. This is demonstrated by roughly 25% of labour voters intending to vote Yes. Even if we assume every MP representing a Scottish seat is giving his/her all for Scotland ( & not following the party line) they are such a small minority in Westminster that their influence is almost non-existant

3: Whilst the above points are important the deal breaker for me is: is the UK the sort of country i want to be part of?

Do I want to live in a country which has the 22nd highest population in the world but the 6th highest defence budget?

Do I want to live a country where "The five richest families in the UK are now wealthier than the bottom 20 per cent of the entire population, according to a briefing drawn up by Oxfam. That means just five households have more money than 12.6 million people put together"

These two points on their own are enough for me.

Edited July 12, 2014 by LJS

[OneLittleFish]

If I understand you correctly you are arguing that with the promise of additional powers which are on offer from all 3 Westminster parties, we are better off rejecting Independence because we will have additional control over what happens in Scotland plus still having an input in the big stuff that the UK will still do.

That is obviously a perfectly valid argument & would certainly appear to make sense. So why don't I buy it?

1: Let's assume that the Westminster 3 are serious about their promises for additional powers, They all have different proposals, some better than others - Labour's seem a bit incoherent from what I have seen. So by voting "No" we won't know which of the 3 we are likely to get. There is also the issue of whether they can deliver their promise. The next election looks likely to be close. Would a Labour or Tory government with a small majority be able to deliver - both have significant factions within their ranks who are not totally sympathetic with Scotland.

2: Much is made of us having seats at various "big tables" as part of the UK - UN security council, EU, Nato etc - now I wouldn't dispute for a minute that iSco's influence will be massively less than the UK's. My concern is how much influence Scotland has within the UK? This is obvious when we have a Tory government in London because you can be sure that will not have been voted in by Scots voters (well at least not for the last 60 years) but I would argue that even when we have a Labour government it doesn't represent Scotland because it has reinvented itself to appeal to middle England. This is demonstrated by roughly 25% of labour voters intending to vote Yes. Even if we assume every MP representing a Scottish seat is giving his/her all for Scotland ( & not following the party line) they are such a small minority in Westminster that their influence is almost non-existant

3: Whilst the above points are important the deal breaker for me is: is the UK the sort of country i want to be part of?

Do I want to live in a country which has the 22nd highest population in the world but the 6th highest defence budget?

Do I want to live a country where "The five richest families in the UK are now wealthier than the bottom 20 per cent of the entire population, according to a briefing drawn up by Oxfam. That means just five households have more money than 12.6 million people put together"

These two points on their own are enough for me.

But with greater devolved powers we can work towards helping out the poorest in society, but also retain our say within Westminster and the EU. Our elected representatives would still be able to vote on issues that affect our pound and the other things we'd still be sharing with the UK. I don't get how giving up our say over UK issues changes anything. 100% of MSPs in Hollyrood are voted by the Scottish people - with those additional powers it would absolutely be a Scottish government looking out for the interests of Scotland.

I do get the feeling that it's all a bit of an ego trip really; devo max gives Scotland more powers to govern ourselves which is supposedly what the yes campaign is looking for but with greatly reduced risks. Why on earth would we decide to become independent?

Add to that Salmond not choosing to implement his improvements to childcare which he could do right now if he wanted and it all does begin to sound like a power trip, doesn't it?

Edited July 12, 2014 by OneLittleFish

[LJS]

But with greater devolved powers we can work towards helping out the poorest in society, but also retain our say within Westminster and the EU. Our elected representatives would still be able to vote on issues that affect our pound and the other things we'd still be sharing with the UK. I don't get how giving up our say over UK issues changes anything. 100% of MSPs in Hollyrood are voted by the Scottish people - with those additional powers it would absolutely be a Scottish government looking out for the interests of Scotland.

I do get the feeling that it's all a bit of an ego trip really; devo max gives Scotland more powers to govern ourselves which is supposedly what the yes campaign is looking for but with greatly reduced risks. Why on earth would we decide to become independent?

Add to that Salmond not choosing to implement his improvements to childcare which he could do right now if he wanted and it all does begin to sound like a power trip, doesn't it?

I can't add much to the reasons I have already given why, for me, a bit more devolution (but we don't know how much & we don't know when) is not the answer. I believe Westminster is broken & barely represents England let alone Scotland.

If you think otherwise you are of course entirely entitled to your opinion & entitled to vote no.

[eFestivals]

Hmmmm, do you think I let you off the hook there?

Not at all.

I'm well aware I fail at times, and from the point of view of discussion most of us fail at points (not all for the same reasons, or even necessarily for the reasons we might suppose of each other).

But I am pleased that you see it as a discussion and not anything else. That's all I've wanted it to be.

[eFestivals]

here is an article that talks a bit about grassroots & the rise of a new radical politics in Scotland

The third Scotland won't be denied - whatever the referendum result

Outside Scotland's two dominant parties a group of radical young voices is blazing a trail for a fresh kind of left politics

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/11/third-scotland-referendum-radical-left-politics

I'd love that to be true.

But the way you've all swallowed "the people are sovereign" says that it's not.

People in iScotland will have identical 'sovereignty' to what Westminster gives you, but with less control being exercised over iScotland's legislating political class than is exercised over Westminster's legislating political class.

Why the fuck not a single one of you appears to have noticed I've no idea. It is all made 100% clear in the constitution.

For you to change that constitution will require politicians who have been granted power to hand that power back - the exact same problem as at the core of the problems with Westminster.

The fact that you're just giving it all away at the moment you get it and you've not even noticed is of far more concern to me that any other democratic, financial, or political policy worries I have for the people of Scotland from a yes outcome.

[eFestivals]

In my opinion, Ricky may also be on to something about Dave`s plans for the NHS down South.

if that was what he was saying on QT I'd have little issue with it. But he was saying it had already been sold-off wholesale, and that nothing was happening to the Scottish NHS that is similar to what is happening in England.

(first defo untrue; 2nd stated as untrue by a QT audience member [and Ross acted as tho he knew she was correct]).

It looked to me as tho he was spinning a myth, to suggest that the SNP had saved Scotland from something nasty and English ("vote no and you'll have more of that from the nasty English" is the subtext).

The tories intentions? I don't doubt Ross is right, but it's not needed him to tell me.

[eFestivals]

Can anyone name another country who has discovered oil and become poorer.

I hate to tell you, but you can't even name one country that's happened to.

Did last year not see the biggest investment to date in the North Sea infrastructure and exploration.

it did - because the oil is getting more expensive to extract, which results in lower extraction licence fees (which is 'the oil revenue' from the point of view of govt).

There is oil on the west coast of Scotland but there are also nuclear submarines.

There is oil, yep. But do you know how much?

Not a lot. It is an irrelevance towards Scottish oil for the purposes of funding an iScotland.

That's based on the facts of the exploration and extraction that has already happened in the Clyde basin, and not on the convenient nationalist myth.

Would the people of an independent Scotland be likely to vote for a party that didn`t create an oil fund.

If you're really having that oil fund, tory public spending cuts are a mere tickle of what's to come for iScotland.

The smart move would be to reinvest our oil revenues into renewable energy / science / jobs / manufacturing

it would be, but it can only happen once the oil revenues are not already being spent elsewhere.

We do after all have access to pretty much the best resources in Europe.

ahhh, those lovely windfarms. The union gives Scotland nothing, eh?

[LJS]

ahhh, those lovely windfarms. The union gives Scotland nothing, eh?

Thanks for the wind:)

[eFestivals]

1: Let's assume that the Westminster 3 are serious about their promises for additional powers,

you already know you've got new powers coming (2016, isn't it?)

That'll be the game changer in Scotland, where Scotland has responsibility for collection as well as spending.

We'll get to see just how much more 'social justice' is wanted in Scotland by the measure which really counts - paying for it.

Even if we assume every MP representing a Scottish seat is giving his/her all for Scotland ( & not following the party line) they are such a small minority in Westminster that their influence is almost non-existant

Brown, Robertson, Darling, Cook, Dewar, Alexander (both), etc, etc. Hardly minor players.

What you mean is that with the current borders you're not on the winning side (&/or getting the policies you want) and you call this a democratic deficit.

And yet if you redraw the borders just as big a percentage within those new borders will remain on the losing side.

The democratic deficit is just a word trick, and you've been had.

Do I want to live a country where "The five richest families in the UK are now wealthier than the bottom 20 per cent of the entire population, according to a briefing drawn up by Oxfam. That means just five households have more money than 12.6 million people put together"

do you think things are very different in Scotland right now, or will change hugely after indy?

If they do change hugely after indy, it's far more likely to result in Scotland being in more poverty and not less - because the most likely way the wealth gap will change is by the mega-wealthy abandoning iScotland.

It's not impossible to get a positive out of that but it is mighty difficult - and very unlikely to happen without mass nationalisation and other stuff that's just not going to happen.

These two points on their own are enough for me.

It's all very well saying "I support good ideas", but there's more than good ideas that you need. It's good consequences from those good ideas - and that doesn't necessarily happen.

It's a very good idea to (for instance) say "in iScotland the banks will be better regulated so won't ever need a bail out". But the bad consequence of that is less investment in the economy, and lower tax revenues - so the "good idea" might not actually be a good idea after all.

These things tend to have all of the same links between them whether enacted in Scotland or Westminster.

Edited July 13, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Thanks for the wind:)

Alex is all your own.

[eFestivals]

Add to that Salmond not choosing to implement his improvements to childcare which he could do right now if he wanted and it all does begin to sound like a power trip, doesn't it?

Yep, i'm seeing this too. What Alex is essentially saying is this....

"Scotland is in an awful state and we need to address this. I could address it now but I'm not going to. I'll only do something if you make me incredibly powerful."

It's laughable, and why people think he'll deliver them social justice on principle I've no idea. He's demonstrating the only principle he cares about is power for himself (as the draft constitution makes clear too).

[LJS]

Yep, i'm seeing this too. What Alex is essentially saying is this....

"Scotland is in an awful state and we need to address this. I could address it now but I'm not going to. I'll only do something if you make me incredibly powerful."

It's laughable, and why people think he'll deliver them social justice on principle I've no idea. He's demonstrating the only principle he cares about is power for himself (as the draft constitution makes clear too).

my hopes for a fairer country are not based on Alex.

he's not bad, but he's not good enough.

[eFestivals]

my hopes for a fairer country are not based on Alex.

I know, they're based on iScotland voting itself higher taxes.

Good luck with that one.

[eFestivals]

Anyway, how do you expect a better country with a worse position for your ('the peoples') own sovereignty in an iScotland than the UK gives you?

[LJS]

Neil, thought you might find this of interest - & agree with a fair bit of it

A Letter
to Scotland's
new radicals

http://www.scottishreview.net/GerryHassan163.shtml#ptlink.fid=14492&isc=1&did=bookmark.d33187e5e41ce04cc6671be2672522c3142d52b6&ctp=article

Here is a response to it

http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2014/07/gerry-hassan-wrong-radical-scotland-has-left-its-ghetto#ptlink.fid=14766&isc=1&did=bookmark.2bdc21ec8917eafdaa047fba8167686771384464&ctp=article

[LJS]

you already know you've got new powers coming (2016, isn't it?)

That'll be the game changer in Scotland, where Scotland has responsibility for collection as well as spending.

We'll get to see just how much more 'social justice' is wanted in Scotland by the measure which really counts - paying for it.

Brown, Robertson, Darling, Cook, Dewar, Alexander (both), etc, etc. Hardly minor players.

What you mean is that with the current borders you're not on the winning side (&/or getting the policies you want) and you call this a democratic deficit.

And yet if you redraw the borders just as big a percentage within those new borders will remain on the losing side.

The democratic deficit is just a word trick, and you've been had.

Yeah we know we have new powers coming come what may which are separate from the powers all the Westminster parties are now falling over each other to offer us.

As for Brown, Darling etc, the nationality of the members of the ruling parties is totally irrelevant to my argument just as much as the nationality of the population of Scotland is irrelevant. If anything it just indicates how under the current system scots have to go south to get the best jobs!!!

And no one is redrawing borders they already exist.

[LJS]

I know, they're based on iScotland voting itself higher taxes.

Good luck with that one.

Yeah that's exactly what i've said - Neil you can do better than that

[LJS]

I'd love that to be true.

But the way you've all swallowed "the people are sovereign" says that it's not.

People in iScotland will have identical 'sovereignty' to what Westminster gives you, but with less control being exercised over iScotland's legislating political class than is exercised over Westminster's legislating political class.

Why the fuck not a single one of you appears to have noticed I've no idea. It is all made 100% clear in the constitution.

For you to change that constitution will require politicians who have been granted power to hand that power back - the exact same problem as at the core of the problems with Westminster.

The fact that you're just giving it all away at the moment you get it and you've not even noticed is of far more concern to me that any other democratic, financial, or political policy worries I have for the people of Scotland from a yes outcome.

OK, I know I've promised I wouldn't indulge your conspiracy theories about the DRAFT INTERIM constitution.

Yes of course the "people are sovereign" stuff is meaningless twaddle. But what else can they say? Alex is god? You are craven subjects of the Her imperial majesty, the Empress of India, The Duchess of Gibraltar & the Marchioness of the Malvinas. So yeah it means nothing & in many ways the constitution is meaningless too - I believe some of the most oppressive & undemocratic regimes have had lovely fluffy constitutions.

But as the UK & New Zealand are, I believe, the only countries in the world without written constitutions, we kind of have to have one.

What is important is not the constitution but that we ensure we have robust structures in place to ensure the government is subject to meaningful scrutiny. There are issues with this as we do not have a second chamber ( no, I do not suggest we have a house of Lairds) & there was an assumption that our electoral system would guarantee no government with an outright majority.

It will be up to the people of Scotland to ensure they hold the government to account.

[LJS]

oops double post

Edited July 13, 2014 by LJS