Richard Thompson has promised to give his arguments for believing that independence is the best route for Scotland, I will respond and anyone else is free to join in (subject to moderation for insult and obscenity and irrelevance).
Over to you, Richard...
Will your pension provide for your old age?
3 hours ago
Thank you for the invitation, Braveheart. This is a long opener, so please bear with it...
ReplyDeleteMy belief in Independence is hopefully something which is anchored very much in the present. However, it's worth going over some of the post 1707 history to get a sense of where we've been, why we went there and how that journey might affect where we go next.
The 1707 union may or may not have been popular amongst the Scottish people at the time, but (and this may surprise you) I can see, from a historical perspective, the strategic logic which lay behind it. Post-Darien, the Scots wanted still wanted access to the New World, which was about to be denied them by the great colonial powers of England and Spain, while England wanted to secure its troublesome northern border against the threat of invasion from France. Resolving this state of affairs and ensuring peace between Scotland and England allowed, for better or worse – largely for better I would argue - both countries to go on and achieve a disproportionate influence together.
For centuries, it was the countries which were most successful at mustering power on land and on sea which were best able to secure resources and influence over others. However, with the rise of 20th century nationalism, the decline of the British empire and the rise of the USA, we began to see that it was not necessary to threaten or occupy a country in order to gain access to its resources or influence its people. Leaving dynastic and religious concerns aside as most of us have, 300 years on, we are now in a free trade block of over 500m peoples, with full access to global markets. The threat of a French invasion of England, or of conflict between Scotland and England after 300 years of shared statehood also seems, well, remote these days.
If the circumstances which gave rise to the British state have changed over time, then you'd expect the rationale for Britain's continence to change also, since countries need a narrative or a story to give them a sense of themselves. And for a time, change it did. Despite agitation for Scottish home rule in the aftermath of WWI, external threat acted as a powerful cohesive force. The welfare state post WWII gave a guarantee of prosperity and a sense of a shared project, which seemed to replace the Empire in its ability to bond people together.
2] Nationalisation of industry removed a lot of corporate control from Scotland, but political consensus ensured that this bolstered, rather than weakened Britishness. MacMillan's government built on this with investment in council housing and promotion of state enterprises. Wilson's government in the 60's did much to start modernising Scotland's law and infrastructure. However, the backdrop to all of this was British decline as a great power, and with the economic crises of the 1970's, the sense of Britain being any kind of guarantor of prosperity or social justice took a serious knock.
ReplyDeleteThe 18 years of Conservative rule didn't rekindle any sense of a shared project, and seemed to attack the social and political consensus of 'Britishness' into which Scots of all political persuasions had bought. This led many who had previously opposed self-government to actively support it. While Blairism coincided with a rise in Scottish confidence, it similarly failed to create a sense of shared purpose again. Frankly, Brown has failed to do anything to alter that and Cameron, if he's elected, despite the rhetoric about wanting to be Prime Minister of all the UK, doesn't show any understanding of how a competing narrative of growing Scottish confidence and self-government has filled the vacuum over the past 4 decades.
Despite the policy disagreements, I have no problem with that, because it's part of an organic process. If you ask what makes a nation, it's whatever it feels itself to be, or as the Breton philosopher Ernest Renan put it, by saying it was a daily referendum - un plebiscite de tous le jours – on whether to continue to be a nation. Bluntly, the 'British story' no longer seems to be being written by anyone. Increasingly, through their policy differences and respective political balance, Scotland and England seem more and different countries than they perhaps ever did before in modern times. New narratives are emerging, but they seem to be based increasingly around Scotland or England, rather than Britain.
This has been precipitated in part by Europe. Freed from the stifling power politics of the Cold War,
historic nations have reunited or regained their sovereignty, many to then pool it as part of the EU. Individual size mattered in the early part of the last century, but no longer matters in terms of ensuring security and prosperity. Free trade and free movement of people are now guaranteed, and to my mind, our greatest opportunities lie in playing a greater role in a looser union of 500m people rather than maintaining our present lesser status in a more rigid union of just 60m.
3] Increasingly, it's possible to point to areas where Scottish and wider UK interests and opinions do not coincide. Devolution may have democratised a distinctive set of Scottish institutions which effective legal, administrative, ecclesiastical and academic independence had helped to create and/or maintain. However, it's hard for me to see why that independence when it comes to setting devolved policies shouldn't also be extended to international affairs, so that we can co-operate with partners where our interests coincide; to military affairs so we can decide where and when our forces are engaged in conflict; or indeed to the powers over taxation needed to pay for it all.
ReplyDeleteI value greatly the social union between Scotland and the other 'British' nations, but frankly, our families, friendships and cultural ties transcend borders and politics already - that which we value will endure regardless. Already, limited devolution has removed much of the sillyness which lead Scots of all persuasions in the past to blame others for adverse outcomes at home. Independence – by which I mean Holyrood assuming control over the remaining Schedule 5 powers of the Scotland Act – would for me be the final act in seeing Scotland mature, and in making her politicians and institutions truly accountable to the people they serve, and would remove the remaining grounds for contention which sully the nature of our present relationships, such as grievances over public spending.
With independence, we pay our own way, devise our own policies best suited to our needs, decide how to engage with the rest of the world to best advance our values and interests, co-operate where it's in our interests to do so, end the presences and resentments which build when they don't coincide, and continue to share what we have in common with our neighbours, without the restrictions which come from sharing statehood. Really, what's not to like about that?
Over to you...
Richard,
ReplyDeletethanks for the history lesson.
If I may condense it?
Hundreds of years ago the British Isles consisted of separate kingdoms and principalities.
400 years ago it was united under a single king.
300 years ago, the remaining parliaments merged and the United Kingdom became a state comprising these kingdoms and principalities.
This unifying arrangement has been a great success in economic and political terms, so much so that patriots in the fragmented Italian peninsula and the German principalities, and in other world situations, copied the unification model of patriotism, uniting the mother/fatherland, with resulting strong and united entities that we now see.
Through it all Scotland prospered and still kept its own systems of Law, Education, Church/state relationships and etc.
But, times change. We now have a quasi-United States of Europe, and you cannot see why we cannot go back to a more fragmented approach...
And let's face it, there are problems. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, what's to like...? (of course 15 years ago you might well have said Margaret Thatcher and John Major, what's to like..?. 40 years ago, Harold Wilson, what's to like...) but leave that aside, you don't like the current PM ... which I take as shorthand for "we've got problems" (but then when did we not have problems?).
You appear to think that an independent Scottish parliament would issue its own laws, which would be not really any different from the laws issued by Westminster....
If I may summarise: the UK has been a great success for 300/400 years. But now we have problems, so it's time to break it up.
If we do break it up, nothing will really change...except that somehow "we" (not defined) would be doing it, rather than the current "we" that already do it (insofar as representative democracy works).
Which leaves the question, if it has worked for hundreds of years, and the only thing you can see wrong is that you we have problems and if nothing would really change except that the electorate would shrink, and the same decisions would be taken in Edinburgh rather than London,why do it?
If I'm asked to give up a successful model, I need convincing that;
a. it is irredeemably broken and cannot be fixed.
b. a better model is on offer.
I'm not seeing that yet Richard.
Also, it's interesting that you talk about the "rise of 20th century nationlism".
ReplyDeleteNationalism is generally seen as a 19th century phenomenon. The uprisings of 1848, in the Balkan and in Middle Europe, included nationalist moves against the Austrian Empire which are seen as a strong expression of local/national sentiment over a remote and imperial ruler.
There were calls for German unity, and the uniting nationalism of Italy and Germany in the following half century is also notable.
In the first instance the smaller countries believed they were throwing off the yoke of an inperial oppressor. In the last two, smaller principalities thought they were uniting and returning to a legendary or mythic pre-existing nation.
These ideas spread around the globe, in particlar to South and Central America. But any 20th century revolt in these countries against European domination is an extension of 19th century nationalism, not a "new", different, 20th century ideaology.
In any case Scotland is not oppressed and the island of Britain is already united, so none of these examples applies.....
As for 20th century nationalism... please don't go there....
Generally, I’m happy with your condensing, or at least with the first part of it. Where I part company is when it comes to the argument that Britain continues to be a success (although you do seem to point to ‘problems’ yourself – can you elaborate?); or that my case in any way rests on a dislike of the present PM. True, I’m not a fan, but the decision on how to order your affairs has to rest on something a bit more substantial than that.
ReplyDeleteYou appear to think that an independent Scottish parliament would issue its own laws, which would be not really any different from the laws issued by Westminster....
Not necesarilly, though that kind of depends on who we elect to govern us post-independence. There are already significant policy differences, and the current settlement is about to start seriously rubbing up against the political tensions created by the lack of financial powers for Holyrood, and perceived inequalities when it comes to public spending and the WLQ. If Scotland were to be independent, these irritations would disappear.
If Scotland were independent, whether Labour or the SNP had been in power, there would be no Trident replacement. It’s unlikely Scottish service personnel would have been in Iraq. ID cards would never have got off the drawing board. There would be the option to set taxes, spending and benefits as we see fit, unhindered by the prevailing view of the majority at Westminster. The range of policy options which would then become available would likely widen that gap further as the 2 countries follow the resultant of the manifestos presented and the votes which are cast. Surely, as someone of the centre-left, you can see the attraction of this given where the ‘British’ political centre of gravity is likely to shift in the next few months?
Which leaves the question, if it has worked for hundreds of years, and the only thing you can see wrong is that you we have problems and if nothing would really change except that the electorate would shrink, and the same decisions would be taken in Edinburgh rather than London,why do it?
ReplyDeleteIf I'm asked to give up a successful model, I need convincing that;
a. it is irredeemably broken and cannot be fixed.
b. a better model is on offer.
I'm not sure I can demonstrate a) for you. The 'British Way' would be to muddle through regardless. The state will continue to function, life will go on, the earth will continue to spin on its axis etc. The nationalist case is that the present arrangements lead to a series of sub-optimum outomes, and that independence would lead to better outcomes in a number of areas. That's an argument which you either buy into or you don't - there's no absolute truth about it either way.
You’ll note I haven’t argued that everything about the union was or is bad – that would self-evidently be nonsense. Nor would it be wise to argue that it’s irredeemably broken – Brown could pull a rabbit out of the hat yet; Cameron could surprise us and recreate a narrative of Tory unionism which throws off the worst excesses of Thatcherism, anti-Europeanism and the supremacy of the central state. It just seems unlikely, and to be honest, most of the arguments I hear for Britain these days are cast in terms of universal values and demands for top-down conformity with them; demands for unthinking respect towards institutions whether they deserve it or not; in terms of platitudes about supposed economies of scale or somehow being greater than the sum of our parts; or in terms of the supposed weakness of the alternatives. For me at least, it’s no longer a compelling case…
I think that the model of Scotland, taking on the Schedule 5 powers, representing herself directly in the EU and UN, and setting her own taxation and spending priorities, would be a better one. It improves accountability, increases responsibility, brings government closer to the people, sacrifices nothing in terms of trade or security, and might also finally force what remains of Britain to find an international role which doesn’t rest on the pretence of a British political class of being anything more than a mid-sized European power.
That, to me, seems like a progressive set of outcomes, both for Scotland and the rest of the UK. If you disagree, tell me why.
"I haven’t argued that everything about the union was or is bad – ....most of the arguments I hear for Britain these days ...For me at least, it’s no longer a compelling case…"
ReplyDeleteRichard, this thread is supposed to be about the arguments in favour of Scottish independence. You concentrate on what you see as UK failure. These are not the same thng: if the UK failed completely, that is no argument, in itself, for any paricular alternative, including Scottish independence.
Do you have anything to say in favour of Scottish independence, beyond the fact that it seems like a good idea to you? (have you heard the one about the man who jumped through a plate-glass window?).
"If Scotland were independent, whether Labour or the SNP had been in power, there would be no Trident replacement. It’s unlikely Scottish service personnel would have been in Iraq. ID cards would never have got off the drawing board."
ReplyDeleteRichard, you see these policies as bad or mistaken. Other people do not.
Is it your argument that an independent country that is not the UK would not make what are, in your opinion, mistakes? That's a clearly silly position. Any country or government can make mistakes. Not being in the UK is no defence against stupidity (if that is what it is) or disagreeing with you (if that is what it is).
An independent Scotland would still have international alliances which could commit it to things you don't like. The EU could commit troops to things you don't like. NATO also. And the UN. Or they could fail to intervene where you might want them to.
(BTW, it is SNP Policy that we would keep the British Military (or it was a couple of years ago... you daren't look away....)..)
Ditto internal and external security needs, ID systems etc.
"There would be the option to set taxes, spending and benefits as we see fit"
Richard, we already have that.
"unhindered by the prevailing view of the majority ....".
I have no problem with the view of the majority prevailing.
"...at Westminster".
Oh, you mean the English....
"..Surely, as someone of the centre-left, you can see the attraction of this given where the ‘British’ political centre of gravity is likely to shift in the next few months?"
I have a perspective that extends beyond the next few months...
Richard, are you saying that if the Labour Party was a bit more to your liking you would not want independence?
(have you heard the one about the man who jumped through a plate-glass window?).
ReplyDeleteYou speak in riddles, I'm afraid.
I've given you some reasons why independence would, in my view, be a good thing - as you asked me to do at the outset. If you don't buy those arguments, then fine. Don't try and pretend that they've not been made, though.
Is it your argument that an independent country that is not the UK would not make what are, in your opinion, mistakes?
Of course it isn't. I was illustrating how, based on what appears to be the balance of opinion within Scotland, aspects of our recent policy agenda might be different as an Independent country. This was in response to your earlier suggestion that I wanted an independent Scotland which wouldn't actually do very much that was different.
Incidentally, it is not and never has been, at least in my 15 years in the SNP, party policy to retain UK armed forces. Having independent forces is a prerequisite of an independent foreign policy, after all.
And no, the Scottish Parliament doesn't have the ability to set taxes, benefits and spending as it sees fit. The ability to set those independent of a majority of non-Scots based representatives at Westminster (that includes more than just MPs for English constituencies last time I checked) is something I see as an advantage of independence.
I'm delighted for you that you have a perspective which extends beyond the next few months. So do I. That's why I'd still feel Independence was the best constitutional settlement for Scotland, no matter how favourably I happened to view the Labour party.
Anyway, as I suspected it would before we started, this is looking like a case of no sale - in either direction. Is it worthwhile continuing?
"(have you heard the one about the man who jumped through a plate-glass window?).
ReplyDeleteYou speak in riddles, I'm afraid."
Richard, it's an old joke....when the man was asked why he did it, he replied: "It seemed like a good idea at the time".
Which seems to sum up a lot of the arguments for independence... not exactly well thought through or substantial.... with consequences that could be worse than the "problem" they're meant to address...
"I've given you some reasons why independence would, in my view, be a good thing - as you asked me to do at the outset. If you don't buy those arguments, then fine. Don't try and pretend that they've not been made, though."
ReplyDeleteRichard you have given your reasons, no doubt about it. I have to say that they are a bit slight, IMO. But that's not really a surprise. That's why I don't support your position in the first place.
One interesting angle is that you don't mention any problems about Scottish independence. Do you think there would be any difficulties with independence? What would they be?
Is it worthwhile continuing....? That's up to you Ricahrd. I suppose it depends whether you have any arguments left to present.
Those you have presented: that "Britishness" is not as strong as it was, that you think some policies would be different, that the electorate would be smaller and more Scottish...they don't amount to a lot IMO.
At least they don't show me how or why the Scottish people would be any better off.....
If there were to be a referendum campaign based on these arguments I suspect the electorate would sleep through it...
At least they don't show me how or why the Scottish people would be any better off.....
ReplyDeleteIf you mean better off economically, that's a hard one to prove. I certainly don't see Scotland as being worse off – as things stand, Scotland even minus North Sea Revenues sits at about the UK average for GVA (which is calculated including the North Sea and the massive wealth of London and the South East of England).
At present, Holyrood isn't accountable for the monies it spends, since the budget is determined by Barnett, which allocates budget increases to Scottish baseline expenditure based on an ever decreasing share of that which it is decided to spend in England. To my mind, the amount the Scottish government has to spend on services shouldn't be determined by policy choices made elsewhere.
If Scotland were to be in control of tax, revenues and borrowing, there would be a greater incentive to grow the economy, since at present, increased revenues go straight to the Treasury for onward distribution. This insulates Scottish policy makers from the consequences of their choices, and creates a dynamic whereby the Scottish Government doesn't benefit directly from any increased revenues which come about through its policies. That disconnect holds Scotland back in my view. While it's possible to have a highly devolved finance system to address this, like in the Basque country, there doesn't appear to be much appetite to proceed on this basis at present in Whitehall (Calman's proposals don't come anywhere close, sadly). Independence, by definition, resolves this.
One interesting angle is that you don't mention any problems about Scottish independence. Do you think there would be any difficulties with independence? What would they be?
I don't see many problems, other than those which come from reconfiguring existing Scottish institutions and creating new ones to reflect full sovereignty. I've written about some of these before here: http://scotsandindependent.blogspot.com/2008/01/going-soft-on-independence.html
However, I'm just as inclined to see these as opportunities to do things better. In the interests of a debate, any thoughts you might have as someone on the other side of the fence would be appreciated at this juncture.
To return to my earlier point, over time, and once you factor in the economic benefits which arise from having the highest possible proportion of the public sector spend for reserved matters being spent in Scotland, I think that even though the static position is unlikely to be radically different on day one, the dynamic situation for an Independent Scotland is likely to result in a higher rate of economic growth over time.
If there were to be a referendum campaign based on these arguments I suspect the electorate would sleep through it...
Possibly. You'll have noticed I tend to keep away from the heart before head 'Braveheart' rhetoric (to use a phrase). However, there's usually 2 competing sides in a debate and here, if you'll forgive me for saying so, you seem to be holding back. You're not impressed by my reasons for supporting Independence, but so far at least, you're not putting much forward yourself.
I can respect an argument that Independence wouldn't change much, even if I don't happen to agree. I can also understand the appeal of inertia - the 'this is what we have and it works OK, so why change it' argument. However, one of my reasons for supporting Independence is because of the lack of, to my mind, decent arguments for maintaining a comfortable, if underperforming, status quo. I'm also open to persuasion if you feel so inclined...
""At least they don't show me how or why the Scottish people would be any better off....."
ReplyDeleteIf you mean better off economically, that's a hard one to prove."
Beter off in any way you want to define it, Richard.
And it is "difficult to prove" any economic advantage in independence... but strangely that doesn't stop many nationalists claiming we would be better off....
"I certainly don't see Scotland as being worse off – as things stand, Scotland even minus North Sea Revenues sits at about the UK average for GVA (which is calculated including the North Sea and the massive wealth of London and the South East of England)."
There are other calculations than GDP or GVA: if Scotland had been independent last year, and the banks headquartered in Scotland had failed as they did last year, we would have been in the same basket as Ireland and Iceland and other small countries that overstretched and have few resources to fall back on. We would be essentially bankrupt. Being in the UK bailed us out...
"... the budget is determined by Barnett, which allocates budget increases to Scottish baseline expenditure based on an ever decreasing share of that which it is decided to spend in England...".
A strange way of puting it: Barnett ensures that there is more to spend per head in Scotland. The formula ensures that the "decreasing share" is always above 100% of the English average.
"To my mind, the amount the Scottish government has to spend on services shouldn't be determined by policy choices made elsewhere."
That's why/because your a nationalist. People in Shetland could have exactly the same objection to policy choices made in Edinburgh.... and it is, increasingly, Shetland's oil....
BTW, you seem to forget about the EU. The EU has legal control over VAT levels and bank rates. More importantly, the logical end of the EU is tax uniformity across Europe (think all those lorry companies complaining that continental competitors have an advantage through lower fuel duties leading to cheaper fuel)..... If you are so upset at decisions being made in England, how much more upset should you be about decisions being made in Brussels?
"If Scotland were to be in control of tax, revenues and borrowing, there would be a greater incentive to grow the economy, since at present, increased revenues go straight to the Treasury for onward distribution.....independence, by definition, resolves ths.."
Are you seriously saying that politicians, civil servants and entrepreneurs are sitting in Edinburgh and other places saying to themselves "if only we were independent I would work harder and have better ideas about new products and services, but as it is, since the tax revenues I might create will go to the Treasury (rather than Edinburgh) for onward distribution, I can't be arsed"?
"You're not impressed by my reasons for supporting Independence, but so far at least, you're not putting much forward yourself."
ReplyDeleteI'm arguing against your reasoning. I don't think I am under any pressure to do much more than that at the moment. After all it's you that wants the change, it's you that should justify the change.
An analogy. I worked for a large corporation for 20 years. If I want to propose a change to the organisational structure, marketing policies, or product mix, I have to go to the Senior Management Team with a thought out argument which tells them the problem as I see it, my detailed proposals, the costs and the benfits of the new approach and the problems I foresee in both sticking with the old and introducing the new.
Some of the SMT might accept my suggestion that the current set up is not ideal, some might not. But if they are all to be convinced to change, I have to sell the new situation as well: it has to be visibly better to justify the costs of change, and it has to take a large majority of the SMT with it.
You have not even attempted to do the second bit Richard. You are convinced that the current constitutional set up is failing, but you have not suggested why your proposed solution, independence, would be the best for the SMT (the Scottish People), or even a better, solution than the one we have. You think it would be better, but that's as far as you seem able to go.
My focus is the Scottish people and what's best for them. If you really want to create the upheaval of a great constitutional change, you have to convince them that the current model is completely broken and that your ideas would make life better for us all and be worth the pain.
I have responded to your points as they deserve, IMO. If you bring up any different or stronger arguments, I may (not likely but..)feel compelled to get into a more defensive mode, but not on the case you have presented so far, I'm afraid.
Richard
ReplyDeleteI have answered a lot of your points. Would you try addrssing some of mine please?
E.g.
I wrote "There are other calculations than GDP or GVA: if Scotland had been independent last year, and the banks headquartered in Scotland had failed as they did last year, we would have been in the same basket as Ireland and Iceland and other small countries that overstretched and have few resources to fall back on. We would be essentially bankrupt. Being in the UK bailed us out..."
Let me spell this out in more detail. The cost of bailng out RBS and HBOS was about £35billion.
The price has been that £35billion plus the £175billion of borrowing and "quantatituve easing", leaving the UK Government with about £200billion to find (up to the present....).
This cost is being borne by 65million people. Even so it will be hard to bear, with huge public sector cuts and high unemployment only the part of it.
Consider if Scotand had been independent. Cost of saving banks £35billion. Our share of borrowing and quantatitive easing? say (conservative estimate) £20billion? Total £55billion? divided by 5million people.
so 200 / 65 or 55 / 5. I know which looks better to me.
These figures are, of course, very rough guestimates, but the principle is sound.
A very large figure, with the pain divided across the UK population, or a smaller but still eye-watering number, divided across the Scottish population.
It is obvious that Scots would be so much more worse off as a result of our failed banks if we were not part of the UK.
if Scotland had been independent last year, and the banks headquartered in Scotland had failed as they did last year, we would have been in the same basket as Ireland and Iceland and other small countries that overstretched and have few resources to fall back on. We would be essentially bankrupt. Being in the UK bailed us out…”
ReplyDeleteNot sure this is your strongest argument, to be honest. Leaving aside the fact that the UK bungled its initial responses to the crunch and the regulation of the UK banking sector in the years leading up to it, you’re now into the realms of the counterfactual, and making an argument which assumes that we’d have been starting from the same point. That might be fair if you’re looking at it all happening on Independence Day plus 1, but it’s not an argument against independence itself.
But let's suppose you're right. A collapse for HBOS or RBS would not have seen the effects confined to Scotland, since such a large proportion of their business was conducted south of the border and in the case of RBS, internationally. HBOS collapsing would have seen a run on every other British bank, and a collapse of RBS would have simply spread the problems around the world. That’s why if the task of keeping the banks afloat had threatened to overwhelm an independent Scotland, recapitalisation would have come from other quarters as well to avoid the consequences detailed above. For an example of this happening elsewhere, think the cross-border rescue package which was mounted for Fortis.
A strange way of puting it: Barnett ensures that there is more to spend per head in Scotland. The formula ensures that the "decreasing share" is always above 100% of the English average.”
No it isn't, and no it doesn't. Barnett is a convergence formula, which is applied to baseline expenditure. It's only effect on the Scottish block grant is to ensure the rate of increase in public spending is slower than it is on equivalent expenditure in England.
In any case, the comparison with spending levels in England is irrelevant. There are huge discrepancies between the English regions. Spending needs to be higher in Scotland than in England as a whole because it costs more to provide public services in areas of sparse population such as the Highlands and in island communities. That this happens is a happy accident, but has nothing to do with a crude English/Scottish population ratio based formula like Barnett.
“BTW, you seem to forget about the EU….”
Hardly. The fact is that an independent Scotland will still have greater control over her economy than she does as part of the UK. The ‘logical end’ to which you point is way, way, w-a-y away, if indeed it ever comes at all.
Are you seriously saying that politicians, civil servants and entrepreneurs are sitting in Edinburgh and other places saying to themselves "if only we were independent I would work harder and have better ideas about new products and services, but as it is, since the tax revenues I might create will go to the Treasury (rather than Edinburgh) for onward distribution, I can't be arsed"?
ReplyDeleteNo. The argument is about how this influences the way governments chose to allocate resources and the opportunity cost this has on other areas of the economy.
You have not even attempted to do the second bit Richard. You are convinced that the current constitutional set up is failing, but you have not suggested why your proposed solution, independence, would be the best for the SMT (the Scottish People), or even a better, solution than the one we have. You think it would be better, but that's as far as you seem able to go.
I’ve set out why the processes would be more efficient, and why this would benefit people. In the past, the SNP has produced both static and dynamic analyses for an Independent Scotland, as well as an analysis of the effects of moving to sovereignty in terms of putting in place the apparatus of state needed for an independent country - including costs and benefits. I expect we'll see that sort of work appear again, and I expect that even then in some minds there will still be 'questions unanswered' and accusations, justified or not, of matters 'not thought through'.
My focus is the Scottish people and what's best for them. If you really want to create the upheaval of a great constitutional change, you have to convince them that the current model is completely broken and that your ideas would make life better for us all and be worth the pain.
Maybe you’re right. I don’t think you are, though. The pre-devolution model clearly wasn't 'completely broken', but people still opted for a major change in moving to the present devolution set-up, without any of the conditions you appear to have for considering independence. Unless you consider the report of the Constitutional Convention and the devolution white paper of 1997 to have fulfilled those functions.
Most people are perfectly able to comprehend what an independent country might look like. There’s plenty examples of independent states similar to Scotland around so conceptually, it’s not a difficult thing to grasp. They also don’t need to see that something is ‘completely’ broken before settling on what might be a better alternative. That might be your personal burden of proof which needs to be satisfied, but it's not one which is widely shared in my experience.
I have responded to your points as they deserve, IMO. If you bring up any different or stronger arguments, I may (not likely but..)feel compelled to get into a more defensive mode, but not on the case you have presented so far, I'm afraid.
And I now to yours. If that's how you feel, I don't really see this one going any further, since I freely admit that the burden of proof you've set is far higher than I, or perhaps anyone, will be able to offer you to your satisfaction.
See you on the referendum campaign trail, whenever it happens.
23 Sep 21.29:
ReplyDeleteYou're right. It's not my strongest argument, but it is still devastating for you, Richard.
My assumptaions are that Scotland is independent (which you want), the Scottish banks are still HQ'd in Edinburgh (which you want) and that there is a financial crisis centred on banking (which seems to happen every 30 - 60 years).
The Scottish economy on its own is not big enough to pay for and absorb the impact of the banking failure as well as the UK economy can, and it cannot spread the pain as thinly.
A disaster for the UK and the world is an encompassing catastrophe for an independent Scotland.
23 Sep 21;29
ReplyDelete"Barnett is a converging formula".
Correct and that is what I said. It started 30-odd years ago giving Scotland a 5% advantage in spending over the English average per head (for the reasons you state), and it aims to reduce that to equality some time... but it does as I said: it keeps Scotland's spending per head above the 100% datum for English spending.
To say that "... It's only effect on the Scottish block grant is to ensure the rate of increase in public spending is slower than it is on equivalent expenditure in England", is perverse. It gave Scotland an advantage and it calculates on reducing that advantage over time.
And it's not "a happy accident", it is exactly what Joel Barnett intended....
Actually, if as you say Scotland does as well or better economically than the regions of England, then there is no argument for keeping Barnett: we should get the same allocation as, not more than as Barnett ensures, the English regions per head. The rates should converge immediately....
SNP candidate calls for cut in block grant... now there's a headline.
You're confusing 2 very different things - baseline expenditure and the effect of the formula itself.
ReplyDeleteThere's baseline expenditure, which is carried forward from previous years (subject to the readjustments which the present government is so fond of), and then there's the Barnett Formula which allocates how much this is increased by.
Barnett deals *only* with the rate of increase from year to year, and not the underlying baseline expenditure. This means it doesn't guarantee anything about a spending advantage - the Chancellor could alter the Scottish baseline if he wanted, apply Barnett to the rate of increase in English spending and Scotland, even with Barnett used correctly, could end up with spending below the aggregate 'English' level.
To talk of 'Barnett' might make an easy shorthand, but there's nothing about the action of the formula which guarantees Scotland an advantage. It's quite a simple point really, even if it's one which is misunderstood frequently.
Actually, if as you say Scotland does as well or better economically than the regions of England, then there is no argument for keeping Barnett: we should get the same allocation as, not more than as Barnett ensures, the English regions per head. The rates should converge immediately....
That's one view, but certainly not mine. In any case, which English region should Scotland be compared with? The South West, which gets about 90% of the UK average? The East Midlands, which gets about the same? The North East, which gets 110%, or London, which gets 115%?
SNP candidate calls for cut in block grant... now there's a headline.
I agree – it would be a cracker if an SNP candidate were to call for such a thing. Alas…
BTW, I remember a Westminster Hall debate on Barnett in November 2007 where John Robertson MP - one of your comrades - took to his feet. After thrashing about to no great effect and having to be reminded on several occasions by the chair what the topic was, he eventually settled on castigating the Conservatives for ignoring the Barnett Formula, and increasing Scottish expenditure throughout their last term of government beyond the increases which the Barnett formula would have allocated.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?gid=2007-11-21b.160.1
Scottish Labour MP slams Margaret Thatcher for giving Scots too much money? Now that really should have been a headline.
Very technical Richard. But the fact is that Scotland does well by the Barnett formula, and the UK.
ReplyDeleteTry this from Wikipedia "...the continuing distribution of a per-capita amount to each devolved areas higher than that allocated to England still continues to attract calls for the formula to be re-negotiated....
i.e. some people (probably nationalists*) don't like the Barnett formula because it gives a bigger share to Scotland.
* English nationalists....
"...Using figures for the financial year 2006/2007, if a UK-wide per-capita average was a notional 100% then identifiable per-capita expenditure on services in England would be 97% and the Scottish amount 117%..."
So to say, as you do, that " ...It's only effect on the Scottish block grant is to ensure the rate of increase in public spending is slower than it is on equivalent expenditure in England..." is perverse. It was designed to converge, but it keeps spnding in Scotland per head above that in England. If unchanged it would converge completely in about 30 years, assuming that it was not replaced by another formula.
My apologies for being technical. Seems I can't win here.
ReplyDeleteSo to say, as you do, that " ...It's only effect on the Scottish block grant is to ensure the rate of increase in public spending is slower than it is on equivalent expenditure in England..." is perverse.
How utterly bizarre that you would find a simple statement of fact to be in any way 'perverse'.
Anyway, since you seem to be so keen on the subject, as a 101 for you on identifiable public spending around the UK, why don't you point your browser to table 9.16 here: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pesa09_chapter9.pdf. If you do, you'll see that while you can certainly calculate an English average (BTW, why the focus on an English average?), there's no uniformity to English spending.
Anyway, I'm sure you're trying to go somewhere with these references to public spending elsewhere in the UK. Want to just cut to the chase?
Richard, it's perverse to say that the "only" effect is to reduce the rate of growth relative to England.
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit hazy about the history, but I seem to recall that Barnett came up with his formula after the previous method of allocating the block grant was seen by some as "too generous" to the Scots. By making it a converging amount he staved off complete abolotion and an enforced immediate equity with the English average.
The Barnett Formula has ensured that, over the years, Scots get more per head to spend on public services than otherwise might have been the case. It will bring equity on current trends in about another 30 years, assuming it is not replaced by something else in the meantime.
By concentrating on the "reducing" element you play up the grievance that growth rates in spending Scotland are lower than in England, ignoring the fact that per capita spending is greater in Scotland and has remained so under Barnett.
You might just as easily, on the same evidence, point out that amounts per head are higher in Scotland and Barnnett has ensured that they stay so for a number of generations.
BTW, can you tell me what has been the growth in the Scottish budget under Labour since 1997 and under Devolution since 1999?
In your opinion has it been mean and stingy? Or has it been generous?
By concentrating on the "reducing" element you play up the grievance that growth rates in spending Scotland are lower than in England...
ReplyDeleteOK, I think I understand your objection. What I've said is completely accurate, but you perceive it to jar with your preferred narrative that Scotland does well. At least we're clear on that one now.
On the History front, the previous funding mechanism was devised by Goshen, who allocated funding to Scotland on the basis of a ratio of something like 11/80, since that was roughly the population split between Scotland and England at the time.
(For the record, you may be interested in this document from SPICE: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_notes/rn00-31.pdf - it seems to back my contention up about how the formula works rather more than it does yours, but there you go).
In any case, I'd be wary of attaching too much credit to Joel Barnett for the effects of the formula which carries his name. It seems clear from many of his recent statements about Scottish funding that he doesn't have the faintest idea how it works.
Now, I'm sure if you were to go through the Treasury Blue book to which I linked earlier, you could work out how spending has increased over the periods you mention. However, you can sit and do your own research on that one if you feel it might add something to your case.
Once you've done that, no doubt you'll be able to start answering your own question about whether it's been generous or not. Just remember to look at the revenue side of the balance sheet, and the spending figures for the various other nations and regions while you're at it.
I didn't say I hadn't done the research.
ReplyDeleteI asked what you understood were the facts and if you thought that the growth in the allocation over that last ten years was generous or stingy.
Your avoidance of an answer tells me the point is well made.
Generous, not stingy.
Scotland has done rather well over that time from the Barnett allocation.
Which is good, because it means better schools and hospitals and public services for te Scottish people. And that's what I want.
OK, I think I understand your objection. What I've said is completely accurate, "
ReplyDeleteRichard,
you force me to be pedantic. What you said was that the "only" effect of Barnett is to reduce the growth in the Scottish block grant allocation relative to the English average.
I pointed out that it had other effects:
When introduced, it stopped any movement to abolish any differential in the favour of Scotland.
It has ensured for 30 years and will do for another 30, that Scotland gets an allocation aboove the English average, so it's no hammer of the Scots.
And, BTW, it also determines allocations to Wales and NI, so if it was a hammer, it would be a hammer of others ... but it's not so it isn't.
The fact that you can "only" see the convergance element, and you think of it as totaly malign, is your limitation, not mine.
Re Barnett: I've simply stated what its effect is, and pointed out your error in failing to recognise that it can not, of itself, guarantee anything about a spending 'advantage'. Pretty uncontroversial, I'd have thought, and it would be no shame not to have understood that point to begin with - you'd be in some pretty good company there.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, acknowledging the reality of the difference between the effect of Barnett and the totality of spending would in no way impede your argument, such as it is. You really should take greater care to tackle the arguments your opponents actually make, and not the ones you perhaps wish they'd been making instead.
Now, on the assumption that you have actually done some work on this as you appear to suggest, why not put some numbers on the table, and then give some good reasons as to why these are generous?
In any case, isn't it a bit odd for a unionist to describe the public spending which goes to any particular part of the UK as 'generous', as if gratitude were required, or somewhere else were being penalised in some way? Surely, each nation and region gets what it needs as part of the union? Isn't that supposed to be the deal?
And isn't that also the sort of language that gets right up the noses of people like MP Graham Stringer - another of your comrades - who seems to think that Manchester and the North West of England is being short-changed by the Scottish settlement, despite the North West getting considerably above the 'English average' as well?
Richard,
ReplyDeleteI think we are getting a bit bogged down in the details of the formula.
The thread is "arguments for and against independence".
Do you believe that the Barnett Formula, in and of itself, is an argument for independence?
If so, why?
Or would you be against any formula no matter what it allocated?
If it wasn't converging...?
Do you believe that the Barnett Formula, in and of itself, is an argument for independence?
ReplyDeleteIf so, why?
In part, yes. I think that the rigid link which exists between Scottish and English public expenditure is something which creates unnecessary pressures and tensions.
To take an example to illustrate the effects, let's suppose that the UK government were to reduce government spending on health by 50%, in favour of a system where the balance of resources came through private insurance. Even though health is devolved, unless some kind of funding 'bypass' were to be created, this would lead to a consequent reduction in Scottish spending, which would put pressure on Scotland to follow suit, even if that were not the majority view in Holyrood.
I make this point, not because I think it's particularly likely to happen, but to show how the political devolution we have is not matched right now by a similar financial devolution. Budget pressures have already built over student funding as a result of this phenomenon, under the previous Scottish government as well as this one.
Also, as I said earlier, the present funding mechanism breaks the link between the taxes levied in Scotland and the public spending which results. In my view, it would likely lead to better outcomes were the Scottish Government to be responsible for raising as much as possible of the revenues it goes on to spend.
For those reasons, I argue that it would be better for Scotland to be independent and to be 100% responsible for all of Scottish public spending.
Or would you be against any formula no matter what it allocated?
For so long as Scotland remains part of the UK, there will need to be some system of resource transfer, even if only to contribute to the cost of shared services. The system which operates between the Basque Country and the central Spanish State would to my mind be preferable to the present UK system.
"In any case, isn't it a bit odd for a unionist.... "
ReplyDeleteNot being a unionist, I have no opinion on what might or might not be odd for one of them.....
"...the past, the SNP has produced both static and dynamic analyses for an Independent Scotland,.."
ReplyDeleteRichard, the last time I recall the SNP publishing anything official on this issue was before the 1997 election when they published a comic-book entitled "The Economics of Independence".
I cannot remember much about it (apart from the accompanying derision and laughter from serious politicians and economists) except that the SNP promised an extra £35million/year for the NHS in Scotland. Over a five year Parliament that amounts to £165million..
Six months later Labour put in £200million just to deal with the short-term winter vomiting crisis. Over the next ten year we invested billions in the NHS in Scotland.
If you really are ambitious about serving the people of Scotland, you should avoid the SNP. They really are not ambitious enough for my liking. Too timid.
PS. If the SNP has published any substantial analysis of the economcs of independence since then, please point me to it.
Richard, the last time I recall the SNP publishing anything official on this issue was before the 1997 election...
ReplyDeleteThe last comedic contribution I recall on the economy was that £5,000 tax bill that Labour claimed was coming the way of every Scot if the SNP took power. That and Gordon claiming to have saved the world. Ah, happy memories.
Now, back to reality. the SNP published documents called Scotland in Surplus, in 2005 and 2006. There was also a series of papers undear the heading of 'Moving Scotland On', which looked at the dynamic economic aspects of moving to Independence. There was also a document produced called 'Let Scotland Flourish', in advance of the 2007 election. I no longer have copies and the exact figures will be out of date by now in any case. However, I'm sure you'll be able to track them down somewhere if you look hard enough.
Re your point on NHS spending: I'm loathe to re-fight elections past, but funding to cover the costs of unforseen emergencies comes from contingencies, and is part of Anually Managed Expenditure rather than Departmental Expenditure Limits. The SNP pledge was to increase Health DEL in Scotland by £35m over and above what it would have been otherwise - something which would not have been affected by drawing down on contingencies, which is where the £200m came from.
Anyway, doesn't £200m in 1997 for a winter vomiting bug seem rather high for Scotland alone? Are you sure you've not mistakenly used a UK figure to compare with a Scottish one? It would be a bit of a howler if you had.
"The SNP pledge was to increase Health DEL in Scotland by £35m over and above what it would have been otherwise - something which would not have been affected by drawing down on contingencies, which is where the £200m came from."
ReplyDeleteRichard I'm not sure where the £200m came from but you have ignored the second part of my answer .... "Over the next ten year we invested billions in the NHS in Scotland."
The SNP did an investigarion into what we could afford if we voted for independence in 1999. They came to the conclusion that they could afford £35m a year. That's £350m over ten years 1999 - 2009. Over the same ten years, the UK, and the Labour Government, put billions into the Scottish NHS.
Quick google brings these figures....
NHS spending in Scotland 1998 = £4.3billion,
2008 = £9.4billion
SNP projection for 2008 under independence = £4.6 billion...
deficit £5billion give or take...
...If you believe the SNP's own projections (I presume you do), the NHS would have sufferered greatly, in comparison to the investment is has had, if we had independence from 1999.
I'm happy to acknowledge the scale of health spending under Labour. However, in looking at that on a dynamic basis over time and comparing it with an SNP election pledge which it is assumed will see no change for the next nine, not even for inflation, you are not comparing like with like. As you must surely know yourself.
ReplyDeleteHealth spending under Labour was x. The SNP said it would raise that to x+£35m. Labour increases the value of x in subsequent years - meaning that the SNP government, resourced as it is by Westminster and with access to the same resources, can always retain spending at x+£35m, or plus whatever, providing it is willing to find that additional resource from elsewhere.
In any case, this might be relevant as a point of personal preference as to which party should run Scotland. It's not relevant as to how Scotland's government should be structured. If you want to make a point that Scotland, if independent, would have had access to less in the way of financial resources than she would have as part of the UK, go ahead. I'll tackle that point as and when you make it.
" ...comparing it with an SNP election pledge which it is assumed will see no change for the next nine, not even for inflation, you are not comparing like with like...."
ReplyDeleteRichard, the SNP looked at the economic situation if Scotland left the UK in 1999, and calculated that there would be £35million a year extra for the NHS for the next 5 years. I merely accepted their calculations projections and assumed that if we were independent for 5 years we would still be independent after nine years.... in which case, since I have no other figures to go on, I took their projections (£35m a year)as just as true for nine years as five.
In other words, I'm showing more confidence in the SNP's projections than you are...
"Health spending under Labour was x. The SNP said it would raise that to x+£35m. Labour increases the value of x in subsequent years - meaning that the SNP government, resourced as it is by Westminster.... "
Except, it's not about being "resourced... by Westminster.."....
.... the publication was entitled "The Economics of Independence"... it was supposed to spell out the wonderful future for the NHS if Scotland left the UK in 1999....( ameasly £35m a year extra).
....if it was about the economics of staying in the UK, they would have called it "Let's Stay in the UK and Spend a Wee Bit More on Health, Eh Lads?" or something similar....
And the ineluctable conclusion, from the SNP's own promises, is that if Scotland had been independent from 1999 (which is what you wanted), and the SNP's figures on the economy after independence were right (and I assume you believe they were right) spending on the NHS in Scotland would be less than half what it now is.....
And you can say the same for all or any of the public services.....
Simplified: the SNP looked at the economy after independence and discovered we would be a lot poorer.....
Richard
ReplyDeleteI have sen the documents you mention before.
Scotland in Surplus was issued before the 2007 election. It is a nine page document, and it uses (then) current numbers, with no projections of what would happen to those numbers if we were inedependent (just an assumption they would be the same). It is hardly a comprehensive assessment of the post-independence economic position.
Apart from being hardly encyclopaedic, It has other very obvious weaknesses. e.g. it allocates zero defence spending in Scotland when there is quite clearly lots of defence spending in Scotland (closing Benbecula anyone?).
The reason it doesn't present a dynamic analysis is because, as it says, it is a static analysis. Exactly like the GERS document it resembled.
ReplyDeleteYou are incorrect on defence spending - this was allocated in the document, and on the basis of the spending that actually takes place in Scotland. Look again more closely.
"Let Scotland Flourish"
ReplyDeleteThat's the one that tells us to copy Ireland.....and Iceland...
We all know which plughole that particular delusion disappeared down.
It also has a list of Tory policies...(copied from Ireland, I think)
Cut corporation tax
Cut business rates
Reduce business burdens...
Alex Salmond's admiration for Margaret Thatcher made policy....
Best of all, it mentions investing in infrastructure using something called the "Scottish Trust for Public Investment", which I take it to be one of the early manifestations of the "Scottish Futures Trust" which we all know is now the deadest of ducks...
Even the phrase "investing in infrastructure" rings hollow after the dropping of the Glasgow and Edinburgh Airport rail links.
The document does many things, (mainly point up the dangers of leaving your old docs on the internet) but it doesn't tell me anything about the reality, economic or otherwise, of an independent Scotland
Cannot find anything on Moving Scotland On, but the phrase "Moving Scotland Forward" seems to be the current spin...
ReplyDeleteI found a document with this title which turned out to be the SNP's legislative programme for 2008/09, the highlights of which are (were) the The Public Services Reform Bill (highlight..set up Creative Scotland) and The Abolition of Council Tax Bill (introduce a Local Income Tax)...
'nuff said?
Sorry. You're right. There is a mention of Defence.
ReplyDeleteBut the fact remains that it is a static anlysis, based on GERS, which tells us nothing about the Scottish economy if we broke with the UK.
And you can't criticise GERS for that: GERS was initiated because of nationalist claims that Scotland was getting short-changed in some way. It always was an analysis of the current situation, not a projection.
Providing projections is the job of those who wish to enact the changes that make the projections necessary or real.
And so far I have not seen a serious, comprehensive and accurate assessment from theSNP of the economic situation if we were to vote for independence.... apart that is from the aforementioned 1999 effort....
.. and what they have produced gives no confidence that te Scottish people would be any better off. Quite the reverse...
"That's the one that tells us to copy Ireland....."
ReplyDeletefrom todays's Guardian...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/06/irish-pupils-loo-roll
"...a school in Cork, which declares itself strapped for cash, has asked its pupils to bring in their own lavatory paper.
Parents with children at St John's Girls' national school, in Carrigaline, County Cork, received the request last week.
The school's principal, Catherine O'Neill, wrote: "Dear parent, from time to time we will request your daughter to bring in a toilet roll to her class teacher. These rolls will be specifically for your daughter's class and will be dispensed by the class teacher. We would also request that your daughter has tissues in her sack at all times."
Is any more comment needed?
Oh dear, you really are hitting a new low point now. I thought that we'd hit rock bottom when I heard Wendy Alexander criticise Ireland because you had to pay to see a doctor, and that Norway was rubbish because beer was £5 a pint. Just don't mention British troops buying their own equipment, and you might get away with it.
ReplyDeleteYou are also wrong on the origins of GERS. It was concieved by Ian Lang to 'score over all our opponents', as he said in a letter at the time to John Major - those opponents included Labour devolutionists as well.
You’re right on one point at least – SiS was an analysis to tackle some of the shortcomings of GERS. In essence, the MO was to remove North Sea revenues from the headline figure, calculate the resulting difference between revenue and expenditure and make the political point that the difference, even when the UK as a whole was in deficit, equated to subsidy from South to North. Therefore, keep hold of nurse for fear of something worse. Vote Conservative. Or Labour. Just not for change. Rule Britannia.
It’s maybe a mark of the success of the SNP in this argument that we don’t hear it nearly so often now. It also seems odd for you to criticise a document for doing what it set out to. A major impediment to producing a dynamic analysis is the fact that there are only 2 models of the Scottish Economy – one which Mackay Consultants use (and the basis of the 1997 report which you try, unfathomably, to disdain), and one at the Fraser of Allander Institute. There is also a dearth of specifically Scottish economic statistics – something which given the furious response there was to an SNP suggestion that this state of affairs might be remedied by a Scottish ONS, someone less charitably minded than myself might begin to assume was by design.
Anyone reading your recent flurry of posts might assume that UK plc is in a great state; that PFI is alive and kicking and not at all suffering under the lack of available capital or the inability of government to underwrite private profit as in the past; that Labour has never tried such nefarious ‘Tory’ ideas as rebalancing the tax system away from corporation tax to the personal income of higher earners; and neither Tony nor Gordon have ever expressed the merest scintilla of admiration for Margaret Thatcher, far less ever invited her to tea. Still, our own can do no wrong.
Anyway, this one's run its course. It's pretty clear that there's nothing I or anyone else could ever produce which would ever satisfy you on the independence debate - exactly as I suggested way back when we started.
Richard
ReplyDeleteIt's not "hitting a new low point". It was your lot that said "copy Ireland". Not me. I always thought it was a faulty argument. So don't blame me for coming back to your argument.
The SNP can't just say: "Ireland is independent, Ireland grows faster, therefore if Scotland was independent, Scotland would grow faster". The circumstances are so different as to make any but the most superficial comparison unreliable.
And you cannot be selective. You can't say: just look at the bits of the Irish expereience we want you to look at.
So when you say "copy Ireland", I feel quite entitled to look at Ireland, all of it, and see what it's like. And once I know what it's like, I can say "Copy Ireland? No thanks!".
So it's not "hitting a new low point", it's pulling the rug from under one of your main positions.
You may find it painful. But you are, after all, in the light of the evidence, quite capable of and entitled to change your mind.
Richard, re Barnett
ReplyDeletehttp://news.scotsman.com/politics/Scots-will-be-spared-worst.5693581.jp
Professor Bell seems to think that Barnett is a protective screen for Scotland, it will protect Scotland from the worst cuts........
No copy of his paper on the Committee page website so far as I can see, so it's difficult to see his argument in all its glory. However...
ReplyDeletethe overall outcome still depends on what happens to the baseline expenditure to which Barnet adds. For the statement attributed to Prof Bell to remain accurate, it would rely on the Treasury not cutting the baseline level of spending upon which Barnett is based.
That, as we know from what has happened in recent years, is a rather heroic assumption to be making. Brown and Darling are very fond of cutting the baseline then trying to pretend that spending increases are much greater than they actually are year on year.
David Bell said in his report
ReplyDelete"....... a future squeeze on spending will see Scotland's money reduced by its population share of 8.4 per cent rather than its funding share of 10.3 per cent.
This argument implies that, if the Barnett formula continues to be applied, proportional cuts to the overall Scottish (spending] will be slightly smaller than those applied in England to 'comparable' programmes,"
A Scotland Office source said:
"If you look at the fact that health and education spending will be protected too, Scotland will do even better.
It just goes to show that the Barnett formula is a good deal for Scotland."
Nice. (Relatively) good news for Scotland. I presume that the SNP will welcome it...???
I'm not privy to the good professor's assumptions, but his conclusions seem sensible enough.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't find the report on the Scottish parliament website either.
Is John Swinney sitting on it?
wotyerfink?
The interesting bit was where he pointed out that 10.3% of the money is spent in Scotland while we have only 8.4% of the population....
ReplyDeleteIt's been been a while since I worked in Holyrood, but if I remember correctly, the papers go to all committee members at the same time. In any case, why would John Swinney be 'sitting' on a report which was produced for a committee he doesn't sit on, far less have access to it if it's yet to be discussed?
ReplyDeleteThat 10.3%/8.4% split is interesting in the sense that it reflects Scotland having one twelfth of the population speread over one third of the landmass, and that it costs more to deliver some public services as a result. This split simply reflects that.
If you had exact parity, services in Scotland would end up poorer than elsewhere in the UK. Nor does spending above population share indicate resource transfer. From that point of view, it's probably a lot less interesting than you'd like to think.
Just joking Richard.
ReplyDeleteThe Barnett Formula is good for Scotland: why indeed would John Swinney want to sit on such a piece of good news for Scotland...
Just asking the question shows the absurdity....
"If you had exact parity, services in Scotland would end up poorer than elsewhere in the UK."
ReplyDeleteBut we don't get exact parity. We get more. And services in Scotland are at least as good, if not better, than elswhere in the UK.
Which is something I like. Do you?
Just asking the question shows the absurdity....
ReplyDeleteI know what I think is absurd about the question. It probably differs markedly from your take on it, though.
But we don't get exact parity. We get more. And services in Scotland are at least as good, if not better, than elswhere in the UK.
Which is something I like. Do you?
It's neither good not bad IMO. You spend as much as you need to, providing it's within your means to do so. And it would certainly be within the means of an independent Scotland to at least maintain current levels of expenditure.
As I've said previously, having spending levels defined by expenditure elsewhere is sub-optimum. Feel free to argue for further financial devolution within the union to counter that as an argument for Independence, if you like.
"It's neither good not bad IMO."
ReplyDeleteI didn't say it was good or bad. I said it was nice. And you don't seem to disagree. So no grievance about the sharing of revenues. Which is good.
"You spend as much as you need to, providing it's within your means to do so. And it would certainly be within the means of an independent Scotland to at least maintain current levels of expenditure."
So. "Vote for us and it will be within our means to at least maintain current levels of expendidture..."
Very convincing.
In any case: how do you know?
"As I've said previously, having spending levels defined by expenditure elsewhere is sub-optimum"
ReplyDeleteRichard, how far away does a decison have to be taken befre it is "taken elswhere"?
Logicaly, unless you are actually in the room where the decision is made at the time it is made, it will be made "elsewhere".
Edinburgh isn't Stornoway or Lerwick, so any decision made in Edinburgh is "elsewhere" if you live in the Western Isles or Shetland.
How far away does a decison have to be taken befre it is "taken elswhere"?
BTW, Edinburgh is 400 miles from London and Lerwick is 400 miles from Edinburgh....
""As I've said previously, having spending levels defined by expenditure elsewhere is sub-optimum"
ReplyDeleteSo you'd be against the European Central bank defining interest rates and the strength of your curency, then?
And decisions taken in Brussels?
So, no "independence in Europe" for you Richard....
I could be wrong, but I think countries in the Eurozone have *slightly* more control over their taxing and spending than does the Scottish Government at present.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure this discussion ever reached the sublime, but you certainly now seem to be doing your best to take it to the ridiculous. See you in Glasgow.
Richard,
ReplyDeleteIf you get your way and Scotland is "independent in Europe", the ECB has control over your interests rates and hence the value of your currency and the terms of import-export trade.
If you think London is "elsewhere" and economic decisions should not be made "elswhere", do you also think Frankfurt or Brussels are "elswhere", and if so, why are economic decisions made in those particular "elsewheres" any better than economic decisions made in London?
"I'm not sure this discussion ever reached the sublime, but you certainly now seem to be doing your best to take it to the ridiculous"
ReplyDeleteDon't understand Richard. What's ridiculous about pointing out that disagreeing faults in your logic?
You say that decisions which affect the Scottish economy should not be made in London (because London is "elsewhere"), but that they should be made in Franfurt or Brussels(which, correct me if I'm wrong, are also "elsewhere").
I merely point out that this means that your position (independence in europe) is inconsistent. What's ridiculous about that?
Richard,
ReplyDeleteI hope you haven't given up on this thread, but if you have,....
I have read all contributions and I have to conclude that you have not made anything like a strong case for Scottish independence.
Your historic case is that the idea of "Britishness" is fading and should be replaced by ???? independence? independence in Europe?....
.... Which amounts to saying that one particular type of nationalism is becoming less potent and should be relaced by another, smaller, more regional, nationalism....though not clear why that is the only solution (if indeed there is an actual problem in the first place)....
Got to go now... will return to analyse your other arguments..
Next, you don't like some policies: Trident, ID cards, overthrowing Saddam Hussein....
ReplyDeleteBut there is no guarantee that if you change the constitution you get different policies.. ..after all, if scotland declared independence it would still need defence, alliances, internal security and international commitments.
You might go to all the bother of breaking up the UK and still be left with Trident, alliances and the commitments these bring and commitments you don't like etc...
(BTW ID cards have been dropped... does that lessen the case for independence?)
And you don't like the Barnett Formula...
ReplyDelete.. but there has to be some formula to disburse tax revenues back to the regions and nations....
I presume in an independent Scotland more money would be directed to the poorer regions? In which case, how do you do it....???
Answer: You need a formula...
.... Angus McBarnett, where are you in our hour of need?
Did I miss anything?
ReplyDeleteRichard said "see you in Glasgow".
ReplyDeleteDon't think we met in Glasgow, Richard, but I hope you enjoyed your time there. I enjoyed mine.
Care to recommence our debate on the reasons for independence...?
..it's been thin gruel up 'til now, I have to say....
but I'm sure you've been holding back on all your strongest arguments, to bring them in at the end and blast me away...