We have discussed the ins and outs of Scottish independence many times on Think Defence but as the vote looms I thought it would be interesting to try and capture the combined wisdom of the Think Defence readership and collate an issue list, or things to do, for a newly formed Scottish Defence Service, or Scottish Defence Force, or any other name.
Put your thoughts into the comments and I will collate into a list, all are welcome, but keep the politics to a minimum, lets be practical.
Try and think about the three domains of land, sea and air, electronic and communications, support and logistics, medical and veterinary, public duties and training, PFI’s and buildings, Search and Rescue and fisheries protection, Trident and shipbuilding, and, well, you get the picture.
Over to you…
Too easy:
Ship to shore logistics interoperable with the CalMac ferries soon to be requisitioned as Ramped Craft Logistic. Obviously the powered logistic rafts required in addition would be McMexeflotes…
There is a great series covering all of the points raised in TDs pertinent questions on the now retired ‘Thin Pinstriped Line’ Blog…..
http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/assessment-on-proposals-for-scottish.html
http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/for-your-scottish-eyes-only.html
Scotland
————
– Split of NATS long term, sharing agreement short term
– fisheries patrols takeover
– customs split
– Faslane security arrangements
– SOSUS sharing agreement with the US
– procedure for Scottish personnel to join SC armed forces
– holding organisation for SC personnel (pay and rations)
rUK
—-
– arrangements for air defence, chain of command agreement
– ditto for naval defense
– kick off process for selecting new Trident/SSN bases
– transfer Scottish regiments, with arrangements for those that want to stay
– agreement for Faslane, garrison in meantime
– cancel all investments in Scotland, inform the likes of BAE they have to invest south of the border
– present bill for disposal of unused SSN/SSBN in Rosyth, to be counted with SC share of National Debt
– wait!
I expect the currency will be the fun part. SC economy will likely move into recession as UK public sector workers and subsidies move. rUK balance of payments will take a hit from loss of SC oil. The waiting game will benefit rUK rather than SC.
Belfast/Larne ferries to resupply forces with Tayto crisps, Tattie bread, soda farls, and Ulster frys for healthy forces meals. All residents to be taught “proper Scots” not “proper/BBC English” to communicate efficiently with each unit, and confuse enemy. Reactivate the “aul alliance” and persuade the French to cancel standing military treaties with UK as it no longer is, and defer use of shared assets, cross training, and mutual defence treaties to favour of Caledonia. Being slightly satirical as ex pat Northern Irish, and big Scotophile, living in northern France, Chez les Ch’tis. Frankly Scotland – and i have a multitude of friends there and the odd clan member, it’s a lovely dream in another era, but modern financial practicalities make it only that. Like the Irish Republic not wanting Norn Irn as the financial support and infrastructure of Westminster etc holds it just about together, and too expensive to absorb, Scotland detaching from the system, is an administrative and financial nightmare. Hang on in with the Union me vociferous mad friends, we know your Scots not Scotch, and together as a unity we’re stronger. Yes the Inglezis will send you and us Ulstermen into battle and dirty jobs first, along with a few Taffs. If we leave the English on their own we’ll only have to fight to get more invasions out of the bottom half of the islands anyway with the hardest fighters in the top bits! We need the Union as Englishman, Irishman, Welshman, Scotsman jokes are funnier than taking the urine out of French. Strongest international coalition of small countries in world for centuries. Bit weakened by successive crappy govt cuts yes, but as an united entity we punch way far above our weight. Sorry but you can do little on your own, even joining NATO.
4 x E2.
Two dozen Gripen with JSM.
4 x MQ-9 Reaper.
HMS Argyll and Montrose.
The three new OPVs.
Fort Victoria.
12 x NH90 NFH.
Eventual build of 4-6 SSKs.
An Army division of around 20,000 with a single deployable multi-role brigade consisting of a light airmobile battalion, a couple of infantry battalions, a couple of armoured regiments (CR2 from storage) and a couple of mechanised battalions (Boxer).
12 x NH90 TTH.
12 x T129 Mangusta
Download as much as they can before their log on expires.
Work out how you are going to rearm your defence forces when you realise that the ITAR veto means none of the good ‘killy stuff’ that you need has actually been transferred due to the conspiracy that is international law…
I wonder about the Scottish Army.
Having had the privilege of serving in a Scottish Regiment (albeit as a mid career transplant), I have some insight into how the boys think, and I think the SNP might be sadly over-confident if they expect cheerful mass transfers, but the overall picture will be a bit spotty.
The vast majority of officers would opt to stay in the rUK Forces, for reasons of total career variety in operational deployments and career potential.
The very senior end of the SNCOs and those JNCOs not likely to be further promoted might opt to do their last few years in Scotland as they transition towards resettlement.
The majority of the JNCOs and boys would I feel opt for rUK as there is simply more fun to be had and opportunity. Let’s face it, few join the Army to be posted to some ghastly dump like Motherwell 8 miles from home, to then do bugger all for 22 years. Some might.
Scottish soldiers are tremendously proud of being Scotsmen, love the Ps and Ds, wave Saltires about and all the rest of it. But they have strong Unionist leanings, and certainly appreciate the variety and spice that worldwide deployments have given them.
If this all transpires, rUK would be wise to offer a new Ghurka type of deal. Young man, get yourself to Newcastle or Carlisle, join a Scottish-based Regiment, serve with Scotsmen in the rUK Army, and we won’t ask Wee Eck if he approves. We might even solve the Army 2020 numbers fiasco.
Apply for ITAR
It is really difficult to answer this question without knowing the Political circumstances of any negotiations. Is an I Scotland in or out of the EU. Is it a NATO member? On day one is it running some form of joint QRA out of Lossie with the RAF or running its own or doing an Ireland. Are we talking about meeting NATO level commitments or Irish level commitments?
I agree with RT rougly on the recruiting front, you wil see a lot of old and bold SNCOS who are already pensionable look to come across but disagree Officer Wise. If you are 16 years plus in and not planning to make a career out of 9 month tours and various sand pits, an immediate RN pension on top of an SDF Navy job may well prove attractive.
Within NATO
Force composition wise, I am not sure why the WP had MCMVs in it, would drop that requirement and await a modular based solution, they are too specialised and expensive for what an SDF would want. 2 post CAMM T23 and the 3 new OPVs would be a start, some form of small IPV and a support vessel. Enough fighters to maintain QRA with a shared RAF force and paymet towards required AAR capability. Small tactical helo force and 4 naval Wild Cats. Some transport aircraft and work towards MPA.
Not qualified to talk about ground forces but logic says an all out effort of a mech brigade in country supported by 2 “marine batalions”. the ability to deploy a mech BG overseas in support of short term NATO ops being desirable
APATS,
What’s not to like about 9 month tours in interesting places? ;). You don’t get many opportunities to apply HMtQ’s bayonet to HMtQ’s enemy’s stomach while strung up alongside at some woeful anchorage. And you can never have enough op tours. I was disappointed to not have one a year, and once voluntarily did two six monther’s in the Balkans back to back because going back to Germany was just too sad for words.
Good point about the immediate pension though. Some people are indeed that money focussed. Not people you would trust, however.
Bearing in mind how bloody dangerous the world looks at the moment, the UK PM should restore dignity, re-assure friends and set down a marker too enemies to the effect that:
“having lost 8% of our population, a lot of mostly empty land and some oil doesn’t alter the fact that we remain one of the World’s largest economies, we are growing strongly, we are one of the foremost expeditionary powers, with nukes and a UNSC Permanent Seat…and we have absolutely no intention whatsoever of stepping down from any of the responsibilities or benefits of those various positions simply because a small number of our people have taken a free and democratic decision to secede and we have accepted that with regret, but intend to keep calm and carry on…
…not least because other States such as Spain in respect of Catalonia, Belgium and Italy practically everywhere might want to take our lead in behaving in the right and proper way, as we have and always will…and it might be no bad thing if Czar Putin did the right thing in respect of various bits of Holy Mother Russia…or China, in respect of Tibet, Tsinkiang and possibly Hong Kong…who might even want to take a vote on leaving China first and then rejoining us afterwards as a full member of the UK…Sierra Leone and British Somaliland are also cordially invited to give the idea a bit of thought. :-)
In consequence, we do not anticipate any opportunity to take a defence dividend, and in fact we will need to increase that Budget to fund the relocation of CASD to Devonport…and we should advise our neighbours to the North that although we will make that move, we will NOT do so irresponsibly or on an unreasonably contracted timetable…and we have taken soundings amongst key NATO Allies on this point, and they are very happy that we should take the lead in brokering Scottish Accession to the Alliance.
In terms of conventional forces the configuration proposed in the last SDSR gave a much greater emphasis to constructive forward engagement alongside our allies than home defence…and as that will remain our main priority we see no reason to further reduce any of our forces; the cost may be a little heavier, but we will bear it as responsible and prominent citizens in a dangerous world. In fact, because Scotland will need to take on very substantial responsibilities for their own very large sea and airspace to meet their intended NATO obligations we may have rather more resources to deploy alongside our allies in the wider world.
That said, some capital expenditure will need to be re-profiled…we will need to bring forward the T26 Programme if we are to adhere to the timetable planned for a build on the Clyde in the new facilities that are now planned for the Tyne…as we must if we are to hand over two or three of the newer T23s to Scotland…
Etc…”
Here’s hoping…
GNB
Red Trousers after my somewhat silly earlier start to comments, i apologise. I am pretty sure however you are right – for career reasons the majority will stay in the British or UK forces, or what are they actually going to be called if it’s not an united kingdom? Will rank structures stay the same, will officers, and ncos have to take rank and pay cuts in smaller forces, and have to wait longer for promotion? Read varying figures for overall military composition, but generally, even for civvy staff with all forces, the figure between 7.5 and 8% consist of personnel claiming to be or “legally” Scots. Out of touch with population numbers and demographics, but i have doubts even at full re enlistment in Scotland there will be enough bods to fill the holes. Will new reconstituted forces accept non nationals? I think little has been thought out. Many wish lists made, and little thought to reality we all know – London will give minimum budget, minimum ships, aircraft, equipment and bases (they have commercial potential to be sold off – and many run with private public partnerships, that will probably give private sector opportunity to buy, if military investment wanes). I suspect a little help and persuasion for a small reward for bases for US and some European nations will help, but probably too little too late for many. Sorry to sound so negative and doom and gloom, but surely you know Tory governments, or any government during austerity times by now.
@RT
If you read my sentence again it says 9 month tours and various sand pits. So for warfare guys in their early/mid 30s who have done 4 back to back sea jobs in which they may have done 3 or 4 foreign deployments amounting to say 26-29 months foreign plus a huge amount of UK based non deployed exercises and sea time. Then add in 6-8 months land based op tour they have done a fair amount of time away before they hit 30, probably 3-3.5 years out of the country and another year or so not getting home as at sea in UK or duty.
They then hit PWO course which rewards them with back to back sea jobs and at least another couple of deployments and an XO tour or staff job or another sand pit tri service tour and you are looking at promotable SO2s who before they have done 16 years will probably have done 5 years worth of overseas tours and another 2 or 3 where they cannot go home at night, now married kid on the way, you left.
APATS,
That was the huge fun of it, endless Op Tours. Mind you, I wasn’t married at the time, deliberately. Didn’t think of marrying till I was mid thirties. I only left because I wanted to do something different, and I wasn’t going to run my BFT and CFT any faster. Kids came only when I’d made that decision.
Having decided to leave, you need to leave properly, not sidle up to some herring fishing fleet with easy hours. Go and cut your teeth in high finance or high stakes at least. Engineer being sacked for nothing and head hunted on the same day, and take a combined 6 figure payoff and joining bonus. Anything for some adrenaline. I couldn’t abide being a shadow in some coastal militia from my late 30s.
First thing is to get experienced personnel from UK forces. Offer a 10% pay bump to anyone transferring across from HM Forces to SDF.
Next thing to do would be to get as much of the equipment needed for the air force and the Army from the MOD.
Would need to get as many Tranche 2 Typhoons as possible. Also try to get 2 A400M’s as they can perform a dual tanker role.
Try and get enough Challenger 2’s an AS90’s to form an armored battalion. Also look to get some of the newer CVR(t).
For ships take one of the older T23’s and the try to get the three River Classes more for training than anything else.
All the new equipment procurement for the Scottish defence forces can then be directed at naval procurement. Order two T26 Frigates from BAE. This will keep the yard on the Clyde going for a few years. Then nationalise the yards on the Clyde. Then order 6 corvettes and 6 OPV’s. This should all keep the Clyde going for at least a decade maybe even longer if export orders can be secured. Either way it gives time to diversify the Clyde yards into commercial work like Ferries and Offshore Supply Vessels.
The main thing for Scotland would be to try and secure as many jobs as possible in the transition and wipe 1 billion pounds off of current defence spending. That added to the near billion saving from not having a foreign aid budget should cover almost half of Scotland’s structural fiscal deficit.
Military procurement beyond ship building should be paid for from oil revenues. In good years when oil revenues deliver a surplus equipment can be procured and in bad years the military can wait. High on the list of things to buy would be 5 C295 MPA’s, a Naval strike missile for Typhoon and probably two second hand SSK’s.
Scotland does not make planes or armored vehicles so it would be best to use Scotland’s entitlement to MOD assets to secure these items then build the ships we need. Any Scottish defence force would have to be a predominantly naval one anyway.
@ RT – I would agree that many of the younger soldiers and sailors would want to stay in the rUK forces. Its worth also remembering that Irish nationals serve in HM forces and are not impeded in doing so as are other commonwealth countries.
Loss of Scotland will see the MOD budget reduced by 8% plus the associated cost of moving Faslane. So even if many want to stay in the rUK there is likley to be no budget for them.
Most in the Army seem to hold their regiment or battalion as the organization they hold their loyalty to and many of the battalions pre date the act of Union so I am sure many would transfer across. Currently Scotland has far too many battalions given its soze and budget so I am sure there would be few issues if rUk wanted to keep some.
The most important thing for Scotland would be to get experienced NCO’s as the force will have to be literally built up from scratch anyway. Indeed this is much the same way that force of Canada, NZ and Australia where built up.
Scotland will be a defacto member of NATO from day one as their is no way that the UK, EU or NATO are leaving a giant hole in their northern flank not to mention that presence of Trident on the Clyde for at least a decade.
Martin
Why do you think Scotland would want or need an armoured battalion. Given the size, I’d expect Scotland to behave more like Ireland, Denmark or the Baltics and deploy rather light forces in a police keeping role if it came to that. Its hard to see any need for a significant army based self defence force. Airforce, Navy side make sense to me as does your suggestion regarding the Clyde.
Salmond, rather like the Germans and their 2 % commitment, has talked about 10 years period, which gives him plenty of time to work things out. We should also remember that the SNP might not govern Scotland post independence (and certainly not after the first term). They need to change their mindset quite radically in any post independence scenario and decide their political philosophy. I find it hard to believe that the Scottish electorate has any long term need for two left leaning parties with broadly identical views.
I expect very intense and difficult negotiations during the 18 month transition period and the Scottish economy may well be saddled with a significant net debt to the UK. I expect EU (especially) and NATO membership. If Scotland weren’t made an EU member stare, then there would need to be extensive negotiations to create an legal framework between Scotland, the EU and The UK. Its probably easier to adopt status quo than start from scratch. The currency issue is probably the biggest problem.
The first 5 years post independence will be very challenging I think. I’d look to stimulate investment by dropping corporate tax rates and other incentives (especially on N Sea Oil), but that’s a medium term gain. I’d also look to try and build the image of Scotland and promote Scottish products (strong agricultural exports in Fish and there’s still plenty of scope to recover Beef exports from the BSE slump). The problem is paying for current spending whilst the investment generating steps start to kick in. Nothing impossible to do though.
Martin – I’m hoping its a misinterpretation on my part, but your shopping list reads like it was written by the man Salmond – “We’ll take what we like, we’ll refuse to take what we don’t like, and sod the interests of anyone south of our border.” While I think the idea to continue the development of the existing shipyards (Bonny Alba Engineers?) on the Clyde is sound although expensive in proportion to GDP, for the adoption of fast jets, new cargo lifters and a set of armour wouldn’t the position be more “Please may I have…”? With that list presumably you would also be ‘offered’ a chunk of all existing PFI contracts proportionate to whatever share ratio all other assets and liabilities are split (eg for IFR and the Army’s support vehicles) novated to Scottish ownership; thereafter the two parts of the current contracts would be entirely separate. And don’t think you’re escaping from your share of FRES…
It would be interesting for the various parties to declare their proposed Share Ratio and the basis upon which it is calculated; and to be really clear on the applicability of that ratio to assets and liabilities at least in broad brush terms. With less than 24hrs to go, I don’t think so far the independence advocates have declared such elemental detail? Its all a bit woolly really.
@Chris
Do not forget that assets would not only be split across Defence but across the entire spectrum, so it becomes very complex. Trade off the cost of PFI vs fixed asets etc. Armour vs the value of SSN/SSBN/T45 for instance. Or against assets from a totally different sphere, hugely complex and that is before you even consider intangibles, for instance continued use of Faslane for x years vs use of UK embassies for y years. My cross is going in No so we do not have to even try this. Though I have taken substantial insurance over the last 18 months via my PP account at very good odds and would immediately be 5 figures richer with a yes vote which would help cover the house move I suppose.
Just to got to personnel, I don’t think it will be too much of an issue. Although that depends on platform. If you are at Lossie and settled there it’s a bit of a bonus. People looking to settle down will take it easily. The SNP have said there will be offering the same Pay and condition, protected pension rights etc.
Infact the timing works out quite while with the wind down of Tr1 we can simply give them to the Scots.
Other platforms might be a bit tricky. Hercs and Chinooks might be a struggle to get people to go live in the far north of scotland. Although I’m sure if they offer enough, do a BAE/Saudi type wage, or loan people in like the navy have done, they’ll be fine.
APATS, Chris
The split is actually on all assets and liabilities owned by the UK not just defence assets, so the mess is much more complicated. Given Scottish GDP per head is about the same as SE England, at best the ratio would be 8% to 92 %. Its not possible to deal with commercial contracts like PFI arrangements with a renegotiation, which is costly and will take time. I think the UK will maintain all existing arrangements and have to enter into specific agreements with Scotland.
Apart from Scottish bases, I don’t think it means Scotland gets anything beyond a financial value for its 8 % of the Navy for example. Practically, we might agree that Scotland gets certain ships instead of the financial value or a commitment for the UK government to undertake a specific role for a specified period of time.
The truth is, until (and if) we actually negotiate the divorce nobody can know just what will be agreed. For example, we might place orders to build two type 26 on the Clyde before independence actually occurs, which would meet EU requirements, but satisfy the SNP government at the same time.
@ Topman
The White paper talks about using Leuchars again and the aspiration of obtaining an MPA capability within 5 years of Independence so I guess they are thinking of FJ/MPA in Lossie and transport/rotary from Leuchars.
@APATS
Yes that does ring a bell, Leuchars is perhaps a better choice than Lossie for ME/Rotary. Still might be a struggle to get the people they need. Not sure we’d want to give up too many RW. Possibly a good home for the SK. I doubt they will use them much. An overhaul/major./LEP and they do for a few years till they got themselves up and running.
All moot I’m stilling going for a NO vote, about 53%. Bookies are 1/4 for NO, I think you can get 4/1 still for YES. They seem totally unconcerned be the latest polls.
Worth watching.
Legal consequences of Scottish independence. Prof Adam Tomkins (John Millar Professor of Public Law at the School of Law of the University of Glasgow) on shareout of UK assets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqpQclCnb6s#t=17
With those numbers from the bookies, TD can now negotiate an authorised reprint of the thorough thinredline piece on this for Friday morning
– only bcz the blog is no more
– and of course an option only… You can see why the right, but not an obligation would be useful
Dunservin
Thanks for that. Its nice to hear a lawyer explain that what I thought would happen is broadly correct. The key point is that military assets (moveable assets like ships, planes) belong to the UK unless Scotland can prove they solely relate to the defence of Scotland.
The currency points are well made. However, it still going to be a negotiation, which means compromises will happen. It’s a shame he’s pro-union as I’d like to hear an independent view, which would be more nuanced.
Legally I believe UK government debt would remain UK government (which follows on from what he says), which must mean that Scotland’s 8 % share of that debt would be due to the UK as it would be commercially impossible to renegotiate each individual; debt contract and treasury instrument with the debt holder.
This means that the risk of Scottish economic failure would also be a major problem for the UK. Take another example, if RBS moved to the UK, then it would still have banking business in Scotland via a subsidiary or branch. This will create a “too big to fail risk” for the UK government as a wide ranging default by its Scottish business might be large enough for the entire bank to fail.
A lot of what he specifically mentions as going away are probably in place at a Scottish level (eg Scottish special branch) or actually won’t be needed on day 1.
Dunservin – good video – someone that seems to have a firm grasp of undesired consequences. To my eyes that makes a Yes vote by far the riskiest for Scotland.
Unfortunately, instead of getting this sort of message broadcast a year ago, the lacklustre Better Together bunch couldn’t be fussed to determine just how bad the break could be for Scotland; as a result in the last 10 day panic a raft of extra-special benefits have been promised without any form of parliamentary debate or agreement – almost bribes. Despite the SNP battlecries Scotland was already a winner in benefits per capita, this latest mularky promises even more advantage to the Scot – as someone of modest means living in the hugely crowded South East with its Londonesque living expenses and close to zero Gov’t support for infrastructure or regeneration projects, the ever greater cash being promised to Scotland erks more than a bit. Had proper clarity in terms of the consequences and downsides of separating been made clear by the No campaigners the need for this bribery would probably not have arisen. Part of me does wonder if Messrs Brown & Darling deliberately underplayed their official role knowing full well in the final panic they would get rash promises out of Westminster (wouldn’t have been the first time Brown cost the UK dearly in advancing his own agenda). As a result of all this extra funding being promised, this one time full advocate of the continuation of the Union thinks perhaps the UK would be better off if the SNP win their Yes vote…
@ Chris – I would suggest the assets. I earmark are the easiest of the MOd to give up. Plenty of Challengers and AS90’s going spare. Lots of Typhoons as well. Ine old frigate and three rivers that are about to be replaced anyway. The only controversial part would be the 2 A400m’s but given that Scotland would not be claiming SSN, SSBN, CVF, E3 etc I think its a bargain for the MOD.
@ Thread
For all the talk of splitting up and all the technicalities, who thinks there will actually be a YES vote?
Re: Orkney & Shetland referendum,
Independence won’t happen on the day after the vote, it will take some years. In that time, who has authority to grant a referendum to Orkney & The Shetlands? I would have thought it would in the preview of Westminster, no?
Shetlands oil for Shetland’s people?
Chris
Not almost, but actually is a bride designed to persuade Scot labour voters, which is why the used Brown (and Darling).
The real issue is the lack of sound economic data. Offsetting the benefit imbalance is the Oil (both gross income and tax revenue – 62 % rate on profits earned) and agricultural products (mostly whisky) export income. UK balance of payments without this would have been more 5 % of GDP consistently, which is arguably very unstable for the UK.
I have little reason to doubt that an independent Scotland in 1979 would look pretty much more like Norway today, due to Oil revenue alone, although just how much would have depended on modernization of reform of Scottish heavy industry as well. The problem the SNP has today is that oil production is falling and tax revenue is stagnating, making the economic case harder to sell.
I’m beginning to believe the commentators who are suggesting nothing will be the same again in the UK just might be true. There’s a guy in the Telegraph today pointing out that English tax payers ought to be upset and I saw a Welsh assembly guy pointing out that its unfair that Wales is poorer than Scotland, but gets less money. It feels like something has to give to me.
@Top
I’m sure some will vote Yes. My money’s on ~30%. Strange thing but the polls show a shift towards the “yes” side this close to the vote when normally it hovers around 1/3.
I see people saying Scotland will take MBTs, frigates etc. frankly I doubt it, my money is on them ending up with something like what the Irish have and using the proximity and the implied need to co-defend the islands to leave the bill for the heavy stuff to others. After all, why pay for FJ and high end assets when others are forced to defend you and you can get them to pay for it instead?
Mike
There is actually an official independence day (i think its 18 months to day after the vote happens)
@ Observer
I think it will be higher, about 45%. Still be a NO vote overall.
Scotland is going to need a very large Army indeed. It is also going to need a much larger Police force.
Within two years of becoming independent, most major businesses including banks, shipbuilding firms, companies supporting the North Sea oil industry will have relocated to England.
The problem will be exacerbated by successively higher taxes imposed by Alex Salmond.
The exodus of employers will cause increased unemployment.
The lack of tax income will lead to cuts in benefits and reduced investment in national infrastructure including schools and hospitals.
Scotland’s inability to support its own health service will cause an exodus of skilled doctors and nurse to England leading to falling care standards and massive waiting lists.
The cost of doing business in Scotland will lead to many English firms to avoid doing business in Scotland. Those that do will charge higher prices.
This will lead to a widespread shortages of vital products.
Gradually the dream of an independent Scotland will give way to a feeling of isolation as poverty grips the region.
Civil unrest will follow. Now that the Scots can no longer blame the English, they’ll start fighting amongst themselves. It will be only a matter of time before a new civil war erupts.
Alex Salmond Para-military forces will ruthlessly put-down dissent. Censorship will prevent bad news from reaching the masses.
Finally, the people of Perthshire will unite and demand independence from Scotland….
@Nick
Its likely to be 24th June in the Future to celebrate the Scots victory at Bannockburn .
This year is the 700th anniversary and Salmond et al originally wanted the Referendum on that date this year but conceded that the Nationalistic upswing that happens on that day may have encourage less motivated yes voters to stagger out of the pub to vote :-)
@Monty
A bit of a gloomy view point but if they do mismanaged the transition and the lawyers run away with all the money (shades of Bleak House) after years of squabbling of who pays for Dounreay’s clean up and 1000 year site maintenance programme or exactly where the EEZ boundary is etc it could turn nasty. Scotland was only united when fighting the English. When we left them alone due to other foreign wars they fought amongst themselves on tribal and religious grounds but that would never happen in todays world would it as that was way in the past , all is forgiven, the claymore(scimitar) buried what have you.
On thread :-
Give them what they ask for in terms of planes , vehicles and ships even making sure its is the recently upgraded/later versions or if not give them the entire fleet of say for instance tranche 1 Typhoon to use as spares etc . We want Scotland’s forces to at least provide a credible defence for their own soil and EEZ and hampering them with inadequate and outdated kit is a bad plan for a Nation that may struggle initially financial and we all know Governments cut when things get tight first don’t we? We need to keep the ongoing defence aspect of their new Nation as integrated as possible with our own , joint exercises ,sharing training facilities .
Regarding new build Ships however due to the nature of assembly top secret equipment would be installed at an early stage and I would be happier if they were built in a rUK yard as over the next 10 to 20 years what will happen to security in the yards. As the T26’s are built , new Assault ships etc are built who knows. By all means Blocks without such kit preinstalled could be subbed out.
Monkey
24 March 2016 apparently….
btw, short of a UK federal arrangement and a change in Westminster politics, personally I think devo-max (if that what actually happens) just serves to show the Scottish voters that they can run the country and it makes independence more likely than not ultimately.
Continuing Tory/UKIP minded government could also make this more likely. We should expect a tranche of Scottish labour seats to be SNP in the next Westminster election in any case.
Poor SNP governance could screw this, but if we’re giving them even more money than today, that’s less likely to happen. Independence is a mostly emotional issue rather than a hard headed economic one. There are plenty of successful European counties of a similar size to Scotland out there.
If you think the union camp PR blast has been bad, just wait for the pro-EU referendum will bring up. I cant wait to see what Deutsche Bank will proclaim.
@ Nick
I know what they have said but choosing the same date as when the Scottish Royal Line took over the throne of England (24th March 1603 James VI became James I of England on the death on Elizabeth I ) smacks of either a lack of understanding of historical dates by the SNP or Salmond has ambitions such as James VI of Scotland harboured :-)
@TD
As well as properly equipping the iScottish Defence Force iSDF we need to ensure that they receive accurate intelligence and a relevant share of surveillance information based on what NATO will allow us to share and what is relevant to their declared goals. If they just want to protect and monitor their EEZ such as Eire do then what is relevant such as Russian aircraft/ships entering their area of interest or if on joint overseas operations what they need to do their role fully. We do not need to have it thrown in our faces that we withheld critical info which costs Scottish lives.
On NATO as a leading member we should get them signed up ASAP so they can lend their weight (15,0000 is not insignificant) to future deployments , a T23 joining anti-pirate duties for instance or the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards in their C2’s backing us up would be handy freeing up our assets for other duties. Again it will depend on what Defence policy Scotland adopts but it seems NATO is quite flexible, Turkey refusing strikes from NATO bases on their territory against IS due to their complex local politics and that IS hold 49 of their nationals hostage illustrates unless its a full on defence of a NATO member you can pick and choose your fights.
On the aspect of properly equipping the iSDF every pounds worth of equipment we hand over will be factored into the overall balance sheet for the division of the assets/liabilities of the existing UK.
@ Monty – do you have any evidence to back up your assertions or are you just speaking from your bigoted view point?
@ Martin
I actually thought Monty was joking? After all nobody seriously believes Scotland would be a failure when countries without half of its natural resources knock along quite happily.
I am sitting here reading this and just realised HMS Edinburgh is sitting outside my window, why don’t we slap a new coat of paint on that and tow it up to Faslane, by the time they recruit any engineers to look in the engine room, and realise it doesn’t go anywhere, they will have had their independence day.
@Martin,
As someone descended from a long line of Scots but who doesn’t get a vote, I think this whole referendum is an unconstitutional farce cooked up by the power-crazy Alex Salmond. So, yes i am biased. That said, my post was made with tongue placed firmly in cheek!
However, what I have suggested is not an impossible scenario. Some facts are fairly irrefutable. Businesses hate uncertainty and many will choose to relocate. If Salmond doesn’t hit his income targets, he’ll be forced to raise taxes. Whatever happens, there will not be the economies of scale that we have in England that make public spending work for the Scottish people (65 million versus 5 million).
I just don’t think Scotland is viable as an independent country. This independence malarky is simply an irrational hate of the English. Leaving is simply the Scots cutting of their noses to spite their faces.
@ Monty
You should have stopped at tongue in cheek as “I just don’t think Scotland is viable as an independent country. This independence malarky is simply an irrational hate of the English. Leaving is simply the Scots cutting of their noses to spite their faces”
After all Scots are uniquely too wee too stupid and too poor to make use of their abundant natural resources and people to support themselves are they? How do other countries of 5 million people ever manage to survive, they obviously do not have the curse of 60% of the EU oil reserves and 20% of the total fish caught as well as huge renewable potential, thriving tourism, food and drink and financial services. Look at GDP per Capita around the world then come back to economy of scale. Have not seen the Irish asking to rejoin, have you?
I am so glad we have people like you to tell us that we could not survive on our own Monty. I am a passionate No voter but BS comments like this which even the Politicians are not stupid enough to make tempt me to change.
Splitting up the UK would leave us all that bit poorer and I have seen very little hatred of the English, despair at Westminster, yes but not the English in general.
A divorce of Scotland from England (UK) will be just that. A divoce. Pain. Anguish. Long drawn out bickering. And neither party happy until 5-10 years down the line… probably when they look into each other’s eyes again only to ask “was it all worth it?”.
If it is a planning assumption that Trident would vanish between a Yes vote and whenever “day one” is then my willing suspension of disbelief isn’t up to the job. For as long as there was a large UK/NATO military presence on Scottish soil (into the 2020s?), the list of “day one” must-haves would be very short indeed. See also Ireland, where external, as opposed to internal, security only became much of a concern after the Treaty Ports were handed back, and Iceland. The “day one” things should be more “Homeland Security” than “Pentagon”.
The obvious gap is domestic intelligence. As a bloke from the Sun once put it to me, you could easily have the people who can’t stop drug & people smuggling, or catch gangsters, today do the same for terrorism & spying. Remove the journalistic cynicism and that’s pretty much what Ireland does, and Ireland had & has an actually existing terrorism threat far greater than can reasonably be expected to exist in Scotland. This, and minding the borders, would give some of Scotland’s over-numerous police something potentially useful to do, which would be nice. But the issue that would really concern me is that of parliamentary & public scrutiny.
What really worries me is that in generalized terms Scotland has roughly 8% of the UK’s population and landmass so a fair split would see them getting 8% of the armed forces (albeit mostly lower tech stuff).
Problem is i really don’t see the responsibilities and taskings of the rump of the UK’s diminishing in line with Scotland’s independence. So we are probably going to see an already dangerously overstretched armed forces doing largely the same job but with a sizeable chunk of it’s assets lopped off in the process.
A seriously confused and damaging situation is brewing….
Why do the media seam to think the British army will be split up having to giving up there cap badges. Shorly it will carry on as normal. The Scots with there new defence force can call there regiments what ever they like but that does not affect our army much like when the Irish left. We still kept the Irish guards etc.
Sadly Monty does have the odd point. Over pessimistic perhaps but look at my former aul sod, Northern Ireland – business national and international has been attracted by tax incentives and improvements in security situation, and then left in droves as political infighting started, before even waiting for the sectarian crap to restart yet again. Sadly some of the significant large Scots cities have this sectarian undercurrent too, that either side could try to mobilise. Initially after the cease fires, which admittedly cannot be compared to the Scots “Independence Day” scenario, RAF, Royal Navy presence, forces support and ancillary services first to withdraw to “mainland”, the troops on ground slower to depart. The Royal Engineers main presence only in EOD units, was increased again after a while to dismantle border, and “Cowboy/Indian Country” surveillance towers and posts. The more elite units usually thumb twiddling in base waiting for call out to major incidents, that were minimal, and usually dealt with by Police (which in Northern Ireland remember are quasi military despite name changes – ex civvy staff in cop shops mesel), or the PBI units on ground in much smaller numbers. The Scottish Independence (think deserves capital I) issue different yes, but a (dithers what to call new entity as no longer an united kingdom), but forces will probably need to remain as facilities in Northern Ireland insufficient to facilitate Northern Approaches and Atlantic surveillance, more so after Russian resurgence in overflights, and brushing by surface and submarines of UK territorial waters and airspace. Their Arctic exercises must surely also be of interest to the southern based MOD (again what do you call reconstituted landmass of the new entity sans Scotland?) and northern Scottish bases both for naval and air assets, despite aerial refuelling, must be of importance to Westminster. MOD abandoned many fixed wing bases in Northern Ireland, and thought helicopters could all necessary tasking – RAF Aldergrove (at International Airport) became Army Air Corps base and ceased to exist only as refuelling and emergency landing and maintenance depot for the RAF. Now it’s reopened for the RAF as 502 Ulster Squadron reconstituted as training entity (or something more for conspiracy theorists?). Despite interim period for shutting down military bases i think that Scotland like Northern Ireland (and it’s bigots of all colours) will find it needs to forget ancient history, and remember the need for “a special relationship” with the English. Bases will be closed and reopened regularly for decades i suspect, as political dislikes, against international realities intervene. Scots are revered as a fighting nation – as well as scientifically and in engineering field highly innovative. A total withdrawal from the Union without a mutual defence and intelligence sharing policy would be insane for both sides. Again i think the present Independence thing is more of an historical throwback and wish from another time, rather than a practical economic, & political move a la Northern Ireland Unionists, and their opposites in the 36 Counties United Ireland mindset. 1690 is long done, and so has 1745 (with a prince more French than Scots, ditto Mary or rather Marie Riene d’Ecosse). I don’t wan’t to dissuade my multitude of Scots friends and the odd family/clan relations from self determination, but think militarily they do really need to think things through more seriously and in depth, just like financial implications – won’t get same “Peace Bonus” as Norn Irn muckers to offset the financial problems.
@PR
You may perhaps be looking at the wrong part of Ireland. An I Scotland would have left the UK. Northern Ireland most certainly never has :)
Why would an independent Scotland want the higher end military equipment? They don’t have need for it and their concerns are strictly local, look at how none of the pro-independence politicians ever talked about anything beyond their borders, only “Scotland for the Scots”. If your concerns are local, you don’t see the need for frigates, destroyers and fighters. I doubt they’ll take the higher end stuff. My guess would be a copy of what the Irish have, OPVs and infantry units. After all, they’ll look at the Irish too and say “Ireland is perfectly fine without the expensive equipment, why should we take the economic burden?”.
Monty, the 45% shift was what I meant when I said that it was a strange deviation, normally it hovers around 30%, 1/3. No idea why there was a sudden jump, someone screwed up the random sampling? Media blitz? Biased counting? Propaganda attempt? Problem with such a close run thing is that it encourages them to make a 2nd attempt a few years down the road. They’ll say “almost 50% of Scots want independence, if not for English vote rigging, we would be independent! We’ll have a real vote in a few years time to show the real will of the Scots!”. Not like election sore losers are unique, and accusations like that are very common after someone loses.
I’m still wondering why there hasn’t been many caricatures about Salmond and his need to swim against the current. Can’t help but think that a few decades ago, his face would have been plastered on a cartoon fish swimming upriver!
I don’t see why Scotland could not field armed forces very similar to Denmark without too much difficulty, and play as much an active part in NATO as they do.
It would also be in our interest to assist them in achieving their goal as quickly as possible, with training and allowing them to integrate with our spares and support packages for an initial period.
I see that the MP for Orkney and Shetland (who is also currently the Sec of State for Scotland) has raised the exciting possibility of the Islands having their own referendum to leave Scotland in the event of a Yes vote in which locally the islands had voted No. Apparently, there is strong support for the Union on the islands, they don’t feel particularly Scottish given their very Norse history, and much more excitingly, they have a large percentage of “Scotland’s” oil as measured by international standard maritime boundaries.
The proposal being not being to revert to part of the UK, but to become something like the Isle of Man or the FI, a Crown Dependency.
I don’t know if that is all blather, as unversed as I am in Shetland politics. But it would be screamingly funny. My instinct suggests that Salmon would instantly become a dictator and bar them a referendum at all.
Europe goes back to the Middle Ages: Map shows how patchwork continent would look if every separatist movement got their wish
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2758795/Europe-divided-Map-shows-continent-look-separatist-movement-got-wish.html
There are far more separatist groups then in the article so there could be even more countries.
David, the problem is not if they can or can’t. The problem is if they want to or not. The Scottish politicians don’t show themselves to be very outward looking.
I suspect it’ll be hard times for Scotland if they split for a while. I’m not as pessimistic as Monty, independent countries are much more robust than people give them credit for, but because of the lack of outward focus, I don’t think the SNP really knows how much of their funding comes from overseas. British universities are hot international commodities, their banking sector is within the world’s top 3, and tourism to the UK is a massive income earner. All this sucks money in from the international community. And they want to cut themselves off from this source. In terms of international links, they are reliant on Aberdeen harbour. Can the harbour handle all the traffic that is rerouted if manufacturers avoid the new border to England? Or their airport? Their tourism is also dependent on overflow from England, people visit England and Scotland as a set, but does Scotland itself have enough of a brand name to draw people on it’s own? Same with banking, Scottish banks tap into the wider market via English contacts. Cut this off, and you’re talking about massive cashflow constrictions.
Is there anything in Scotland that can be considered a niche product to make a living on the world market? Other than whisky and that one’s a cheat considering the number of whisky producers worldwide. Electronics is a maybe at 7% of the world market, but other than that?
@ Observer
Reliant on Aberdeen Harbour :)
@as – Interesting – the only thing missing is the Army of the New Caliph marching through the Balkans…bear in mind that the Arab, Mameluke, and Ottoman States all had tribal/nomadic roots and their conquests had strong elements of a “Society on the Move” until at least the twelfth century…
That’s part of the reason why European Kings needed to create consolidated states in the first place, and indeed secured some support from the mercantile and aristocratic classes in doing so.
GNB
APATS, too small? Or enough for the job? Or did I miss another important port? I suspect a lot of their exports are rerouted to English ports before shipped overseas. If that is true, it’s going to be bad.
I did a quick scan, think I know why the vote turned in favour of Yes, the Yes supporters are getting rather aggressive and chasing off some fraction of No voters off the streets. I bet they’ll show up on voting day and put the thumbs in the eye of their aggressors, but until then, think they’re lying low.
Emotion is quite high apparently, which might mean trouble if they lost. Emotional people tend to be sore losers.
@Observer – no doubt in my mind that Scotland could make a go of it, although as you say I think the split from the rest of us would make it much tougher than Salmond says, or the majority of his supporters think…but they would need to become tough minded traders with a quite limited social provision to do so, not unlike yourselves…and from my vantage point the dream being sold is of a limitlessly generous welfare bureaucracy; and they are proudly claiming that many people voting for them haven’t even registered to vote for years. Which suggests to me that they are quite possibly the residents of run-down Council Estates who have been dependent on the state, in some cases for generations…as evidenced by the numbers saying they were Labour but haven’t voted for years in unintelligible Doric on the Vox Pops.
At one level, it is clever politics…but it could leave a very nasty hangover in the morning.
On the Defence issue specifically I have believed from the get-go that the SNP’s very late conversion from Neutrality to NATO (two or three years ago) was a device to reassure the wider electorate, and is planned to disintegrate during the negotiations over defence, probably around Trident…”forcing them to pursue Neutrality akin to Ireland because of the perfidy and intransigence of the wicked English bastards led by the evil Tories”.
We will then need to take up the slack…
GNB
@RT
re the Shetlands and Orkney Islands going independent would be so so funny I would die laughing at Salmond’s face when half the revenue and reserves he has been calculating on , all be it on the back of a fag packet it seems, reverted back to part of the UK. If after a separatist yes vote in the Islands referendum the Scots kicked up a fuss I sure the RM would lend a hand to secure the Northern Isles for the Crown.
A yes vote would be a no brainer , that’s £2,000,000,000 a year in revenue divided by 20,000 population equals £100,000 each per year per capita , who wouldn’t vote for that?http://cdn2.spectator.co.uk/wp-content/blogs.dir/11/files/2012/07/218.jpg
Gloomy, my parents tell me of the time when the overall tax rate was 50%. Rough days. And our “founding father” wrote a book telling of how some of the ministers had to literally go around the world begging for investment business, literally door to door, salesman-like with brochures and all.
His summary: ” We threw the British out in a fit of nationalistic zeal and were left trying to clean up the pieces”. Not exact, but you get the picture. Some things just never change.
APATS, I did a check on the harbour.
Ouch. Didn’t see a single crane capable of handling an ISO container. Maybe they have it hidden, but the statistics on the harbour says an annual handling of 5 million tons. Not very impressive, definitely a constriction.
monkey, share and share all alike? :) Communism uber alles! More likely you’ll get a trickle of funds per year. It’s not like you can strip mine the sea bed.
@DN
“I don’t see why Scotland could not field armed forces very similar to Denmark without too much difficulty, and play as much an active part in NATO as they do.”
Yes, if funds and will are coming together. Neither is the case. Scotlands Budget has a £12b overspend, they would have to pay premium interest. And Salmond is a social-democrat; welfare state before defence.
So, no chance to let it happen. It would be Ireland II.
@monkey, in my spare time I wrote the template for your two favourite island groups to use for their Crown Dependency status:
– adding that the Governor General only has a say, beyond external and internal security, in the allocation of any subsidy” from the mainland”:
“Autonomous Regime
Åland is a Swedish-speaking autonomous region within Finland. In 1921 according to the decision of the League of Nations Finland gained sovereignty over the Islands while the Ålanders were guaranteed the preservation of their language, culture and local customs. The .-
Legislative autonomy
The division of authority between Finland and its self-governed region is based on the principle that the Ålanders shall have freedom to decide about their internal affairs as long as it does not breach the internal and external security of the state.
Read more
Economic self-government
It is the Åland Parliament who decides upon the distribution of Åland’s budget. The income consist of Åland’s own revenues and the amount of equalisation transferred from the national government. ”
Now, put that on a ballot paper…
@ Observer
You managed to miss the entire Clydeport facility including the container and cruise terminal at Greenock. All of Forth Ports including the Hound Point Oil terminal and Grangemouth. Grangemouth handles 9 million tonnes of cargo including containers. Hound Point handles Panamax oil tankerrs and is in addition to the pipeline to the refinery in Grangemouth.
Then you have the massive deep water facilities in the Cromarty Firth and the Sullom Voe facilities.
Aberdeen is a medium sized harbour that deals with ferries and rig support.
APATS, actually I didn’t miss Hound Point, I was focusing more on the container transport as that links in with their wider economy. Hard to feed in computer chips through an oil pipe. :) But the rest? Mel Cuppa. I’ll look up Grangemount, Greenock and the others. You think the transshipping capability is there to support Scottish exports?
I assume @RT has been reading the Guardian again :
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/shetland-may-reconsider-place-scotland-yes-vote-alistair-carmichael
The boundaries get complicated – all they’re guaranteed is the 12-mile limit which doesn’t have any oil to speak of. The oil is beyond 12 miles, which means it all depends whether they get treated as enclaves or not. It would be subject to negotiation – for instance St Pierre & Miquelon got significantly more than their 12-mile limit. The best way to guarantee they get “their” oil would be to join Norway or the Faroes, so that the EEZs merge without an enclave and shut out Scotland. This article discusses some of the historical examples : http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/12/1/505.pdf
@Observer
The map I showed gave the Northern Isles a large share of the existing fields all ready in production and a new strike discovered very recently could double the existing reserves in what would be their EEZ. The figure I mentioned was existing production revenues.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/naturalresources/article4131449.ece
If Singapore in its EEZ found a large oil strike just which of your neighbours would you share and share alike?
Happy days for the future of the Northern Isles and by the looks of this lot at an annual festival in the Isles celebrating their Viking heritage not to be messed with :-)
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02466/viking-boat-1_2466272k.jpg
@observer
Yes and then some but it is hardly likely we are going to have some sort of blockade in reality.
@All
If the Shetlands declared Independence they would have a negotiated EEZ if they remained in UK or joined another country they would be an enclave.
APATS, I was more worried about paperwork than blockade! :) You can run a blockade, you can’t run from “Fill Form A12 in triplicate and Form B 37 in quadruplicate.”
“If Singapore in its EEZ found a large oil strike just which of your neighbours would you share and share alike?”
Whoever we’re trying to bribe! :P Remember, we’re the transshipping point for the region, so a chunk of it is going to come back to us in fees anyway, and it ties them further into reliance on us. Bwhahaha! :P
@Observer
‘The problem is if they want to or not’
If they want to join NATO they have to have a minimum capability to offer after the negotiations are all said and done 2% of GDP at the least. They will need to hold/assist the Northern flank at least maybe offer their ground troops as an alternative to our Marines for the role with an MPA capability? who knows. I don’t think they are going to shrink that far away from the world to not need a credible defence of what they have chosen to defend (oil fields at the very least) plus I doubt they will get a free ride in NATO to the extent the Baltic states have, especially considering the training and equipment they have will all be up to Western standard.
‘It would be Ireland II’
Why Ireland 2, and not the very least New Zealand?
Re Shetland,
I once did a 5 day recce by the then new Lynx Mk 9 of the entire Scottish coast, checking out the Cold War early warning radar and AD sites which were typically concrete lily pads on clifftops. We went up to Shetland. All good. For shits and giggles the pair of WO2 pilots and I agreed we’d get some photos of me “marooned” on Out Stack Rock, a mile or so north of Muckle Flugga and thus the very most northern piece of UK sovereign territory. Stinks of bird shit, and the gulls were not terribly impressed by my invasion. We did the same dropping me on top of the Old Man of Hoy a day later. Still got that photo on my downstairs bog wall, on top of the rock wearing combats and a grey beret, with no sign of climbing equipment: I am honest however if people ask. I am a frankly rubbish Alpinist, with not enough grip in my fingers.
We also dropped in on our family distillery on Isla. Two cases of 24 year old in exchange for giving some of the workers there a joy ride around their island in a Lynx. We all thought that a bargain, and we made the local press. Sadly GOC Scotland confiscated a case for Craigiehall to compensate for me not doing any of the previous paperwork. ;)
@Chris
“Unfortunately, instead of getting this sort of message broadcast a year ago, the lacklustre Better Together bunch couldn’t be fussed to determine just how bad the break could be for Scotland;”
Agree absolutely. The “No” campaign has been uninspiring, to say the least. If they had chosen, say, ten key points concerning the Economy (including currency, public expenditure, banking, welfare, pensions) Oil, the NHS, Europe, the Monarchy, Immigration and Defence, and really hammered those across over the last two or three weeks, then the situation now might be very different.
Instead of concrete facts and figures, we have had vague and woolly appeals to tradition, loyalty, patriotism, togetherness, etc. and I don’t think they have worked.
I’ll give you a few examples:
CURRENCY Westminster will, beyond any shadow of doubt, refuse currency union. If Scotland used the pound anyway, it would have no Bank of England to act as lender of last resort. It might then have to try to join the Euro – but see below. With confusion over the currency, big investors would pull out of Scotland and borrowing money would be far more difficult.
THE EUROPEAN UNION If there is a yes vote, Scotland will have to go through an extremely complex application procedure to join and there has to be unanimous approval from other countries. In that respect, Spain, with its own secessionist problems, would have serious doubts.
PUBLIC EXPENDITURE Scotland already does very well out of the UK in terms of public expenditure. Thanks to the Barnett formula such spending is £1,600 higher per head there than it is in England. Scotland’s public spending would have to fall and there would have to be an increase in taxation, at least in the short term.
OIL The Yes campaign’s estimates about how much oil is left in the North Sea are wildly optimistic. The oil billionaire, Sir Ian Wood, has claimed the Yes movement is wrong in claiming that there are 24 billion barrels left and the true figure is probably closer to 15 to 16 billion.
THE MONARCHY If a “Yes” vote went ahead, the Monarchy would be a risk from demands for a referendum to remove it from Scotland. (Salmond for President?)
DEFENCE The “Yes” movement is playing fast and loose with UK security. A Scotland without Trident would not get into NATO. No UK Government would give work to Scottish shipyards after independence and therefore the Clyde yards would be closed and work moved to English ones (BAE has intimated something along those lines today).The facilities at Faslane would have to be moved south to England. Other defence assets e.g. Rosyth, Lossiemouth are also likely to go. There would be a massive loss of jobs, not only from closure of bases but from loss in supporting business e.g. shops.
THE NHS The scare stories about the NHS being privatised are nonsensical. The Scottish Parliament has full control over the NHS in Scotland and only they could decide to privatise it.
IMMIGRATION With the remainder of the UK so worried about immigration, a border of some sort being set up is highly likely, even if it not a full one with passport checks, although that is not beyond the realms of possibility.
And so on, and so on. I haven’t even started on Pensions.
I fear the worst tomorrow, I really do. There, that’s cheered you up, hasn’t it, GNB?
@MW
The points you highlight are exactly what the BT campaign have been doing. The issue is that they came across as scaremongering. Not helped by Government Ministers saying a CU makes sense :(
The issue is that both sides have experts that counter others. Ian Woods estimates wer not helped by the fact he had previously stated there were 25 billion barrels in a report he authored. People like Alex Kemp also ridiculed his claim.
As demonstrated last night by monkeys hraphs Scotland has actually run a lower deficit than the UK over the last 5 years.
It is exactly the sort of either easily disproven or muddled message negative campaign that has seen us where we are tonight.
I really don’t see Scotland wanting to join NATO. Why should they?
A part of me really wants to see a Yes vote, just to see those guys trying to get by on emotive appeals fall flat on their faces when they can’t deliver and I really want a picture of their faces when they see their income and budget for post-Independence Scotland. Unfortunately, like a vase, once something is broken, it’s going to be very difficult to unbreak it, even glue can’t erase the cracks, so once they go, chances are high they’ll stay gone.
I don’t think that will happen though, so we’re left with another decade of “Yes” movements.
@Observer
I really don’t see Scotland wanting to join NATO. Why should they?
Because they are America’s bitches.
Well, that’s part of the reason. Scotland’s bit of the GIUK gap and Norwegian Sea is fundamental to how NATO works, so the US is very keen that someone is keeping an eye on it. And since the Scots wouldn’t have access to AWACS etc otherwise, they need help from NATO on that front.
The SNP used to be very anti-NATO, but have come round from no NATO, to Partnership for Peace, to wanting to become full members. Part of it is that voters are very pro NATO, and the Nats are so desperate for Yes votes they pretty much sacrifice every other principle that might give people a reason not to vote Yes, no matter how incoherent it ends up being. The currency thing is the obvious example – Scots want to keep the pound by 4:1, so that’s why Salmond has ended up wanting to keep sterling at any cost, even if it means sterlingisation which means he loses much of his financial industry and hands over interest rates to a BoE that doesn’t have to take Scotland’s interests into account.
@APatS
The Wood review merely cited existing DECC 2013 forecasts of 12-24 billion barrels. Their 2014 forecast is 11.1-21 billion barrels – so 16 is just the midpoint, but to be honest anything much more than 16 seems a bit hairy without a bit of pixie dust – it would need something like UK shale being a lot more successful than it looks at the moment (and most of that would be in England). Kemp seems to be being misinterpreted – he forecast three discoveries a year on average (compared to the record of 29 in a year), his central prediction was 16.75-18.75 billion barrels with a bit of help from the taxman.
@el Sid – I disagree – I think having got the precious “yes” vote with no way back, Salmond will ensure that he doesn’t join NATO provided he can find a way to blame the English (which he will, probably around the Trident discussion)…he will then revert to Free State style Neutrality, confident in the knowledge that we have no choice but to take up the slack between us.
Independence is a vehicle for his ambition, and provided he goes down in history as the modern successor to Braveheart, he cares nothing for what Scotland looks like in the wake of his triumph…and less than nothing for the impact on his neighbours…although as a default position he would normally choose the course that does England harm…
GNB
El Sid, America cares about the GIUK and the old SOSUS line, Scotland can get along fine without it. And is there really a reason to remain pro-NATO once the vote is over?
Amazing how many people here thinks Salmond is going to keep his word. :) He really seems to have a PR problem!
You both missed my first point. The US very much wants Scotland in NATO, and can make it very awkward for Scotland if that doesn’t happen. For instance, it would be quite difficult to be a modern Western economy with ~20% of GDP from financial services without membership of the World Bank, IMF, UN etc etc. The US can stop/delay all those things from happening.
There’s also the practical problem, that Salmond’s envisaged SDF has very little by way of long-range ISR assets, would not be party to Five Eyes etc etc. Even just operating their T23’s and Typhoons will probably involve ripping out a whole lot of kit before NATO allows them to be handed over.
@Observer
Conversely, you think that Salmond will be in power for ever. The Scottish parliament is structured to make an outright majority very hard to achieve, 2011 was a bit of a freak result because the main opposition was in such complete chaos that many unionists ended up voting SNP. It’s likely there will be at least one Holyrood election before independence is achieved.
Sid, think you overestimate the US in both their reach and their ability to plan ahead. The US doesn’t act. it reacts. Which means that probably no one is thinking of the GIUK gap at all. The younger generation may not even know what that is.
“Conversely, you think that Salmond will be in power for ever.”
Nah, think that’s Monty who thinks Salmond will try for the post “President for Life”. :) Me? I know elections make a revolving door of authority.
@ APATS
Well said, I was on the NO side until a few years ago. Its funny how being told how crap and incompetent you are by a group of people can change the mind and foster a desire to prove them wrong.
I keep hearing about the UK being one of the most successful unions in blah blah blah which was true up to about 1870. Its worth noting that today the UK is the second poorest English speaking western nation in the world. Only New Zealand has a lower per capita GDP than the UK. The Republic of Ireland was the poorest part of the UK and even after all its troubles in recent years it still has a per capita GDP above the UK. People who seem to think of the Union as successful seem to generally live quite close to the M25. Take a stroll through Sheffield or Burnley or the East end of Glasgow and then tell me how successful this union currently is.
Martin, I really don’t mind them going independent, but the problem is that the situation is being sold as the cure to all problems. Any potential budget shortfall is being plastered over by “pump more oil” like a mantra and there is no plan for an increase in manufacturing or new industries for diversification. I was also worried about the ability to ship, but APATS said that the capacity is there, so I’ll take his word for it.
Then there is the inward looking focus that I mentioned before. To get big as a country, you need to look beyond your borders and export, local domestic markets simply can’t cut it. If the SNP had said something like “our ministers spent the last year looking around the globe for overseas investors and have a list lined up” or “we planned for an increase in industries and will upgrade the ports to handle increased trade”, it would be massively reassuring that even if financial ties to England was cut off, money is still flowing in and manufacturing would go up. I really have not seen the outward focus of anyone from the SNP yet, they are mostly strictly local unless prodded by members of the public. My bet is that post-independence, they’ll simply coast on market tides.
Money doesn’t just roll in, you have to work for it.
Think the whole SNP platform can be summed up like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO23WBji_Z0
I think its pretty safe assumption that what the Scottish people want to have isn’t that far from what a lot of northern England (where I was born and grew up), wales, the south west and the midlands want as well.
The majority want an economy which creates jobs for them (and not in coffee shops or macdonalds) and their families, which give them a decent standard of living. They mostly don’t work in professional or financial services industries and these sectors don’t contribute much to the local economy. Outside direct government investment (eg rebuilding the arndale centre are after the IRA bomb in Manchester, redevelopment of parts of Tyneside) large chunks of the economy haven’t really recovered from the end of large scale manufacturing in the UK. All of these areas are poorer than Scotland is by any measure.
The SE and London benefits hugely from the financial services and professional services industries plus all of the scale effects which come from the sheer size of London (and remember there are a lot of hot money from overseas investing in London property as well). It may be that eventually the whole country becomes London commuter belt (the proposed high speed rail link will primarily has this effect), but that is still a long way away.
The way the UK economy has been run since 1980 (I think that’s a reasonable inflexion point) has focused on London and the SE (plus Edinburgh and Aberdeen) primarily. This is the reason why there are so few tory MPs in any of these areas and why Cameron now runs a coalition government and may not win in 2015.
Realistically, it is impossible to say what an independent Scotland’s economy would look like, but it is reasonable to say that Denmark, Ireland, Norway all confirm that it is possible to be an independent country of that size (Sweden is only a little bigger). SNP have to sell independence on the idea and hope and not on the facts, which can’t be proven by either side.
That better together has failed to sell any reason why the both kingdoms should actually stay together except that its too difficult, too expensive, to divorce. A campaign based on fear may well work today (and remember, that perhaps there is only 30 % core support for independence right now), but with devo-max coming and even less interest in what happens in Westminster politically outside what will appear as negatives to most Scottish voters, the likelihood of independence will most likely increase with time.
I also think that Scottish devo-max will play well in wales (which will increasing want the same with the same share of the economic pie) and may eventually play well in part of England outside the SE/London.
There’s an old saying be careful what you wish for you just might get it.
http://www.whatinvestment.co.uk/financial-news/banking-and-savings/2470687/stephanie-flanders-what-investors-should-worry-about-if-scotland-votes-for-independence.thtml
Flanders continued: ‘For example, it is possible that wrangling over the separation arrangements will dent UK economic confidence and activity in the coming months, putting the first interest rate rise from the Bank of England on hold. The loss of oil revenues might not be a net loss to the exchequer, given that the remainder UK would no longer be sending slightly more money up to Scotland than it gets back in tax revenues. But oil exports would clearly be affected. Other things equal, lower interest rates and a higher current deficit would point in the direction of a lower pound.’
Much market discussion has centred on the scale of the banking and financial sectors’ contribution to the UK economy, and the possible impact on the sectors following a yes vote. Flanders remarked: ‘The total assets of Scottish banks total around 1,254 per cent of an independent Scotland’s GDP compared to the UK’s current position of 492 per cent.
‘Given the scale of the financial institutions concerned and their importance to the UK financial system, it is safe to assume that contingency plans are under way at the Bank of England to reassure savers and investors in the immediate aftermath of any yes vote and prevent any damaging run.’
Oil is 1.5 percent of uk GDP and falling a rounding error at eu wide GDP the majority of which is domestic consumption the only obsession with North Sea oil is in Scotland.
Nick – as I noted above some time back, the South East has its own problems, masked entirely by the ghoul of London. An example; the local councils all state there is a housing shortage and one that is getting worse exponentially; looking at their projections the biggest (by orders of magnitude) driver are the migrants coming to our area because there is a perception there’s easy money down here. But its not so simple – by numbers the pressure is brought by arriving migrants (from where is not stated, as in whether these be immigrants from abroad or people from other regions in the UK), however a second pressure is that of the over-wealthy of London who look at the Southern & Home Counties as a resource for country living and buy second/third homes as trinkets to burn a few pounds off the bonus. By monetary value, this is the greatest pressure. Hence the councils want new homes for the not exceptionally wealthy including much affordable housing and so approve many (too many) housing developments, but the greedy developers follow the money and build Executive Homes targeted at the weekend pad market for the Wig-headed Bankers* of foul London. Result? A huge number of over-spec’ed new builds on tiny plots sold at prices way outside the budget of the council’s needy families. The locals find they cannot compete with the second-home brigade, moreover prices generally for all sorts of basic goods & services in the area are driven upwards. The housing need is unsatiated, the countryside is turned to ugly suburbia (most modern estates bear stronger resemblance to Her Majesty’s Prisons than to country villages), the influx of the undeserving and overpaid wrecks the local values such that those that were here for generations find themselves a sub-class beneath the new strata of cash-flashing weekend commuters.
So its not just the overtly poor areas of the country that struggle. The overspill of city players from London masks much the same issues for normal folk in the South East. If you don’t understand the scale of the problem, try moving on the arterial routes in/out of London on Friday afternoon when the city pukes out its undeserved wealthy to their pads in the country and on Sunday evenings when it gulps them all back again.
In a just world, second homes would be taxed to the hilt as the unnecessary luxury they are; the council would be able to negotiate with the developer to allow only the housing that is needed and not that which the developer will get richest by building; and for good measure the self-proclaimed important bankers would be paid what they’re worth not what they think they deserve.
*wig-headed bankers – see what Dr Spooner had to say about them
@ Mark
“The loss of oil revenues might not be a net loss to the exchequer, given that the remainder UK would no longer be sending slightly more money up to Scotland than it gets back in tax revenues”
As Monkeys tables pointed out though the money spent in Scotland compared to tax revenues is better than the UK as a whole. Scotland has ran a lower deficit than the UK, an average of 1.2% lower over the last 5 years.
1.5% of UK GDP would be about 16% of Scottish GDP and then you have things like the Clair Ridge coming online which may contain 5-6 Billion Barrels and see the Atlantic overtake the North Sea.
As I like to say to the doom mongers, Scotland would be the unluckiest small country in the world being cursed with that Oil if Ireland had it then they would be begging to rejoin the UK.
Scaremongering has brought us to where we are today :(
The question alluded to a “to do” list.
Six years after the financial crisis and the books of Lehman are still being unwound. Unwinding the UK will be immeasurably more complex and difficult. In the highly unlikely event of a yes vote things will not happen quickly if for no other reason than HMG has done no preparatory work. In the meantime, our armed forces may be called upon at any time to to get their boots dirty. The maintenance of morale therefore must be job No 1.
On day one, ie tomorrow, every serviceman, Scottish and otherwise should be told by HMG, through their CO’s that every serviceman’s job is guaranteed within their normal term of service. That every Scot serving in the British Army, and anyone serving in a Scottish regiment will be given a choice as to where they serve when the time eventually comes to cut the line.
Chris
I understand that problem too. There are plenty of poor areas in London, before you look outside. The Ghoul as you call it is going to eat itself (and its political supporters if we’re lucky) I think. Hope anyway. Whilst I’m currently an expat (job relocated) I lived in London and the SE East for the last 30 years. I’m not exactly poorly paid, but it would be touch and go whether we could afford to buy the central London flat we lived in today. Property prices are forcing working Londoners ever further from their jobs. This can’t be sustainable in the long run.
@ Chris
‘the council would be able to negotiate with the developer to allow only the housing that is needed and not that which the developer will get richest by building; ‘
That happens now, you can only build what you get permission for.
@Mental Crumble
‘On day one, ie tomorrow…’
In fairness they can’t. No-one knows how big each force will be.
(Still going for a NO vote anyway)
APATS, Martin
I understand the sentimental attachment the English have to the Union with Scotland (and vice versa) and I do feel our shared history for the last 300 hundred years is a valuable “asset”, which shouldn’t underplayed, but.
I can understand the better together fear campaign highlighting the problems, unknowns, risks etc being used to keep the union, but I don’t think I’ve heard a single positive reason why we are better together today. Even Gordon Brown, who does seem to be passionate about this, seems silent in the London media coverage. Has the case been better set out in Scottish media (I know there is little media support for the yes campaign).
If we were negotiating the union today, I think a pertinent question to ask today, is what is the economic case for Union for England.
We’ve heard all the negative reasons that have been given to Scotland, but it must follow that these should mostly be positive reasons for the English economy ?
The only one I find convincing is the forex cost of translating from UK pound to Scots pound (or euro) post independence. This is hardly a unique issue, but perhaps would be bigger impact as the number of export/importers would increase ?
The Bartnet formula subsidy can be offset by the positive effects on UK balance of trade from Oil and Whiskey revenue (very important in the 1980s and 1990s, but less so today)..
Banking is neutral really. The issue is that RBS/HBOS would be much too big to be supported by the Scottish economy GDP (after all sorting out both was almost to big for the UK economy as a whole). Like HBOS, when it bought Midland Bank, The Bank of England would force both banks to relocate to London if they wanted to continue to have a significant banking present in E&W (even before you consider the loan book).
topman – then there is a disconnect between the stated need in the Local Development Plan and the developments permitted. Wherever the break is, it needs to be sorted before the whole of the South East becomes a suburban sprawl of tacky executive hovels with interspersed leisure centres, the only green fields being the executive golf courses.
Interesting to note according to Wiki (fountain of all truth) the UK manufacturing sector has a greater contribution to GDP than banking & finance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom Perhaps we should reduce the Investment Banker’s income to that of the factory worker and see how well he works then? Or up the shopfloor wages to banker standard and watch the effect on growth in exports?
Topman
re developers. True, but it really depends on who is giving the permission. That comes down to which party flavor is in power locally and in Westminster (Edinburgh) which has final approval powers. Money talks generally to either party.
Chris
The wiki numbers you refer to come from a tax analysis HMG undertook. The original report was covered in a briefing which came across my desk a few years ago (you know the sort which isn’t publically available, which you can sign up to for free or at a cost).
The difference is that you have many more smaller diverse manufacturing companies as opposed to a small number of really massive banks and trading businesses. Fewer of them are in London either.
@ Nick
RBS and HBOS pay their corporation tax to who? They can take their name plate wherever they like. Unless Scotland is going to become the only country in the world not to use banks then they are going to require banks. Scotland already runs a lower deficit than the UK does so Barnett subsidy is a myth as the subsidy required by the rest of the UK is over 1% greater, it just does not have a name.
Look around the world at the countries with the highest levels of equality and GDP per capita they tend to be the smaller more socially democratic countries. I personally believe that both the RUk and an I Scotland would be worse off apart than together but when you look at the evidence and success of Ireland, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, sweden, Finland etc then you begin to see the attraction and with the exception of Norway none of those countries have been blessed with the natural resources that Scotland has.
Do you really believe Scots are too stupid to be a successful as those countries?
It’s not scare mongering apas it’s simple fact. Salmon has a vision of a Scottish future were all it’s major companies and finance centre will not be based in Scotland with a currency controlled else were and the end on major shipbuilding and where large swaths of its defence industry will simply end. A future were he talks about green economies and social responsibly but bets the farm on big oil. I welcome a yes vote.
@Mark
The vote is not about Salmond it would be about the people of Scotland making decisions based in Scotland for Scotland. The one thing I agree with him on is his proposal for a cross party team to negotiate and immediate elections on Independence. The evidence of other small countries without Scotlands resources show how successful it can be when you have full economic levers and set policy to suit.That is what is attracting Yes voters, that and being told they will fail by the likes of you of course.
What makes me vote No si that I do not believe that the pain will be worth it and I like the UK, there would be difficulties for an I Scotland but the simple fact is that unless you think Scots uniquely incapable compared to the Irish, Finns, Swedes, Danes etc then there is no argument.
APATS
I don’t know enough about either bank, but I would suspect that as Scottish registered companies, at worst moving their head office function to London would impact a few hundred to a few thousand jobs. For RBS, the Natwest business they acquired will be heavily administered from London already (and their international business will be managed from London anyway). For HBOS, the same is true for the Halifax.
When it comes to Corporate tax, this is effectively paid into Westminster (like business rates) even if it is administered in Scotland. Whilst you might notionally say the both groups (AVIVA as well) corporate tax bill will be lost to Scotland, that tax isn’t part of the Scottish budget anyway (essentially it comes back via Westminster funding). The businesses Scottish subsidiaries or branches will pay corporate tax on their Scottish business to Edinburgh post independence.
This is why I think the economic arguments set out by both sides of the debate are not to be trusted. The real economic situation post independence for both parties is an unknown publically (HMG might have a better idea, but that would require very detailed analysis of a lot of different data sets going back many years. I doubt that this has been done). I find the fear arguments generally to be poorly argued personally and more propaganda than fact.
The currency debate is the most significant, but I don’t think setting up a Scottish central bank and currency to be an insurmountable obstacle. The liquidity on the international debt market would be quite low initially, but that would change with time. Remember, iScotland would divorce owing (probably) a fair sum to the UK. The effect of Scottish default on the UK economy would imply a degree of implicit support as the impact would too negative on the UK to contemplate for the Bank of England.
Apparently devolution was a mirage :-)
More seriously, I Scotland *won’t* have the most important economic levers in the form of monetary policy. What’s more, the Yes campaign boast about just that, despite everyone else quite reasonably, after the Euro’s example, ruling out their preferred option. If they said we’ll use the pound until we set up a SC pound, it would all make sense. I get the impression that the SNP’s default position is still “independence within EU”. Unfortunately, that’s not on offer either!
I think the campaign has been very poorly managed. Quite rightly, BT emphasized the negative bits first like the pound, the EU, difficulties in over reliance on oil income. What I then expected was that they would switch over to the positive stuff later on. Selling the benefits of a Union that produced the biggest and most benign empire the world has ever seen, spawned the worlds most popular language and legal system (OK, that’s English, but there’s plenty of Scot’s working in the UK legal system!), led the abolition of the slave trade, saved Europe from totalitarian’s several times, and even now is ahead of the game in Europe’s development (no one is going to look at the Euro zone and say “great idea!”) seems like an easy sell to me. And they even speak the same language!
I’m hoping for a No, and I’m also hoping for full devo max for all our nations. Tax and spend locally on the same things, and if some of us were speaking with forked tongues, it will be obvious soon enough.
Apats – personally I don’t think its a question of a departed Scotland failing or not – very few states in the world fail as such – but whether Scotland (and the UK) would suffer less prosperity and greater cost. Clearly it was in the SNP’s best interest to decry any opposition to their masterplan in terms of “They think we will fail!” and equally clearly that perception struck a chord. By tomorrow the decision will be known and we all move on from there.
@ Nick
There would be much to negotiate but I think you sum it up with “real economic situation post independence for both parties is an unknown publically (HMG might have a better idea, but that would require very detailed analysis of a lot of different data sets going back many years. I doubt that this has been done). I find the fear arguments generally to be poorly argued personally and more propaganda than fact”
One side has painted a picture based on a series of extremely favourable events but instead of a reasoned positive campaign and highlighting the difficulties yet likely outcome involved in these events the other side simply went to the opposite end of the spectrum :(
The incompetence of the BT campaign has led us to face a nervous 24 hours :(
@ chris
I do not think the SNP have done that and the UK Government certainly has not. Even David Cameron has said Scotland could be a successful small country, some posters on here have however. The problem the BT campaign had was in opposing everything. See my para above.
Which one or two star from the rBritish Armed Forces will move over to be the Chief of the SDF? I don’t suspect they need more than a two star leader. Then which RAF/RN/Army officer will move over to the SDF? Don’t tell me they will “kidnap” the Commander of 51st Infantry Brigade?
@Chris
‘then there is a disconnect between the stated need in the Local Development Plan and the developments permitted.’
Perhaps in your area yes. The development plans have to sign off by a central gov audit team. This means they have to meet the variuous requirements, correct planning, costings, extra schools etc.
I think you can ask to see it once it’s been OK’d.
@ Nick
‘That comes down to which party flavor is in power locally and in Westminster (Edinburgh) which has final approval powers.’
It does depend. Generally the framework is signed off by the gov centrally. Then each decision is upto the council, unless it’s ‘called in’
I am half-Scandinavian, half-Scottish. I’ve lived and worked extensively in the countries whose models have been used as the basis for SNP independence future planning which I have considered in detail (business requirement, personal imperative), with access to professional advice.
The Scottish public will experience difficulty adapting culturally to the demands on lifestyle and labour pool that underpins these structures, and these demands have not been discussed effectively in public. Sturgeon alluded to it on Question Time in 2012, however it was quickly glossed over. Scots are UK-ingrained in mindset, or at least are far closer to the overall UK mindset than the Scandinavian one.
Consequently I do not believe a Scottish culture shift can be enacted in short enough a space of time to prevent an adverse impact on the country, which will see enforced changes to established public institutions over the next two decades contrary to SNP desires.
It took realisation of a post-WWII world with Scandianvian resources to effect the needed cultural changes in Scandinavia. They’re a couple of generations into the “project” now, and it’s still not working perfectly for them.
If Scotland wants more control over their own governance (beyond a dovolved government while still retaining MP’s in Westminster) but desire to retain the societal structure they have now, they should seize the offer of “DevoMax” and vote “No”.
Frankly right now I am worried whatever the outcome;
A Yes vote will lead to years of uncertainty etc etc.
But then again a No vote will lead to Westminster handing Salmond anything he asks for in terms of new powers, without real consultation or risk assessment.
Then there is the question of England, surely if Scotland gets devo max there is no question any longer about having a devolved English parliament, without it England will never have anyone advocating for it. Westminster MP’s will always be elected on both English and UK policys + Scottish MP’s will have a say on what happens in England. A Westminster where MP’s are purely elected on UK wide policies, with a seperate English parliament electing members on English policies is the only way.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/how-to-invade-independent-scotland-195
If Scotland does give a Yes vote and as implied will default on the its ‘share’ of the existing UK National Debt GBP1,425bn at the moment (but if you want nightmares watch this http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/ ) at 8% would give a iScotland share of GBP114bn that’s debit. Writing it off would be political suicide FOREVER for which every party controls rUK ,a coalition of some sort next May. Could the rUK actually afford the increased debt burden of loosing 8% of its GDP and the Tax revenue from Scotland including the OIL/GAS revenues , our economy is all ready very fragile ,spending cuts or tax hikes to maintain the payments to keep the GBP financial position in the world would be very damaging long term. I bet the Germans are very glad now we are not in the Euro after sorting out Greece etc.
How would we recover this amount ? Bailiffs ?Sanctions ? Blockade with the RN and Excise seizing a portion of each ships cargo (Scotland is surrounded by sea and us remember – note to MoD don’t give iScotland any SSN). Invade? Are we about to get a hidden offshoot of the Kim family north of our border :-)
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/4/5/1365156537199/North-Korean-leaders-009.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2CNTLI4LLE4-5NvXm9VwmfbSLlghvrmPgNNBAHTBu5j6wWqxNvw
Monkey
Actual default is never do option unless you’re mad (just look at Argentina). My observation is that the significant risk of Scotland defaulting on UK debt, means that the UK exposure to Scotland must be a prime concern. In practice, the UK will effectively have to implicitly under-write Scottish debt to avoid having that default risk implied into the UK position. This is what the Bank of England announced on UK current debt a few months ago (ie whatever happens re independence, he UK stands behind the entire amount).
(if you’ve read any of the discussion 2008/10 on the too big to fail banks and their implicit national “guarantee” you’ll know what I mean. Robert Peston’s blog at BBC had relatively good coverage).
I think the 8 % 114 billion number is probably too large as Net UK government assets are almost certainly greater than debt. Remember much of that asset isn’t valued at all (or valued at depreciated cost not market value). A large chunk of old UK debt is at historically quite low rates (as is all the current new debt which has been raised since 2008) and at a quite long repayment date (10 year plus). Although the total debt number iScotland might acquire on independence is high, the debt terms should be pretty good.
Again context – 114 billion is roughly what the UK raised to fund the deficit in 2008 to 2012 annually.
Article from the Telegraph by Niall Ferguson, a pro Unionist, on how is own country has disintegrated into the pro-Union camp and anti-English camp.
On if the SNP failed to lead iScotland into a Scandinavian paradise he feels iScotland will revert back to its historic divisions.
“For most of the early modern period, the Scots kingdom was Europe’s Afghanistan. In the Highlands and the Hebrides, feudal warlords ruled over an utterly impoverished populace in conditions of lawlessness and internecine clan conflict. In the Lowlands, religious zealots who fantasised about a Calvinist theocracy – government by the godly Elect – prohibited dancing, drinking and drama. John Knox and his ilk were the Taliban of the Reformation. Witches were burnt in large numbers in Scotland, not in England. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11102126/Scottish-referendum-Alone-Scotland-will-go-back-to-being-a-failed-state.html
@Nick: like you, I think default would be insane for iScotland. But don’t rule it out. If they vote yes, Salmond seems to be of the opinion he holds all the cards. Barring the effect of the oil on rUK’s balance of payments, I think the rUK holds all the cards and can afford to wait. That’s not going to go down well, and given the amount of thought the SNP has put into this (not a lot, despite pushing this variant of independence for 30+ years), doing something stupid is entirely possible :-(
A “Yes” vote does not mean Scotland gets everything inside Scottish borders on Friday.
It’s a mandate to negotiate independence.
Two key aspects:
1) The referendum must be decisive. Would a 5% majority count as decisive? 10%? 1%?
2) Transfer of assets is from the UK to Scotland. The Bill states that transfers and agreements must be in the best interests of Scotland and in the best interests of the rest of the UK.
TOC
An interesting question on the majority. If there is one, it will be very small I think. However, the opposite applies to. For Better Together to put the issue off the agenda for 25+ years, the no majority needs to be 60:40 or 70:30.
Actually 49/51 (if that’s what we get) actually works for Salmond and the SNP. They get Devo-max to consolidate their power in Scotland (and gives them time to replace Labour as the party of the left in power) and diminishes Westminster’s influence and importance (as well as giving an excuse for all the things that might go wrong). Most commentators seem to think Salmond was playing a longer game and devo-max was his preference anyway.
The current vote doesn’t look like being a good result for the Union (or Labour in Scotland).
@ Nick – Not sure if you are aware but All Scotrish banks (not that they are particularly Scottish) have already announced they will redomocile in London.
All these banks already have more employees in London anyway than Edinburgh. Of the staff they do have in Scotland most if not all will stay put as its simply to expensive to move the jobs to London and why fix it if it ain’t broken. Given that most if these banks already run significant parts if their UK banking operations in India, Malaysia and the Philippines its unlikely to be particularly difficult for them to do it from Edinburgh.
@ APATS
You sure you are voting no? would you not feel better voting yes?
@ Observer
How does Singapore manage then? I would say given Singapore’s divorce from a union with Malaysia it’s done pretty well for its self?
The SNP does not have to line up international investors. Scotland’s industries are working close to maximum (we only have 6% unemployment) and our two principal exports of Whisky and Oil are doing pretty well and are likely to continue to do so. we may see some loss of cross border services with England but then we are more likely to begin supplying services domestically. ship building on the Clyde is likely to improve after we get rid of BAE. we all know for a fact that the Royal Navy has probably 8 and at best 13 surface ship orders for the next 30 years. That’s not going to keep even a single yard open in Glasgow. Removing the SSBN force from the Clyde also allows us to begin drilling in the west coast where we know their is oil. Glasgow is much more likely to benefit from an oil boom than a few scraps from the MOD table.
From http://www.uklife.org/yield-curve
“We must finance ~£530Bn of debt in the next 3 years, and over 1 trillion in the next 6 years.”
At the moment due to global market confidence in the strongest recovering European Nation we are getting very low short term renewal investment rates (5 year Gilts).We have been using these rates to provide the Quantative easing and renewing/additional Government debt .
If our repayment burden remains the same with less income how do you think the markets will react in terms of risk assessment on the interest rates offered. An example of how the market reacted to various nations inability to pay.
(reset the top left toggle box to 2010 – the hight of the Euro crisis)
Historic Greek bond rates :-
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/government-bond-yield
Historic Spanish bond rates :-
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/government-bond-yield
Historic Italian bond rates :-
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/italy/government-bond-yield
If we are saddled with a large extra burden the Sovereign Investment Funds around the world that own the bulk of the Worlds Governments debt will capitalize on our vulnerability and make us pay considerably higher rates to renew the half trillion plus worth of bonds maturing in the next three years . The key word is capitalize , they are in it for what they can make for their own countries benefit not ours.
@ Nick – Devo max was Salmond’s hope because until two weeks ago their was no chance of Scotland going independent.
Its amazing what a media terror campaign run by English Toffs from London can do in such a short period of time.
I wonder what would happen in England if the European Union spent 4 years before a referendum telling them how poor and stupid they are how they could not even wipe their own backsides without Brussels supplying the toilet paper.
what’s even more amazing is that the very same people using these arguments about Scotland being too small and stupid are the very same people advocating the UK leaving the EU. They say their is no chance of Scotland getting membership of the EU and in the same breath they say that the EU will give the UK everything it wants when it leaves.
Martin
There’s been a lot of discoveries in the Norwegian sector at roughly Shetlands latitude and some interesting finds to the west of Shetland. Norway has very good exploration incentives (but a higher tax rate than the UK on production). I don’t know how well explored north of Orkney is or off the western isles, but incentivizing more exploration work would be a prime concern for an iScotland.
Our current government is incentivizing onshore shale gas exploration.
Martin
The irony amuses me immensely. The Brexit referendum will be even more divisive as you’ll be pitching European opinion, Big Finance, Big Industry and a chunk of UK politicians against mostly Tories and UKIPers supported by the Sun/Times (Murdoch), Daily Mail (Harmsworth family), Telegraph (Barclay brothers) et al.
This splits the anti-yes vote coalition down the middle. Opinion poles suggest the UK public is more evenly matched on this issue than Scottish opinion was a couple of months ago. Both sides will open the gates of hell to convince us they’re right. Cameron will try and head this off (if he’s in power) by announcing the deal of the century, but I doubt he’ll be able to carry much of his party with him as the terms wont be good enough for the UKIPer element.
I expect the Brexit coalition will try and derail any chance of a Labour government in 2015 and if not try and force Labour to hold the referendum anyway.
@ martin
‘Its amazing what a media terror campaign run by English Toffs from London can do in such a short period of time. ‘
I take you mean DC, that’s interesting. I take it you live in scotland? For my perspective it’s the labour politcians that seem to be scrabbling around to keep the union intact. Well that and all it’s MPs ;)
‘I wonder what would happen in England if the European Union spent 4 years before a referendum telling them how poor and stupid they are how they could not even wipe their own backsides without Brussels supplying the toilet paper. ‘
Turn a big majority into some sort N Korean election type majority !
@ Nick – There have been several discoveries in the Atlantic basin but little drilling has actually happened. It worth noting that one of the reasons oil revenues have dropped recently is the tax grab by Osborne on the North Sea in 2011 despite the fact the Office for Budgetary responsibility (Treasury Toffs Club) guaranteed us the tax rise would not affect oil production.
A better tax regime copying Norway in the Arctic should allow for more production in hard to get to places in the future.
@ Topman
The Labour no campaign in Scotland has been abysmal but it has tried to steer clear of calling the Scots useless.
Cameron is pretty much a none figure he is smart enough to keep his mouth shut. The Toffs causing the problem are George Osborne, Anyone that writes for the Telegraph and the Daily Mail and pretty much the entire Tory party. Osborne has been especially good for the Yes campaign. every time he opens his gob he adds about 5% to the Yes Campaign. Unfortunately they have caught on to the fact and taken him off the TV for the last ten days. The Spanish are starting to be quite handy for the yes campaign now as well as are the technocrats in Brussels. The best way to get Scotland to stay is to follow the lead of Kate Moss and David Bowie and ask it to stay. Milliband has also been a really good win for the Yes campaign as well.
@Topman: “I wonder what would happen in England if the European Union spent 4 years before a referendum telling them how poor and stupid they are how they could not even wipe their own backsides without Brussels supplying the toilet paper. ‘
Turn a big majority into some sort N Korean election type majority !”
Nonsense. They would hold referendum’s non-stop until they got the “correct” result ;-)
Enough referendum bollocks.
Day One.
1. Ensure the full Chain of Command is laid out and understood, this has to include the interface with Civilian Government and Civilian Authorities.
2. Ensure the JOC is up and running. Battle rhythm is laid out and understood and comms are in place. These will have to include secure comms with Allies as required. (could tell some funny stories about a NATO HQ trying to speak to a USN HQ and Northwood securely).
3. Have clear CONOPS across all 3 services and ROE.
4. Ensure that all support services are in place. Logistics and medical.
5. have the required personnel and equipment to conduct day one tasking (QRA? OFsshore patrol? Alone or in conjunction with UK/NATO forces?)
6. A thousand other things :)
@ martin
Well I think it does matter where you are, I get the anti-conservative feel in the majority of Scotland. Something that is fairly unique across such a wide area. It’s a little hard to imagine such widespread dislike if I’m honest where I live it’s Con stronghold, then UKIP and a fair few Ind. More likely to see a pig in the sky than a labour or l/d politician!
Me I think they (DC and GO) only support the union because traditionally they do so in their party. I think they know they are unpopular and think they themselves will be politically better off with a YES vote. In certain parts of England it will be popular and then there are far fewer Labour MPs to worry about.
7. Replace JPA with something useful ;)
I’m not surprised Mr Cameron is not saying much.
If they vote yes, it’ll be a conservative victory in the next GE.
If they vote no, he’s saved “The Union”.
I’m surprised Mr Labour didn’t cotton onto this and rally the “yes” voters.
Actually, you guys got a more immediate problem than future split military command. If the vote goes the way I think it might, there is a chance of riots. Always a problem when you run politics on an emotional platform.
martin, yes we (and you :) ) made out better in the long run, but that does not mean the first few years were not a mad scramble. As I said, I would have a lot more respect for the SNP if they did run it this way, saying outright that the first few years would be bad as people got used to the new equation before the situation improves or that they planned for a potential drop in revenue and have taken steps to balance this than this current “18 months and all is well” fairytale they are peddling. But hey, politicians. When truth comes out of their mouths, you know they need to cut back on the alcohol. :P
Anyway, good luck in Scotland, hopefully no rioting.
Any notion that Scotland would collapse into an economic heap is ridiculous. They’ll be fine, broadly speaking.
The problem is that tax revenue will likely go down and borrowing costs up in the short term. That means that Salmond and co. either have to cut spending or raise taxes. I wonder if he’s pointed out to voters that most “small, prosperous nations like ours” tend to have quite high tax rates and yet often don’t provide a lot of the freebies and other treats he’s promised to keep?
That’s the real issue for iScotland, whether it can afford to underwrite all of Salmonds promises over the next decade or so.
Apats – ref Point 6 – I think you wrote that down verbatim from the SNP Defence White Paper?
Chris.B – crikey! A point on which we entirely agree!
@ Chris,
It’s a champagne moment!!!
@ Observer – I Think few are under the illusion that their won’t be challenges in the early years. Clearly there will be and clearly like Singapore and Ireland we will over come them, Compared to Singapore and Irish Independence Scottish independence will be a piece of piss.
However one of the major misunderstandings of the No campaign is to bang on and on about the NHS, Pensions and the benefit system.
They did not expect the young to get involved and cuts to the NHS, Pensions and benefits but maintaining free University education and a future sovereign wealth fund sound pretty good to me and quite a few other under 40’s.
Unfortunately the political establishment in the UK seems to think that social justice involves dishing out ever larger amounts of dole money to wasters and increasing state pensions by what ever the grey vote wants. They have no new ideas just pumping ever more money into a 70 year old welfare system which is fundamentally flawed.
Living in a smaller country that does not just go out and borrow billions to buy votes does not sound like a negative to me and its interesting that our right of centre party (also known as the Conservatives, Tory’s or simple the English national party) seems to be against fiscal prudence and its only defence of the union seems to be that it can borrow more money and print it as well. The UK is a fairly small country in the bigger scheme of things and it will eventually pay the price. Better for Scotland to deal with those issues now while we can still bring in fresh blood from overseas and we have 40 years of oil revenue left.
Just for information the term iScotland has been cursed publicly http://upgrade.forargyll.info/?cid=2731096
and along with rUK made it onto the watch list of the Oxford Dictionary for potential future incorporation
@Chris B. & Chris – surely a whiskey moment before we all boycott it tomorrow morning? I have to say I think Salmond’s biggest potential problem is directly tied to his greatest triumph, which is to get people who have not even registered to vote for years to turn out on his side, apparently in defence of a more generous welfare state. The difficulty he may soon now face is that unless Scotland is very different to the rest of the UK there is a very strong class bias to both registering to vote, and then actually turning out to do it…with working people who own their homes and pay taxes being much more likely to do both, and people dependent on state benefit living in social housing much less likely to do either.
So a possibility exists that a large number of people who have never previously voted have just turned out to award themselves a pay rise with other people’s money that they may not get, or more charitably an old fashioned manufacturing job that it might be difficult to create…a state of affairs that may not end well, as far as I can see…
More generally, I note that the Shetland/Orkney Home Rule idea has popped up in all the London-based broadsheets again…is there anyone out there resident in those remarkable Islands with a view on that?
Given an imaginative Government with a bit of vision if there is a no vote we could take the opportunity to reform the set-up root and branch…personally, I’d use the Commons as an English Parliament and turn the Lords into a directly elected UK Parliament with responsibility for Defence and Foreign Affairs, Financial Stability and the Currency Union, maintaining an Independent Judiciary and ensuring Constitutional Propriety in the various components of the Kingdom…and take the opportunity to give seats there to the Channel Islands, Man and the BOTs…and indeed Shetland/Orkney…
GNB
Simon
“If they vote yes, it’ll be a conservative victory in the next GE.
If they vote no, he’s saved “The Union”.
I’m surprised Mr Labour didn’t cotton onto this and rally the “yes” voters.”
Simon, I agree with the two first statements but can’t see how the third follows on logically. If The “Yes” voters won, Scotland would become an independent country and Labour would lose 40 of their seats in the Westminster parliament. That could mean that they would find it difficult ever to get elected again. Or have I missed something?
@Martin – are you sure all your fellow secessionists are voting for free higher education, a sovereign wealth fund and higher immigration…if necessary at the expense of expenditure on health, benefits and pensions?
Certainly doesn’t look like that from here…
GNB
I tried my best to steer the thread back on track.
@ Martin
My biggest problem with the yes campaign was that they peddled an unrealistic line which was totally reliant upon everybody falling in line with their wished and somehow managed to convinve a block of voters you can have Scandinavian style services with Uk style taxation. A bit more honesty would have won my respect at least. I would have no issues paying more to get more but do not pretend it would not be required.
@Martin: I know Scotland has a bit of an issue with it’s age profile. But I’m really not sure inviting in a load more immigrants is going to be very popular. The other option of persuading the welfared-classes to get off their arses seems rather unpopular too, since it’s terribly “Tory” apparently. Of course, perhaps the SNP’s secret weapon is that those hated English will pay for said pensions. Time for another snifter methinks!
If the Northern Isles choose to remain under the umbrella of the rUK then how about the traditional home of the Home Fleet being resurrected. The Flotta Refinery could produce all the Heavy fuel oil for the fleet and the Jet Fuel for the planes as well as a new base for the deterrent. Huge deep natural harbour with numerous entrance/exit points .Our ships could wave to the mainland of iScotland with any gesture they thought (in)appropriate as they sailed by :-)
Mike W,
This pic sums it up.
This was also something I stumbled on.
Simon
Thanks very much for the reply, complete with table of statistics. I shall have to peruse them more carefully. If you don’t hear back from me on this one, then you will have proved your point!
@GNB
I have family living on Orkney, and from what I understand people there are not feeling the referendum joy. They are not generally keen on an independent Scotland or being part of said Independent nation,my uncle is most defiantly not for the yes vote which is an indication of how things are running there as he’s generally as anti establishment as they come and hates the Tories etc………
@Jonathan – so possibly not dreamland then? Can’t wait for Salmond’s reaction if it comes to anything…and if it does turn out to be no tomorrow, it would be wise if the new settlement were to redefine matters within Scotland as well as between the rest of us…
Funny old thing, self-determination…never know where it might end. :-)
GNB
Apas
“The evidence of other small countries without Scotlands resources show how successful it can be when you have full economic levers and set policy to suit.”
If you don’t have your own currency or control your own currency you have neither full control or ability to set policy and the fundamental bedrock of the economy is set by them that do. We see it with the euro and the effect it’s having on Ireland, Spain and Italy compared to Germany. As you mention salmond is betting on paying bills on North Sea oil which in 25-30 years will be gone and with it 16 percent of an I Scotland GDP, not to mention the jobs with shipbuilding and high tech sensors and munitions work for the mod. It’s an awfully large percentage of GDP to replace and I’ve not heard his plan to do it. The manifesto from the begining was dangle a 5 year carrot of goodies and slogan of Tories are bad
Just having a wee dram to celibrate….slange var !!
@ Mark
The same Irish that have a better standard of living, less inequality and higher GDP per Capita than the UK? That are not exactly begging to rejoin?
Inside the next 10 years atlantic Oil will have already outstripped N sea Oil, try looking up Clair Ridge and Clair Field and that is only the start. You mistake Salmond for Scotland and the simple fact is that with Scotlands resources and people they could do at least as well as the other small countries in Europe.
Martin, what you said sounds good to me too as a plan and should have been the platform from the start, not pure emotion and nationalism. Nationalism for the sake of goals is a good thing, nationalism for the sake of itself gets nowhere because nation building is a start, not an end. Think a lot of people here already mentioned that playing it straight with them actually gets more respect from them than plays on pure emotion.
Mark, self currency control isn’t really that big. Sure, you’re right in that it could be trouble if a crisis happens, but unless England is out to take down its own currency, it should be in their interest to maintain a fair currency level too. Of course, if the worse does happen, there is still the option of own currency. Others have already pointed out that Scotland does have the economic base for self sufficiency.
6% unemployment though, looks like there is still some slack that can be tightened, unless it’s “functional unemployment”? I.e disabled and elderly.
Agreed that the current platform being sold is a carrot which may not be as solid as expected. Ironically, that may be the weakest part of their plan. My money is on a No vote 40-60 or somewhere there.
Bad day to be a member of the police tomorrow.
@ Observer
The worst problem the Police will have is a few drunks. Scots are very well behave until somebody either spills their drink, insults their mum or puts them in uniform :)
Breaking (BBC Live stream):
22:35 YouGov survey of voters previously polled shows support for No at 54%. Yes at 46%
(Emphasis mine)
EDIT: Would 8% majority be “decisive”.
Apas
The Irish! trust me the Celtic tiger is well and truly bust. Parts of it have swaths of houses half built or semi completed developments, it would not be something I’d be hanging up as a model to follow. Think you know as well as I the free state would not join the uk even if hell froze over.
Observer
Control of your currency sets interest rates, which effect everyone with saving or a Mortgage controls inflation which set wage ect also commodity prices not to mention effects your imports and exports. So perhaps your right not too important, they maybe forced into the euro so wouldn’t necessarily be sterling. Well know in a few hours.
ROI might be persuaded to join a new Union.
The Federation of Islands including Gibraltar, Akrotiri and Dhekelia and the British Antarctic Territory.
Need a snappier title than FIIGADBAT though…
EDIT: Also need a cool new flag
@mark
The same Ireland that still has less inequality, 7.7% year on year growth and a higher GDP per capita, then we have Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Belgium all those other non viable small countries. Your entire premise is based on a set of bigoted assumptions
Interesting to note that nowadays most countries without a Central Bank (e.g. using another country’s currency) are capped at a AA credit rating…
APATS, hope so, the SNP is stoking up an emotional fervour, that is the biggest worry, and Scots are famous for rather insane things like wearing skirts in winter and tossing logs at each other. I bet haggis was created on a dare! :)
Mark, EU participation is a lot trickier than the referendum, they had years to lay out the groundwork for independence, they have not had time to work on the EU members for their votes yet.
Don’t see anything wrong with a pure Scots currency though, value will be lower than the pound, but it might be a good collectors item! If Scotland does go independent, I’d invest in the Scotish pound on the 2nd day, after the insecurity takes it down a few notches, then it has no where to go but up! :)
Mentioning Eire the British Government support Eire’s use of the pound until the mechanisms could be put in place for the launch of the Punt six years after Independence in 1928.
Assuming all new borrowing by an iScotland government is firmly written as been backed by the iScotands government and not the rUK , whether the repayment of the bond has to be in GBP or whatever currency that is selected it is irrelevant legally as far as we are concerned.The issue would be Scottish registered companies would have to raise capital in GBP,Euros,USD for some time until the Scottish currency is firmly established.
So for a few years the Scots Government could use the mechanism of the GBP for international trading until they choose one of their own and the worlds clearing banks catch up (it will take years for the banks to set up a new currency on their systems)
97 percent turn out, that’s impressive. At least whatever the result there will be a clear mandate.
Maybe the way forward for democracy is for direct voting on key questions to keep the electorate engaged and interested…
Jonathan – I recall my English teacher discussing the various forms of democracy with the class; when he got to Switzerland he explained they had a referendum for all policy changes. Every one. Hugely democratic he said, but the Gov’t was left impotent as it had no mechanism to do what was necessary if the populace didn’t like the idea. Sometimes I wonder if the country persisted in the practice, but never quite interested enough to actually find out…
I just had the extreme irreverent thought of “If the Irish currency is called the punt, why don’t we call the Scottish currency the Caber Toss, or Toss for short.”. :P
Physical humour. I’m ashamed of myself.
That fits rather well!
“I wouldnae give a Toss for that!’
ToC, a hit! A palpable hit!
Bearing in mind those who have at various points asserted that the UK is a small foggy island of no continuing importance in the World, I am intrigued to observe just how many people in Europe, amongst the Cousins and across the Anglo-Sphere are watching our little local difficulty with keen interest, making parliamentary statements on it and so on…
A mildly cheered Gloomy… :-)
@GNB September 18, 2014 at 4:55 pm
I would refer the Honourable Member to my comment on the September Open Thread at
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/09/open-thread-september-2014/comment-page-2/#comment-306694
@ Martin September 18, 2014 at 12:46 pm
“Its amazing what a media terror campaign run by English Toffs from London can do in such a short period of time.
I wonder what would happen in England if the European Union spent 4 years before a referendum telling them how poor and stupid they are how they could not even wipe their own backsides without Brussels supplying the toilet paper”
I think that the SNP has played a PR blinder by persuading people to think that simple statements of fact are actually abuse.
I cannot recall a single instance of anyone saying that an independent Scotland would not be able to be economically successful.
What I do recall is people saying that the SNP financial ideas did not add up (e.g. lower taxes & higher benefits) being portrayed as them saying that an independent Scotland was not able to manage and this line being repeated by the media.
@James Bolivar DiGriz – my thanks to my Right Honourable friend for his most helpful and informative intervention…interesting times ahead then…the MP for Orkney & Shetland referred earlier to conversations with both the UK AND Scottish Governments about the aspirations of his constituency for (much) greater local autonomy…interesting to me that he mentioned both…
GNB
@GNB – there’s no doubt that a Yes would have had massive repercussions across the world, not quite a Archuduke Ferdinand moment but getting close to it. Of course, those voting would not be thinking of that but it would have had all sorts of ripple effects – not least Brussels achieving their aim of regionalising the great powers and accruing more power to the EU and equivalents.
On Orkney/Shetland – there’s certainly been conversations between them and Westminster, quite what happens now that it looks like No is another matter.
A No vote then.
Let’s get cracking with T26 and MPA now we know where to build and base them!
Crikey, initial surges in the pound and stocks globally overnight. If that continues throughout today it’s a hint at the UK’s impact on the world stage.
Reasons to be cheerful.
Thank God for that. Lets get on with what needs to be done.
BTW, I’m not a fan of all subs being in Faslane: no I’m not think about the SNP’s round two, I just think something that important should be spread across two places. From what @APATS and public source material says, V and Successor class subs have difficulties getting into Devonport, which says Portsmouth to me…..
One whisky this morning to celebrate :-)
wf – there’s still HMS Dolphin… If you can get the City Council to rescind its ‘nuclear-free zone’ position that is. Then we could stick one of the retiring V-boats up on stands next to HMS Alliance as a new museum piece, although its nose might stick out a bit too much for comfort when the shiny new carriers approach the docks.
A note to Scotland from the far end of the country – glad you decided to stay in our fine historic sometimes quirky nation. Wouldn’t have been the same without you.
But now I’m looking forward to all the new powers we here in England are promised! Hoorah! Perhaps we should revert to the 1931 County Council structure? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/England_Administrative_1931.jpg Or if that’s a bit too complex, what about the Saxon administrative partitions? http://www.edmaps.com/anglo-saxon_kingdoms.jpg Home rule for Sussex, that’s the ticket
Thank God, Praise the Lord, etc. Now lets order those T26. Yes the 8 ASW & if the MoD is not so sure about the 5 GP versions, then go & order 6 of the proposed AAW version.
Let the Scottish Parliament have the North Sea oil money in return for scrapping Barnett & English taxpayers paying £1400-1600 extra for each Scot.
End Scottish over representation at Westminster in return for devomax.
Dual the A68 for a good road link between Edinburgh & London.
Bring East Coast rains up to 140 mph & West Coast up to 135 mph, as the railway industry wanted to.
” Bring East Coast rains up to 140 mph & West Coast up to 135 mph,”
I don’t think you’ll have many houses left after that. :P
Well, it sort of played out as expected, 40/60 +/- though it was closer to 45/55.
Personally though, I think this is more of a failure of the SNP than anything else, they made promises, but no plans to back up the promises and jumped the gun, using up their one chance in a generation for nothing. I don’t think they’ll be able to sustain next election with all the shortcomings they demonstrated.
Oh BTW, thank God no rioting.
Common sense prevails we are Greater as a whole than the sum of our parts.
With regards to a no vote ruining the chance of an independent Scotland “for a generation” it is likely that over the next twenty years or so the EU will fragment away from large powerful Nation States more centrally controllable regions paving the way for another Vote north of the border at some point. I know Prime Ministers struggle thinking beyond the next 5 years as being little more than lucrative Book deals, lecture tours and Directorships on as many boards they can manage to sit on along with the occasional stint as UN Ambassador for … But if it all starts again , and it will , Westminster needs to think ahead about all the points raised on the many many comments posted here and elsewhere. Should we aim to tie Scotland in so tightly to the Union it would be unthinkable to the vast majority never to consider leaving or plan for a more harmonious separation than would have been the s**t storm after a Yes vote yesterday. Move the deterrent when the Successors are commissioned etc.
@John Hartley
Yep get the T26 main gated as soon as possible to give the people of Scotland a positive message about staying in the union.
@Observer
I get the impression during the last week that the Scottish Labour party has been galvanised after a period of malaise within their ranks. They are now in a position to take the fight back against the SNP (secessionist traitors) going into the next Scottish election, but only if the promise of more powers is dealt with quickly and efficiently which takes me to the next issue…
“The English Question”
If Scotland is to gain more powers giving them a stronger parliament the same must be given to the English, the previous Labour government to protect their majority let this issue fester and it is one of the major reasons why we have got into this situation now.
I think the way forward and fit within the time-frame for Scottish Devo-Max is to stagger dealing with the English Question:
1) Recall Parliament for Monday
2) English Votes for English Laws NOW!
3) Emergency legislation to force a national constitutional convention after the next general election that will fully review restructuring to a more federal model. This must be legally binding so the next government cannot renege on that promise to protect their majority. (We are looking at you Mr Millipede).
4) Within that constitutional convention review Barnet.
I would be looking to the forming of an English Parliament that would sit somewhere in the Midlands (to avoid this whole Westminster thing going on at the moment). To ensure it is fair an independent commission would set the boundaries to ensure no one party has a massive advantage, like the German Bundestag I would have a fifty fifty voting system in that English Parliament, half by First past the post the other by Alternative Vote or Proportional Representation. The English parliament would operate similar to those in the devolved nations whilst Westminster would be the national government operating similar to the German Bundestag.
Then in respect of Barnet it should be reset gradually to avoid howls of complaint from Scotland and not give ammunition to the SNP (secessionist traitors) to a regional needs based model.
Finally compulsory eating of Asparagus and a shipping container for each family in the nation to satisfy the “Think Defence vote”…
@Fedaykin
1/ Yes indeed get the lazy b**tards back to work
2/ Yes indeed the West Lothian Question needs sorting until an English Parliament can be put in place , then a much reduced number of Westminster MP’s to decide UK issues with the boundaries the same as MEP’s constituencies , 78 seems more than enough to me if the US can get away with 100 in each house to decide Federal issues.
3/ Yes Indeed – constitutional reform is all ready promised regarding Scotland so expand it to include each UK member Nation to give the equal representation. The English Parliament/Assembly would join the Welsh Assembly , the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament with equal powers to control Social funding and have regional tax raising powers. DevoMax for all – it is only fair is it not if Scotland has its own identity and can demand this then the English can to , and the Welsh and Irish too for that matter.
4/ On the Barnett Formula – all three main parties have sworn to keep it in place as is (but not the minor parties such as UKIP)
Much of the UK is already orientated towards local control be it Education, Health, Police, Fire Services, etc so England taking local control is just as feasible as setting up the other Assemblies.
Observer Raising London-Glasgow trains to 135 mph & London -Edinburgh to 140 mph, would be done by upgrading existing tracks, so no house demolition involved. It was a railway industry study in the last couple of years. A potential alternative or supplement to HS2. Many modern trains on these lines are capable of these higher speeds now, but the track is not.
@Thread – Good news indeed, and I’m taking my whiskey in my porridge, having been awake to hear Glasgow and a number of the other big seats which confirmed the numbers to my great satisfaction…lets hope it does indeed galvanise the Westminster Vivarium into to getting to grips with the big issues it raises in a way that will secure the place for another 300 glorious years….
With you all on the T26 order, but I think we also need to address ourselves to very reasonable Scottish concerns about MPA and our dominance of our own sea-space and GIUK…we need to make a clear statement that we care about every inch of the old place, and are more than willing to look after it.
On one final point I heard Kurt Volker (ex-US Permanent Representative to NATO) on BBC R4 in the middle of the night – when the polls were closed, so no suggestion of influencing the outcome – and he pretty clearly said that NATO’s Nuclear position and our role in it was of material interest to the Alliance and the SNP position on Faslane was going to give them a problem in joining; I’d say that wasn’t a scare story, and I am more convinced than ever that Salmond did hope to wriggle out of his supposed commitment to NATO and become a neutral state provided he could blame our intransigence.
On a personal note and despite our differences, I’m glad @apats won’t need to think about changing uniform….
GNB
Having done the right thing and (just) got away with it, I feel we should also add to the gaiety of nations by encouraging the Catalans… :-)
A slightly mischievous Gloomy
A selling of souls this morning?
Would this split be good enough for a federation?
Good because it’s already done.
@monkey, A minor detail. The US Senate has 100 members (2 from each state), the House of Representatives has 435 (+6) members, allocated to the states proportional to their population.
Simon – I’d say not ideal down Sarf – the environs of Surrey and Royal Berkshire have I suggest very different challenges to the further fringes of Kent Sussex Hants Oxon & Bucks. Probably also true of the close Home Counties to the north east of London. Better (in my opinion) if around the capital there is a Home Counties region with the South East and east of England regions starting further out?
The regions were an invention of the EU weren’t they? What’s wrong with counties anyway?
@Simon – Prescott tried that idea in respect of the North East and it crashed and burned…an English Grand Committee and more powers for City/Regions (around all the core Cities) and some big Counties like Cornwall or Essex is much more in line with the pattern of English political life. Labour keep on going back to the Standard English Regions solution because it avoids answering the West Lothian Question (because they can’t, being desperate to keep on using Scottish MPs to spend English money).
Cameron might actually come in on the back straight and up a big winner from this…
GNB
Aye, that one’s the EU lines I believe. Misses Borders and Northumberland style cross England/Scotland border issues.
Not to mention no proposal of opening up to the Crown Dependency’s who currently have no elected representation for matters that Westminster dictate to them.
@JBDG
Thanks for the heads up , but 100 for each house will be more than enough , the 800 or so today in each is vastly too many for dealing with Federal issues .Not upper or lower not commons or lords and truly secular ie no Bishops , both house freely elected , if a life peer wants a go he/she can sit in either house and be elected there not get in because of some ‘perceived’ service to the country which was more likely the old boy network.
The English Parliament to have about 200 seats in each house (1 per 250k population) , Scotland having 129 for 5mn people (1 per 38k population)is just mad and 60 for 3mn in Wales (1 per 50k population)equally so and NI having 108 for 1.8mn (1 per 17k population)?
@TOC “Crown Dependencies” – agreed – I somewhere floated a proposal to make the Commons the English Parliament, and set a reformed and elected Lords to the short list of tasks identified over on the Open Thread, a structure that could readily admit Members from all the BOT’s as well as the Crown Dependencies…you could also expand it if anyone else wanted to join… :-)
GNB
John, I was trying to be funny. Your original had a typo of “rains” instead or “trains” and 135 mph rains is a super typhoon.
Gloomy,
I was looking at the GR 1997/2010 result split and it fits quite nicely with the EU regions in that if you accept that concentrations of particular party seats represents regional thinking and attitudes then obviously Scotland stands out, as does Merseyside, Newcastle, Wales and Cornwall/Devon.
Your reasons for why the EU borders (or standard regions) are not good are based on political will (sneakiness) rather than democracy, sensibility and the people… unfortunately, you are probably right ;-)
“The regions were an invention of the EU weren’t they? What’s wrong with counties anyway?”
Too many? Too small?
monkey
“Not upper or lower not commons or lords and truly secular ie no Bishops , both house freely elected , if a life peer wants a go he/she can sit in either house and be elected there not get in because of some ‘perceived’ service to the country which was more likely the old boy network.”
A trifle hard on the House of Lords, methinks (I chose the archaic form , rather than “I think” because, no doubt, I am going to be accused of being medieval, encrusted, etc, etc.).
But no, the House of Lords, as it exists at the moment, is a phenomenal reservoir of knowledge, expertise etc., accumulated by experienced people from all professions, occupations and branches of life. It contains some of the best ex-barristers and lawyers who are of incalculable value in examining and drafting later readings of bills up from the House of Commons and there are also people from the world of science, business, medicine, commerce, the media, the armed forces, the Civil Service etc. etc. etc.
What we don’t want, I feel anyway, is a second House full of another set of blasted career politicians, whose sole experience of the world has been getting a degree in PPE and little else and who wish to further their own political ambitions. Let’s keep what remains of the tradition of service, rather than the furthering of self-interest, shall we? A “Senate” consisting of the the worldly ambitious would be disastrous.
Simon – ref too small – I guess it depends what powers are to be passed down? If an enhanced local revenue/local spend package only then I see no reason for counties being inappropriate, but if local lawmaking is required then yes, perhaps 41 counties of differing laws would be a bad thing. On the plus side, county councils exist and presumably interact with their peers and the Westminster monster moderately efficiently already? Go counties!
MikeW – agreed. I have met a few peers of the realm, from titled families that generally earned their status from the infidelity of Charles 2… Those I have met have shown a considerable understanding of the plight of common man, they worry about the difficulties and pressures experienced by us normal folk far more than might be imagined. This I suspect comes from the close interrelationship between Lord of the Manor and the Estate Staff – a successful Estate relies on a healthy and largely contented workforce; its in His Lordship’s best interest to ensure the staff are well looked after. I was not impressed when under the PC title of ‘reform’ the hereditary peers that had a sound knowledge of everyday folk (and the care and management thereof) were ejected in favour of passed-over MPs, significant political party donors and celebrities. What do they know about the struggles of the general public? But then it was clear from the outset that the PC reform of the Lords was nothing to do with inadequacy in the job and everything to do with stuffing the toffs (and for good measure opening a new reward stream for party donors). So where once the Lords was immune from party political pressure it is now stocked with individuals that owe their seat to one or other party in the Commons, and who will no doubt feel pressure to support the party that put them in place. Not independent any more, is it? In amongst this the few hereditary peers and senior clergy that remain are the last bastion of apolitical counsellors who can apply a critical eye to matters before them without fear or favour. In my opinion.
For some reason, sol is really, really angry XD
Its gone to a new level of embarrassment for my American friends.
I really hope this brings a new era of British politics though, more power to the ‘states’ – er counties?
Well, Alex Salmond has resigned as the First Minister and as leader as the SNP!
@Mike W
I agree their is a large pool of knowledgeable individuals who wish to contribute to the furthering of the Nation and its population , they wish to give up some or all of their time towards helping their fellow man often in exchange for far less than they could earn elsewhere. Many of the House of Commons could make that claim too but have to stand by their decisions every 5 years and if unhappy with an individual have the opportunity to remove them (lets not break off into the strengths and weaknesses of the present election system but it needs fixing too). No such mechanism exists in the House of Lords . If they want to stand for election be it their own merits not that they went to the right school or have made substantial party donations (another thing that needs eliminating – give each party who can supply a candidate a fixed amount per constituency from central coffers to spend – no free use of anything from an ‘interested’ individual like helicopters , planes , hotels , fleets of cars , print shops which have happened in the past)
@Simon
Has he fell on his Claymore?
@ Mike
He was probably expecting or even hoping for an Armed Uprising!
Unfortunately were British, we don’t go in for that kind of nonsense.
Not sure an elaborate new settlement is necessary to solve the ‘English Question’.
If once the constitutional principle of an ‘English Grand Committee’ is accepted (ie Scottish, Welsh and N Irish MPs do not get to vote on English ‘domestic’ issues) then the necessary political accomodations will follow in due course. It may be that the government of the day acquires a ‘Minister for England’ who has to command a majority of the EGC. This in turn mandates rather more coalition activity then we are used to. If it sounds like a bit of a fudge then that’s OK. Most of our best constitutional innvoations have come about that way.
Another thing to refelct on is that if the ‘Westminster Governemnt’ in its highest form confines its activities to Defence, Security, Foreign Affairs and Economic Stability then we are getting back to the sort of limited C19 style goverment that many people would like to see. Lord Salisbury, our last real ‘High Tory’ Prime Minsiter would have approved. It was only the ‘nationalisation’ of transport, health, welfare and education in the C20 that resulted in the monolithic UK State emerging in the first place. There’s nothing intrisnically British or Ancient about it.
@Mike W
“But no, the House of Lords, as it exists at the moment, is a phenomenal reservoir of knowledge, expertise etc., accumulated by experienced people from all professions, occupations and branches of life.”
I think that this was more true before the hereditarys were, largely, removed. As Chris described, lots of the estate-managing Lords had a good handle on the life of ordinary people.
Also many people inherited a title that did not have an estate and they had had to earn their living in the world before taking their seat.
“What we don’t want, I feel anyway, is a second House full of another set of blasted career politicians”
Sadly that is much closer to what we have now, with many of those appointed being party hacks who have come to end of their career in local government or the Commons, or in a number of cases having failed repeatedly to get elected.
I have heard it said the chief reason that Charles Falconer was made a peer was that he was a mate of Blair’s, they were flatmates years before.
@monkey
Having elected officials, who can thus be removed, is broadly speaking a good thing. However more of something good is not necessarily better.
A couple of key downsides of elected officials are that it tends to select people who are good at winning elections and those people are not necessarily good at governing, and it tends to make them very short-term focused.
Permanent members of a chamber can take a longer view. Also, if that chamber is properly organised then they should be a lot less partisan than an elected chamber.
Sadly I don’t think that this is the current position. I have not been able to find the figures but before the hereditarys were removed, the Crossbenchers were a much more substantial portion of the Lords than they are now, they even have been the largest ‘group’.
Somewhat akin to “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”, I would say “first fix the thing that is most broken”. And, at least IMO, the Commons is a lot more broken than the Lords. The number of MPs clearly needs to be reduced, constituencies need to be equalised in size and a proper recall mechanism needs to be put in place.
“For some reason, sol is really, really angry XD
Its gone to a new level of embarrassment for my American friends.”
I find Solomon to be an egoistical wack job, his latest rant just examplifies the Ugly American.
Chris,
Local revenue generation would be too expensive to operate. Council tax is a waste of tax-payers money to administer already. Although a nationally organised system could work with national and provincial VAT and TAX elements, but it should be collected centrally and redistributed according to where the revenue came from.
This does not therefore require a regional assembly. It requires a regional bean-counter :-(
The UK should split into 6-10 regions each with their own autonomy over just about everything other than defence and international relationships and diplomacy.
Anyway, we’re talking about politics and should be talking about defence – although I managed to include it above ;-)
Chris
Agree with everything you say, especially the following:
“But then it was clear from the outset that the PC reform of the Lords was nothing to do with inadequacy in the job and everything to do with stuffing the toffs (and for good measure opening a new reward stream for party donors). So where once the Lords was immune from party political pressure it is now stocked with individuals that owe their seat to one or other party in the Commons, and who will no doubt feel pressure to support the party that put them in place. Not independent any more, is it?”
Do you know, I reckon the old Squire of the village had a closer and more caring relationship with his villagers than many modern politicians have with their constituents. The idea of service was there automatically. We need to retain an independent second chamber, full of a-political members who show genuine concern for the people but, as you imply, that concept of service is now being eroded.
monkey
You make a very valid point when you state that the House of Commons M.P.s face a general election every five years and that is a very useful check indeed. You also include the point about people getting into the Lords because of making party donations. Well, Chris makes it clear that they are part of the newer breed of member. These will owe allegiance to one side or another and are therefore not so desirable. The old disinterested (but very interested) kind of member is what we need.
Thanks to both of you for your replies.
.
Observer. Sorry I did not spot the typo. Where the hell did I put my reading glasses?
Glad Salmond did the honourable thing. English politicians should do nothing that could stop the SNP from doing some internal feuding/bloodletting.
I’ve heard versions of this, where the only necessity is the Royal Navy (and I guess Customs & Excise would come back, to collect the money for it?).
However, what might the Economic Stability refer to? RE
“in its highest form confines its activities to Defence, Security, Foreign Affairs and Economic Stability then we are getting back to the sort of limited C19 style goverment that many people would like to see.”
@Observer
It annoys me how he pretends to be the spokesman for a service I have worked with a lot, in peace and in the gafa. The embarrassment my bootneck colleagues would feel. Alas, tis the internet.
Anyway;
“The UK should split into 6-10 regions each with their own autonomy over just about everything other than defence and international relationships and diplomacy.”
Wasn’t that how the original US system was all about? And also pre-war UK? I am fairly uneducated when it comes to political history, but seems we would be going back to the older system. Good or bad?
Regardless, some big changes are – should – be coming, but for defence, things are at least settled for now.
@ACC – someone has to hold the purse strings, and rule on how much money is actually available to be spent and to hold the political accountability for the brief that is executed by the Central Bank. Otherwise you end up in the Spanish situation where the regional governments spend as much as they can without having the ultimate accountability for it.
If we are still to have a single Currency, a single Central Bank, and a single National Debt then to me that still adds up to a central government economic responisbility.
Back to practical ladles and gentlespoons – the “Bears” are back again and QRA Typhoons launched from Lossie for first time since moved from Leuchars, today, http://theaviationist.com/2014/09/19/lossie-qra-launched-1st-time/ . Despite joining in the political debate and bit of urine taking, think it’s long overdue to get both govts discussing the defence issues. Scotland with full Independence or Maxdevo will need special relationship for defence either with remains of UK or NATO, and corresponding budget, to avoid being the weak link and back door to UK and North Atlantic. Yes the Russkies are only training, but probing for defence weaknesses.
In this one:
“@ACC – someone has to hold the purse strings, ( the Gvmnt?)
and rule on how much money is actually available to be spent (fiscal policy?)
and to hold the political accountability for the brief that is executed by the Central Bank.
– which is: price stability, and the stability of the financial system (here, and in co-operation with other major players – as money flows like electricity, not like water).
How do you fit an independent central bank into your thought construct?
The Bank of England has operational independence. But it still ultimiatley takes orders from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It can only exist as a Central Bank becuase the tax rasining powers of the country stand behind it. In a very real sense it is not independent, but arms length. Credibility is what a central bank is all about. The ECB’s credibility stretches only just so far as the richer nations (especially Germany) are seen to stand behind it. That’s ultimately a political relationship. Hope this makes sense.
See a similar thought chain from Robert Peston on the BBC site
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29287208
@Mike ““The UK should split into 6-10 regions each with their own autonomy”
Like Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Wessex, Essex and London
Seems I remember something like that in the past
Jim – a repeat link from earlier: http://www.edmaps.com/anglo-saxon_kingdoms.jpg Or if you prefer I’m sure the Roman administration map is available in Googlespace. What did the Romans ever do for us?
Now Scotland is dependant again and as Paul Robinson points out the boys at Lossie have job to do I mentioned more in jest than seriousness about opening up Scapa Flow again to act as a base for the Home Fleet in the event of a Yes and the Northern Isles reverting back to the rUK. On the subject though of a resurgent Russian Navy , new subs, destroyers, cruisers, nellies, LHD’s (courtesy of France) the Northern Banner Fleet is growing and will continue to grow . In terms of a base to operate a RN Rapid Reaction Force we do not have one as far as I can tell. To deploy a small fleet to intercept potential adversaries in times of heightened alert approaching the North Sea oil fields from the English bases would be way too late . All well and good relying on the Norwegians and Danish to provide a first response but their priorities may be focused in home waters not our EEZ. I suspect in such times a RFA could be despatched to operate out of Nigg or Aberdeen to support a detachment but a little preparation wouldn’t go amiss.
Didn’t HMS Dragon have to deploy out of Portsmouth this spring to rendezvous (as in they followed the courtesy of telling us they were coming) to met a Russian Udaloy Class destroyer ,the Vice Admiral Kulakov , off the tip of Northern Scotland as it made its way south? A 1000km+ deployment !
Just read Sol’s site – what the f is that man on, what an arse.
@PE, I failed to find any mention of any Central Bank brief in the Preston link. Rather, he was essentially saying this (of course hiding it well, so that the BBC would not come into the line of fire for politicking:
“t a time of low growth when it would help if a bit of oomph could be given to the economy, the UK budget will probably matter more – in the sense what it fixes as the overall balance between spending, borrowing and revenue-raising will either offset that low growth or reinforce it.
But at other times, when the economy is ticking along in a predictable way, national budgets to share out the cake will be relatively more interesting.”
?
Why the obsession with regional government for England? It’s only fair that if Scotland has it’s own parliament, and Wales and NI get assemblies, England should have one too.
Unless of course, the idea is to gerrymander and neuter England so as to ensure it’s irrelevance. Not sure that’s going to work :-(
Actually to be fair to Sol, I do understand what his problem is. He assumes everyone is like him, which is not really a viable position to take. So to have a vote on a split, to him, you must be boiling mad, festooned with guns and ready to kill everyone that disagrees with you, because that is what he would be. He doesn’t get that they don’t think like he does and that their ways are different.
My worries were that with the emotional plays on the vote, a “No” might have caused rioting, but in this APATS was right, he knows them better than I did and nothing happened, thank God. Which makes Sol’s position that they are rabid and out for blood totally unjustifiable when they didn’t even start a protest.
If no one comes up with name calling and a case of sour grapes in the next week or so, I’d have to admit that they seem to be a lot more mature than most people I know. Some of them would be calling “No” voters names by now and going “we’ll get you next time!”.
Gentlemen. Thank fuck.
Now let’s onward with the far more promising and exciting task of some constitutional reform in the UK.
@ACC
To me the relationship between a debt raising Central Bank and the political body that gathers the taxes that must ultimately pay of that debt is fairly self evident.
Basically without a central governemnt that has the ultimate final say on tax and spending you can’t have a true Central Bank. Which is why people keep pulling funny faces at the ECB and wondering how long till the EZ has to have an elected Finance Minister with tax and spending powers to match. The various voluntry ‘stability pacts’ that have been tried instead just don’t work. The danger of an English ‘home rule’ governement that leaves a ‘hollowed out’ UK government without sufficient economic powers of its own would be that the stability of the pound and the credibility of the BoE is fatally undermined.
That’s why I put economic stability (including the critical relationship between tax, spending and debt) as a UK level responsibility. For me that is a critical functional limit on ‘Devo Max’ for Scotland, England, or any other part of the Union.
@PE, it is not a question of not being a UK level reponsibility, but I rather asked what it might entail.
RE”To me the relationship between a debt raising Central Bank and the political body that gathers the taxes that must ultimately pay of that debt is fairly self evident.” it seems to me that you should look up what the IMF says regarding your recommendation. E.g https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp1216.pdf
I think you are quite confused, or lost in the triangle of
– central bank granting credit to government (whether it would be one or several, that discussion about plural or singular already passed)
– QE, which is a policy to avoid money destruction (though technically involves asset purchaces),
– and what the UK Debt Management Office does.
Hmm, a local legislative council for England might be a good idea, then the current Parliament can get a name change and concentrate on matters of the Union as a whole, which would help post-Referendum PR as any Lords Temporal from Scotland would be seen debating matters affecting both parties instead of an English Parliament that looks like it focuses only on a local scale. What do you guys think? “Parliaments” for local legislature, “International Council” for matters that affect the UK as a whole?
@wf – The regional assembly business is a Labour device to avoid answering the West Lothian Question…the aim being to use the whole commons to referee between the regions, thereby deploying the Scottish Members to manage their activities even if England has an overall Tory Majority. The English Grand Committee is more honest, but will always give Labour a potential headache….they have just as much of a problem with support in the South as the Tories do in the North, and both of them ought to try seriously to do something about it…
GNB
Absolutely the last thing we should be creating is a stage for yet more politicians. By all means devolve more authority to Scottish parliament with the strict proviso that it is responsible for any consequences and for balancing budget. But under no circumstances should we dream up another layer of pollies, lobbyists and civil servants. We can’t afford the ones we have now.
NaB, the problem then becomes “what can the politicians in Westminster do that we’re not doing over here right now?” This might be the time to show the Scots that they do have a say in national matters because if you don’t, then why bother keeping them in the union anyway and in reverse, they’ll ask why did they bother staying?
If by national, you mean Scottish, they have a major say in Scottish Affairs by virtue of having their own (rather expensive) Parliament. If by national you mean UK, the Scots have that too by virtue of Scottish MPs in Westminster, so they get to vote in two sets of pollies (MSP and MPs), never mind the MEP as well. As do the Welsh and the NornIrish. That the powers of the latter two assemblies are less than the Scottish Parliament now (let alone what’s been promised) is likely to cause angst down the road anyway.
The question posed was actually about some sort of “new” body for England and my response was to query why we would possibly need yet another body of pollies and their associated hangers on. It is a fact of life that the UK parliament is in Westminster, in the capital city of the country. It ain’t going to shift. People talk about regional assemblies because they tend to feel that there is a Westminster bubble that somehow obscures the rest of the country and there is some truth in that. However, I would suggest that creating new bodies littered around the country with what will ultimately be quite limited powers is something that would neither solve the issue or be anything like value for money. We have county and unitary councils in any case – what are they for if not this? If you think Westminster is too South East centric, then amend the constituency selection process to mandate candidates are either born in or near or demonstrably live and work in the constituency.
The only question to which the answer is “more politicians and lobbyists please” should be “We’re running out of firewood, we need more fuel”.
@Observer – Salmond was happy to surrender a large part of his potential economic power by entering a currency union and being a loyal EU member – in the end the only thing he was determined on was being rid of CASD and being able to pursue a different Foreign and Defence policy to the rest of us…which might well have been actively hostile to our interests; for me seeing that possibility off matters more than pretty much anything else.
@NaB – My final thought on this is that we need to establish an English Grand Committee that also includes the Great Officers of State and Ministers of English spending departments wherever their seats are, that debates and votes on all English-only issues before they are dealt with in the Commons, where all MPs participate….which means that Milliband could force through English-only legislation using the Scottish MPs during the course of a single term…if he was so determined to ignore the English Majority that he was willing to see his Party and the Union destroyed at the next election, or so absolutely certain that he was right and could command English public support that he would take the risk.
I suspect that might lead to a level of restraint on his actions, and a much greater effort to win the argument…worth observing that if Thatcher had been similarly restrained in trying idiocies like the Poll Tax in Scotland, we might never have got here in the first place.
Finally, we need to sort out the numbers…Scotland is over represented, Wales and NI might be…and for me I’d also like MPs from the BOTs and the Crown Dependencies if they want to come…and the British Diaspora, in French style.
The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be more than able to accommodate a large measure of Home Rule and find the means to represent all of her Majesty’s Subject’s wherever they might be found.
GNB
NAB – not sure I understand the argument you pose? Scotland was so desirous of local powers for local needs that it almost broke away from the Union, staying possibly in part due to the promise of more local decision making than before. And yet while this is all perfectly reasonable for Scotland, you seem to be arguing the UK Gov’t is entirely adequate to make decisions for Northumberland, or Cornwall, or Norfolk, or Sussex, or indeed Gloomyville? If that was the argument, as Scotland has voted to remain a part of our wonderful country, your argument logically states Westminster is perfectly adequate to make all decisions for Scotland too. Why all those extra expensive MSPs when there’s already a full government in place in the nation’s capital of London?
I don’t think you are advocating the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament and all their powers passing back to Westminster, so there must be value in your eyes to the additional layer of administration that is the Scottish Parliament. It follows that in our country of diverse character the London-centric Westminster view is not necessarily best placed to deal with matters of import in the regions. Funnily enough, I could see logic in dissolving Boris’s London local authority because Westminster is largely hooked to what’s best for London, but creating an English authority of similar scope to your Scottish Parliament for all areas outside the inner Home Counties (M25 + 10 miles or so). So Westminster does international affairs and what’s best for London (what’s new?) and the English Parliament worries about local matters regional and rural. Job done.
EGC works for me – and 90% of the time will work fine for the UK governement. Where it could all get a bit fruity is if the EGC thinks its being ignored or railroaded by the majority of UK MPs on what it sees as an English issue. You could see the EGC electing a leader by simple majority amongst themselves, who was in political opposition to the UK Government.
Would we see any constitutional obligation on the UK PM and his party/coalition to negotiate in good faith with the EGC elected leader? Or would they simply use their overall UK Commons majority to vote the EGC into irrelevance? It would be an interesting constitutional crisis and is bound to happen sooner or later. Like most of our crises it will eventually result in some useful comventions to solve the problem, but not necessarily quickly or painlessly.
Barring a national war or a national disaster I think further devolution is inevitable. There are certain functions of the modern state that really don’t lend themselves well to regionalisation or localisation (welfare, defence, NHS, anything really where risk needs to be pooled to be managed effectively) but really is there any other reason why more local areas can’t make decisions on everything else should they wish to?
@ Phil
“… is there any other reason why more local areas can’t make decisions on everything else should they wish to?”
Because they struggle to manage the decision making powers and responsibility they have already, combined with fairly rampant low level corruptuon and favourtisim?
@Chris – Be very happy to see further devolution to either City/Regions or Counties to the extent that local people genuinely desire it, but I think that needs to come organically and over time within a broad settlement that can accommodate it…which I believe the Home Rule/EGC pattern could, and quickly…with the principle of subsidiarity built in.
But as a pragmatic Englishman I am instinctively uneasy about Bureaucratic “Grand Projects” in European style…not least because there was a Referendum about a North East Regional Assembly instigated by John Prescott which indicated a complete lack of appetite for it…likewise most of the proposals for elected Mayors. Furthermore, most such projects in this context are pretty obviously Labour-inspired efforts to avoid properly answering the West Lothian Question and create yet more paid jobs for full-time politicians.
GNB
Gloomy – there are two institutions already in place, at the two ends of the spectrum, that might provide a near-term improvement. At the lower more local end there are the extant County Councils (with subordinate district councils) that could take over the authority for local services that Westminster currently administers centrally. Even if Westminster do the directing, the County Councils will already act as the implementers in many cases, so the transfer of ‘power’ is little more than an executive board making the big handful decisions instead of Westminster.
At the higher more central end is Westminster itself (cries of derision) where a formal version of the Farage request could be implemented, where he asked those politicians in Westminster who also sat in the Scottish Parliament to abstain from votes on purely English matters. Perhaps the week’s business could be arranged such that National and International Affairs were covered Monday to Wednesday, and Domestic English Affairs filled Thursday & Friday. Ideal then if the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament (& Stormont?) made the Thursday & Friday their busy days, when their Westminster MPs would be available.
Either option (or a mix of the two) would have little effect on the numbers of officials involved in the Nation’s governance. Better still (said the Engineer) there would be an opportunity to make the processes far less convoluted and long-winded. Colin Chapman the engineer who set up Lotus once briefed his race car design team with the words “Simplicate and add lightness.” What a good instruction for Government.
I agree with Gloomy. Local and regional organisations should be organic, or if not at least make sense. Personally I think more rural local authorities should be subsumed where sensible into city regions with integrated public transport but again that should to some extent be organic so the concept has legitimacy.
Also, I think parish and community councils should be given more powers and money raising responsibility. If County wants to close a paddling pool or public toilet locals should be able to vote for extra revenue to keep them going at a local level. I think people are more willing to part with cash if they see the benefits and are direct beneficiaries.
District and Unitary Authority models seem less and less relevant. To my mind the future is in regional and hyper-local models with far less power and duties at the current LA level.
The petty corruption and general cretinous behaviour of local councils is down to the type of person who becomes a councillor these days. Not sure what the answer is but we need to move away from the retiree / unemployed hippy types and attract people of talent. Tempting to ban political parties from local authorities altogether.
Why is this page so slow?!
@Chris B. – more serious responsibility would probably improve the numbers of good people involved….and although you probably won’t believe me levels of corruption and nepotism are actually comparatively low, although people who are inadequate to their responsibilities or subject to demented group-think are…which can of course be disastrous, pace Rotherham…
GNB
@ Gloomy,
“… and although you probably won’t believe me levels of corruption and nepotism are actually comparatively low”
A quick look a most local councils accounts, specifically the details of what they spend their money on, would suggest otherwise.
@Chris B. As I said…
GNB
Thread
Guys
I think if you postulate English devolution, the it makes sense to do two things. One is treat the major cities as separate local entities and the other is to create regional sized governments. NW, NE, SW, East Anglia, Yorkshire, all make sense. After that it gets a bit more difficult , but no impossible. My impression is that there is less regional identity in the S East, but I’m sure it would be possible. My reason for leaving out the major cities, is a practical one. They are so big with so many issues, that they will always dominate the region they site in, to the effect that the region wont truly work as such.
This suggests that there may need to be a local level (including cities) and a regional level, which deals with less local matters. I would argue that each region would send representation to a much much slimmed down UK government (incl Scotland, NI and Wales).
One big issue is government spending. Although you can postulate a common grant (say $2,000 per head etc) plus local tax raising powers, Who would set the per head amount in practice (the UK government surely ?). But that tax would be disproportionally paid by many Londers and SE Englanders (which might be seen as unfair). Even if you went for a local income tax that wouldn’t work without central top up as much of the country away from the SE/London is much poorer (on a GDP/head basis).
Finally, much of the current civil service in London would need to be devolved too. No need for a massive Health, Welfare, departments. You’d just need the economic mgt parts of the Treasury, Foreign office, Defence plus relatively small teams of experts to provide national co-ordination across, Health, Pensions, Policing, Industry etc. Most staff would go to regional or local level departments.
For all of posturing, I don’t see any form of English devolution is going to happen. It would be too much of a change in the way that England is administered to happen. No UK politician is going to vote away his powers.
Thus the best or worse we can expect to see is part time Scottish MPs voting occasionally at Westminster (probably Welsh and Northern Irish will be the same if the Scottish devo-max solution is exported their too, which seemed likely from Cameron’s words).
Without Welsh and Scottish MPs, the population density in the SE, which is heavily Tory leaning, on the current first past the post voting system will almost certainly lead to a semi-permanent Tory government in England, but a more central/left leaning UK government. Not a good recipe.
Worst still, IMO, large geographical parts of England (most of the country outside the SE) is left leaning, poorer and more socially deprived [on average] than the SE. The local economy is very different as well (much less financial services/big business and professional services [ie legal, finance] and more manufacturing orientated). The sort of economy a Tory England government would run would benefit its core supporters in the SE more than the rest of the country imo. This is a recipe for creating dis-unity.
I’m sure this is actually too simplistic in practice, but I do think that Cameron’s ace plan(effectively removing Scottish MPs from Westminster for the majority of its business) is actually likely to create as many problems down the line as it appears to solve today.
It also doesn’t address his other problem, which is that Scotland, Wales and N Ireland all get more public spending per head than England. Fixing that for England requires more tax or grant cuts for the devolved assemblies. [although we don’t see the numbers, my suspicion would be that lots of England gets more per head than London or the S East, although this is may be offset by the concentration of the civil service in the S East, if that is actually the case).
Addressing the West Lothian problem is likely to create another different problem regarding legitimacy of UK government verses the English parliament [worse they are much the same individuals in both]. I can’t see this working satisfactorily without adopting PR instead of first past the post elections.
Whilst, IMO, once we kicked off devolution for Scotland and a lesser form for Wales and Northern Ireland, we inevitably started on the path that should lead us to regional English government, I have to say I think its unlikely to happen.
Interesting analysis Nick, very insightful without all the drama these kind of things usually bring. Thank you.
Part of why I see this Separation problem come up is because the other parts of the Union do not seem to see themselves as part of a bigger whole, which was why my suggestion for the separation of “local” legislature for area specific rulings and problem solving and a higher “international” council as a visual symbol of participation in the direction of the nation as a whole. Have to admit it is a bit shallow as a plan, it’s more of a “see problem, solve problem” solution than any actual coherent guide to a future government.
What I really worry about “devo-max” is that in the ultimate form, it really causes the question “Why can’t we go it alone since we’re already doing it mostly solo anyway?”, so you might win this Referendum only to lose the next one down the road because you set up conditions that do cause separation to make sense.
Observer
I think the history of self rule in Scotland suggests, short of a major change, independence is inevitable. The original 1977 referendum had a very slight majority for devolution, but very small turnout (35 % or so). Run forward to 1997, decent turnout and clear majority for devolution.
Now in 2014, from around 30 % support, the campaign got the Independence vote to 45 % support after a heavy weight fear campaign pointing out the unknowns of independence without setting out any positive case for the Union (that I saw). I would suggest a revote in 10 years will give you independence anyway (by a narrow majority).
Devo-max may speed that up slightly, even more so if English government (controlling the UK purse strings) cuts the central funding to Scottish government or fails to deliver what was promised. Given the way the fear campaign was set out (I mean tone not the points themselves) and the vagueness of the devo-max promise there’s going to be plenty of scope for the SNP.
Generally speaking, I think most English opinion would agree that Scottish MPs should not have any say on England and Wales only issues any more (and it follows Welsh and Northern Irish MPs should have any say at Westminster except on matters which also effect them).
Given Brown (representing Scottish Labour ?) is pushing for the devo-max “agreement” to be in place before the 2015 election. Now that Cameron is leveraging English concern to try and outsmart Labour (by getting rid of the effectiveness of the Scottish and welsh labour MPs), it seems likely that much of this will be in place by the next election.
The election result will be crucial. Its entirely feasible that Labour will be the majority UK party, but be in an English minority position. Surely this would mean ongoing extended division between a Labour UK government and a Tory English government, which is going to be a very new concept for the UK if it happens. For example, just who would be the PM post the 2015 election.
If this happens, only solution that seems simple enough to me, is to have a separate UK and English parliaments in separate buildings, with clearly defined responsibilities (carving up the civil service accordingly) and a switch to PR voting. I think you end up needing PR to give Labour a chance of forming an English government at some point in the future and to give the Tories the same possibility with the UK government, by using PR to reduce the number of Scottish Labour MPs. I’d suggest the UK government would need fewer MPs than today (larger seats) given the lower work load.
That still leaves open the issue of the second chamber in the current UK parliament and how to divide up tax and spending pot given the strong regional spread of wealth in the UK as a whole.
It seems to me that this needs a lot more thought and agreement between all the parties than is going to happen before the 2015 election, but the political timetable isn’t going to let this happen. Even if we avoid this in 2015, we may not for the 2020 election.
Observer
Personally, I would say that the NW (Lancastrians), NE (Geordies and Yorkshire), SW (Cornish Devon) and Eastern (Anglia) areas all have pretty strong regional identities, but we haven’t thought about this from a political point of view for many many years.
Nick – as I said upthread, the South East local identity exists but is masked (smothered?) by the London effect; vast numbers of the self-proclaimed cosmopolitans – the ones who know they are very important – who spill out of the Capital to their idyllic rural existence on the 18:44 from Victoria each evening. It may surprise many, but few residents of the South East who work outside London are investment bankers or corporate executives, and equally few who do not work in London are on wages/salaries as hefty as the rest of the country apparently imagines. For example the corporation I worked at in Hampshire set its wage structure based on shared information from equivalent engineering companies across the UK, making sure it paid a percentage point over the national average (recruitment tool – paying better than average salaries). With the London overspill driving up costs of living, for the ordinary folk life in the South is no easier than anywhere else in the country.
Perhaps in the same way Germany considered relocating its banking & stock market centre post reunification, the London banking sector and the Stock Exchange should be moved to Manchester? No real reason these days for Government and Big Business to sit in the same city.
Anyway. The point is that there is a view among many to think only of London when considering anything south of Bucks and east of Hampshire. That is perhaps an unfair possibly slightly insulting generalisation?
Nick – ref PR – didn’t the Tories suggest restructuring the electoral boundaries so each MP was returned by a similar number of voters (15,000 each or something like) as a way to make the composition of the Commons more representative of the politics of the electorate, but Labour refused to support it, on the grounds that it would have increased the Tory MP numbers and reduced Labour? This is perhaps at odds with your statements that more of the country is Left-leaning than MP numbers suggest, or that PR would benefit the Left?
I see no public appetitie at all in England for Regional Government. If there is to be an ‘English Home Rule’ answer to the West Lothian Question it must surely come at an ‘All England’ level, and one the makes dual use of as much of the existing civil service infrastructure as possible. This is not at all incompatible with devolving more powers on a piecemeal basis to those existing Local Authorities who have the political and organisational appetite to take them on.
But a forced regionalisation that attempts a standardised grouping of Metropolitan and surrounding Shire areas seems doomed to expensive bureaucratic failure. And more importantly the voters know it. Why else was Prescott’s attempted regionalisation such a flop? The regionalisation enterprise is also fatally tainted by association with the EU’s political agenda to neuter the Nation States – which makes it anathema to large sections of the English electorate.
Some of the best cost efficinecies in recent years has come from a voluntary patchwork of executive resource sharing and alliance working by existing Local Authorities. Far better to nurture this process of organisational consolidation combined with political localsism with further selective devolutions of powers than to attempt to impose another universal structure from above. The example of politically separate bodies co-operating to manage and oversee a common executive branch is in fact an excellent template for how ‘All England Home Rule’ could co-exist with the existing UK Civil Service.
Chris
I lived in London from 1998 to 2012 (and Milton Keynes from 1993 to 98), so I’m pretty aware of the reality on the ground. I think big cities in regions won’t practically work.
London, does have a much higher Labour vote than the SE or at least it is concentrated in certain areas of London giving more MPs. The problem with our current voting system, is that the English parliament today might have 60 % Tory seats based on 48 % of the vote.
If I recall correctly (and I might not) there was a degree of cross party consensus on evening up the size of constituencies at the outset. The problem was that the Tory dominated panel that chose the new seat boundaries worked to dilute Labour or Liberal voting areas into two or more seats, giving rise to an area which would then give two Tory MPs instead on 1 Tory and 1 Labour/Liberal. Since they couldn’t actually agree, Labour dropped out (or stopped supporting). Eventually the LibDems did the same and the change fell through. (The libdems also used the PR referendum as a lever as well). I’m sure every party before this has done or tried to do the same though.
I think the route of the problem is that people are slowly migrating from labour voting northern cities to the SE east for jobs. I’m not sure about Scotland, but this area might have had more seats per head for a long time (in the 1950s the more rural areas delivred a lot of Tory MPs to Westminster).
RE”Given Brown (representing Scottish Labour ?) is pushing for the devo-max “agreement” to be in place before the 2015 election. Now that Cameron is leveraging English concern to try and outsmart Labour (by getting rid of the effectiveness of the Scottish and welsh labour MPs), it seems likely that much of this will be in place by the next election”
I agree, and am worried about the haste. W Hague seemed quite confident, though, and he would score closest to a statesman from the current lot (I mean across all the parties).
@thread ……. Would be very careful lumping regional devolution along geographical lines ie NW, NE, SW SE etc previous attempt to create such devolved assemblies was resoundingly rejected by voters 10 or so years ago. Most people seem to want less politics and want less tiers of bueracracy and the costs that go with it.
A much more realistic devolution would be is to strengthen powers of current unitary authorities, that can come together along city region lines eg Greater Manchester authorities, Liverpool city region authorities and then wider county areas such as Lancashire whos rural needs are much different to those of the cities that they would be lumped together with.
The last thing England wants is more political tiers more government and more taxes to fund these Quangos much easier to grant these extra powers to existing authorities that the electorate can see and feel the effects of their policies rather than some remote ‘assembly’ that noone feels connected to.
The lesson of Scottish voting is that the only areas voting for independence was metropolitan city areas such as Glasgow and Dundee the rest voted no to it. Dont make the same mistakes in England because go 10 miles outside of any city in England and the wants and needs of people are very different.
Wholeheartedly agree with @PeterElliot
PeterElliot – agreed, which is why a few comments back I suggested using existing County Councils as the basis of devolved power governance.
Nick – your knowledge on the boundary exercise is better than mine. Ref people moving south for jobs, surely the better solution is moving jobs north for people? For that a bit like the South Wales process 30 years back Westminster needs to make businesses want to move north. Personally I have hopes that a UK moving a bit ahead of mainland Europe in recovery from the banking crisis will be able to invest in high quality engineering manufacture and get on a par with Germany in terms of international reputation for quality of manufactured goods for export.
ACC – I too wonder about the timetable as promised by Gordon Brown – was this his personal wish stated as commitment or was it Government commitment voiced by him? I expect the former.
Wirralpete – could not agree more about the disparity of needs between cities and the rural communities. There seems to be an assumption that rural folk are too dumb to deal with governance such that local powers must be arranged in areas around cities where the authority of local power would sit. Obviously smaller cities would be more in touch with rural needs than larger ones, but that’s small consolation. I grew up in the County Town of Bucks, and until the 1970s every Wednesday and every Saturday the cattle market (right next to the market square) filled with farmers and livestock. The County Council offices were within a stones-throw of the cattle pens and the needs of the rural folk permeated Council business just as much as did the aroma of the market. In that regard the County Council managed the County well for the whole population. These days its rare for the grand city council leaders to mix with the grafting masses. Their knowledge base is lacking beyond the needs of restaurateurs shopkeepers and leisure centre operators that they meet regularly…
WirralPete
The problem is if you’re devolving power in England from the UK parliament, what are you devolving it to.
In my view, we have too many small entities (country councils plus cities) in the existing structure, which whilst democratically good, is expensive to operate (replication of activities) and lacks cohesion at a larger scale (you might want better regional road or rail connections or more east/west connections). How can you do regional planning when the devolved power scale is too small (on the same basis we have too many individual police forces etc etc). Oh and we have just spent the last 50 years dismantling and centralizing local government powers (presumably for some good reasons).
If you just strip out English MPs into a separate structure on the existing rules, I guess we’d have a tory English government dominated by SE England 80 % of the time. Mostly stocked by corporate lawyers beholden to big Business and banking/finance. The focus naturally, would be on doing things that get them reelected, which means most polices to suit the status quo. Jobs don’t migrate to the rest of the country; the rest of the country becomes London commuter belt (I’m exaggerating of course).
Isn’t this lack of interest and engagement with Scotland the root cause of the independence campaigns success (and going from c30 % to 45 % is a success). Disenfranchising the North and South West is just repeating the Scotland problem.
I cant see anything smaller than regions plus bigger cities working for local power devolution with local EngMP representation for individual Towns and countryside at a regional level.
Sort of as Chris says, the Tory party (or labour) needs to have sufficient MPs in the North to be able to bend the PMs ear on a regular basis about their local problems, with ministers representing all of the UK.
Another example, what would happen if Labour chose a Scotland MP to be the next PM. He/she might be the most capable candidate, but just how would this play in the UK parliament with part time Scottish MPs ?
I agree that there is virtually no interest in additional politicians in England (elected mayors, Police commissioners, regional assemblies) and few of us (incl me) vote for local or county councilors (c30 %) all of whom are practically invisible. Is that because we are indifferent or because we know that they are essentially powerless. If we had a local income tax of 25 % or a different local VAT rate, I’d suggest we’d be much more interested in local elections.
Despite his sometimes commical manner Eric Pickles is doing a reasonable job of encouraging the Local Authorities to reform themselves in return for more funding and more powers. No reason why that process can’t ccontinue and accelerate. But I think its a separate issue from the West Lothian Question.
What we are talking about is policy powers currently held by Departments of Transport, Health, Work & Pensions etc where the ‘rump England’ is (or soon will be) all they actually control. Policies for Education, Transport, Health, Social Care and Welfare in Englnad are areas that we could argue Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs have no right to be voting on. Some of those powers could be devolved further, but not all of them and not in all parts of England. So there definitely is a distinctive niche for ‘England level’ policy powers, funding alloaction, and top-up tax raising.
The role of the UK Parliament would be to apporove a macro level funding settlement (inlcuding taxtion and debt) between spending budgets for areas such as:
Home Security (Police & Justice)
Foreign Affairs
Financial regulation and stablity
Defence
Strategic National Infrastucure
Scotland (central funding allocation)
England (central funding allocation)
Wales (central funding allocation)
NI (central funding allocation)
The interesting problem administratively would then be where the UK Civil Service has to sythesise two or more sets of policy directions: for instance where the UK Government is funding a new High Speed Rail Line, while the lower level authority is letting a franchise for local rail services, possibly also with the input of one or more strengthened City Authorities. DoT and National Rail would have to use a fair dollop of common sense to combine the three policy inputs together into a coherent programme.
This is where a political problem cold arise – if the English MPs being representatives of the most numerous and most wealthy section of the population, use their combined political muscle to get their own way over interface issues more often than seems ‘fair’ to the others. At that stage expect to see the “celtic fringe” cry foul with redoubled fervour.
@Peter Elliot/wirralpete – Agree – nailed my colours to the same mast considerably further up-thread. Couple of observations on the weight of MPs in the system…the scale of Labour support in England somewhat less than the current allocation of MPs would suggest because their vote is concentrated in urban constituencies which often have a smaller electorate (sometimes 20% smaller) than the suburban and rural ones which are more likely to vote Tory, and the Government proposal to change boundaries was intended to redress that…and was torpedoed by the Lib Dems from within the coalition because they did not secure Lords Reform. Labour might well have claimed the new boundaries were gerrymandered to disadvantage them, but the current system certainly advantages them very considerably, so they would say that, wouldn’t they?
As to solutions, I shy away from PR because it always involves regional or national party lists, which I abhor – and opens a way in to the system for fringe parties enjoying the support of a tiny number of complete barm-pots in a lot of places; the various David Icke Tendencies if you like. Just because every pub in the Country has at least one oddity that everybody avoids, I don’t think said characters need an MP.
My own solution would be fptp in grouped constituencies – thus Gloomyville has 5 MPs, 4 Labour and 1 Lib Dem but about 20% spread across the City vote Tory and are never represented – so each Party could submit a very short list of known candidates, or just a single name (sensible for the Tories and Lib Dems in my example) and Gloomyville Tories could elect a Gloomyville Tory MP that they knew, whose task was to put himself about right across the City to make sure his potential local supporters knew him, trusted him, and though it was worth turning out to vote for him. I’m guessing it would also work in leafy shires with a residual but un-represented Labour vote as well…
GNB
So to answer Nick’s question in my hypothetical example a UK Governement which is a coalition of two or more parties probably inclduing the LibDems and some minor parties, an English Grand Committee controlled by the Tories, and a Northen City Authority controlled by Labour would all have to negotiate together to acheive a coherent and funded rail policy in a particular corner of the UK.
Sounds messy but what we are actually creating is ala carte coalition politics that ensures all views are fairly represnted on any given issue. What it relies on is a professional and well structured rail industry that is able to sythensise and implement policy without losing its commercial edge.
And of course the balance of power would be different on different issues, with some (such as Defence at one end of the spectrum or refuse collection at the other) necessarily falling wholly within the purview of one particular part of government.
@Nick…Problem with having different local VAT and/or local income tax is that you generate a ‘race to the bottom’ of who can have the lowest tax rates to attract business and wealthy constituents thereby increasing your overall tax take ? Obviously poorer regions cities etc have greater costs than wealthier areas and therefore setting different tax rates entrenches and deepens inequalities between cities/regions.
As i stated by bringing together existing councils (and may i add in combining ‘back office’ services for greater efficiencies and more money going to frontline services) to make strategic descicions such as the Greater Manchester councils have done provides all the benefits of localism and a connect to your local politicians but allows greater strategic thinking for a region as a whole.
WirralPete
I’m not sure that a race to the bottom is inevitable. If the central government grant is fixed, to cut taxes in a race to the bottom you’d need to borrow (limited or controlled by rule) or cut spending somewhere else. If everywhere raced to the bottom, then every local government unit would some be bankrupt and out of power.
What it does do, is let you raise funds and spend it differently to prioritise local requirements or concerns, which may differ from your neighbours.
I lack knowledge, but US and Canadian states do have different local tax regimes (both for Corporate and sales tax). I’m not sure what Federal German policy is either, but I think there is enough evidence to suggest local tax differences don’t result in wholesale destruction.
The whole point of being in a federal (or United Kingdom) is to share wealth and pool abilities of individual regions/counties for the common good. This involves moving tax receipts around the country to even out demand. It is surely better to increase wealth everywhere (increasing tax take without increasing tax %) than to create a system that concentrates wealth in a few large areas to the detriment of everyone else. This is a form of socialism. We have too much statism in our current mix.
GNB – you keep the fringe elements out with a 5 % threshold (Germany and others). Not entirely fair, but if David Icke could get 200,000 people to vote for him, I’m not sure we should not make him an MP. After all, that would be more support than Cameron or Miliband has ever got under the current system.
I recall that bacck in the days of the jolly old Community Charge certain Conservative Local Authorities actually made a brand statement by setting their charge at the minimum level year after year.
Far from engaging in a ‘race to the bottom’ they saw it as as declaration of competence: “look at us, we can affort to set the lowest taxes becuase we are the most efficient at controlling cost and eliminating waste.”
Now we can argue all around the real reasons they were able to do that and what was the actual effect on their communities. What I am saying is that Low Tax, if accompanied by Low Spending, does not inevitably lead to bankruptcy. And especially if it does attract prosperity to the borough (compared to the high tax / high spending one next door) it might even be the right thing to do. Right for some boroughs some of the time. That of course is what localism is supposed to be all about.
PeterE
Since I lived and own property in one of them (Westminster) which even today is considerably cheaper than next door Camden this remains true. However, Westminster is hardly comparable to Camden in terms of real wealth even though the population is similar. You don’t see many moving across Boundary road to reduce their council tax bill by the odd thousand pounds though.
Low tax and higher spending than income results in todays UK government current account deficit (and remember the austerity cuts haven’t reduced overall government spending, which is still increasing).
Bugger me, have just read the comments at Sol’s blog
Amusing what
I think I might do something on how America is facing an ethno religious breakdown with Hawaii petitioning to join the United Kingdom, their state flag is ready made
Would be fun to watch the ensuing embolism :)
Who be this Sol and where can I find these amusing comments?
Nick
In terms of public sector organisations there is always a question of how to deal with a ‘delinquent’ organisation determined to live beyond its means. For the Nation State ultimatley the Bond Markets will sort them out. For Local Government some sort of central hit squad to take over determined basket cases should perhaps be mandated. ‘Special Measures’ and all that. Its not a new idea.
The hardest are the ones like Detroit where a demographic collapse has destroyed their revenue base at a time when legitimate and hard to control expenditure like pensions remains high. Ultimately just like a private company if the money aint there it aint there. Which is why ‘guaranteed’ pensions are now getting canned alongside the necessary haircuts for the over trusting creditors. Harsh times.
As I see it, it is central governments job to have a clear idea about what service is best delivered at what level and then to provide the legal framework to allow local authorities to organise themselves in an organic way. No one size is ever going to fit all and some LAs have come together into city regions, other’s voluntarily co-operate in certain ways. Fact is to get the capacity needed to run things properly you need a decent sized organisation but that makes it less responsive to local demands – which is why community and parish councils should be strengthened and allowed to take over certain services and raise the money to maintain them if the local electorate want it to happen. If they want a community hall or a public toilet, or a park then put the money needed to a vote.
The danger there is going in the French direction with thousands of little organisations but if they deliver services appropriate to that scale then I see no problem. Back office support and scrutiny could be a problem but there could be a solution to that with regional or national bodies set up to offer back office support and build capacity at the hyper-local level.
This way you’d have a system that could self-organise in common sense practical ways, ensure local authorities have sufficient size and capacity to deliver important services like child protection and so forth, and also have hyper-local bodies where people can pay for services that they directly access (this might be useful in more rural areas).
The main thing is setting up the structure to allow this to happen and then letting LAs get on with it.
Phil, Solomon runs a site called SNAFU, which in my opinion is short for Solomon. Normally All Fu-ked Up. It’s one of those sites that makes me suspect the owner got bit by a rabid dog and didn’t get his shots in time. It’s hilarious in a “let us go make fun of the loony” kind of way.
I’ll summarize his POV on Scotland. The Scots will rise up and try to overthrow Cameronfi due to corruption and harsh rule, helped out by French bombing and Russia will come along and confiscate your weapons of mass destruction after accusations of use against FSA (Free Scotland Army).
And the UK is located next to Syria. :)
@ Chris,
It is surely a sign of the coming apocalpyse that I agree with you again!
As you pointed out, the vast majority of the people living in London and the South East are not city bankers, nor corporate lawyers, nor city accountants. They are mostly binmen, corner shops owners, street cleaners, checkout operators, white van men, mechanics, bus drivers etc. The presence of the very rich in their midsts may drive up per capita GDP for their areas, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the reality that the bulk of the population of places like Margate, Watford, Crawley and Maidstone are low to middle income earners.
Certain politicians have done a very good job of making it London vs the rest of the country or the South East vs the rest of the country. Now while there is certainly too much money spent on infrastructure in London and you could probably get away with moving a lot of government services out of London and spreading the jobs around the country, it makes no sense for us to try and build walls between the regions and the capital. A poor man in London is in the same boat as a poor man in Liverpool. The two should be united, not divided.
From personal opinion only – and a lot of the people that I’ve spoke to about this (that are interested) seem to share a similar view – I don’t crave an English parliament. It’s not so much about England or even the regions having more power, for me it’s about Wales and Scotland having too much (NI being the exception because of the delicate political environment).
I don’t see why Wales needs it’s own assembly. It has a population roughly 1/4 the size of the Greater London area, which gets by with a much smaller assembly. And why does Scotland need a parliament, let alone one containing over 120 members, considering it has half a million people less than what the EU recognises as the “East of England”, and less than 2/3s the population of Greater London?
I don’t trust politicians one bit. More politicians is probably not the answer. Giving more powers to existing politicians is probably not the answer either. Allowing local politicians more oversight in terms of making sure standards are met might help. But I would be really reluctant to see local councillors gain any more powers, and certainly not tax raising powers. They have consistently and repeatedly demonstrated across the country that they cannot be trusted with what they have.
@ Nick September 21, 2014 at 7:38 am
“I think you end up needing PR to give Labour a chance of forming an English government”
Why should we do anything just to give one party (any party) a chance of forming a government? I can see a case for making things fair for all parties but if, in this case, Labour does not represent a sufficient number of the people of England then why should they be given special help?
“I think you end up needing PR … to give the Tories the same possibility with the UK government”
The Conservatives do regularly form UK governments so I don’t see what this point means.
@Chris September 21, 2014 at 8:49 am
“didn’t the Tories suggest restructuring the electoral boundaries so each MP was returned by a similar number of voters”
That was in Conservative manifesto and the Coalition agreement but Clegg threws his toys out of the pram and pretended that this was linked to something that it wasn’t* and that is what scuppered it.
Currently constituencies are c. 65,000 in size on average but the solidly Labour ones are c. 58,000 on average and the solidly Conservative ones are c. 68,000 on average. All numbers from memory so they may not be spot on.
*The AV referendum being passed rather than taking place or possibly some form of Lords reform.
@ Nick September 21, 2014 at 9:12 am
“The problem with our current voting system, is that the English parliament today might have 60 % Tory seats based on 48 % of the vote.”
Not at all likely. What is likely is Labour getting 63.4% of the UK setas on 43.2% of the votes (1997).
My understanding is that the Conservative gerrymandering that you described did not happen and, AFAIUI, it is not possible in our system and the boundaries are drawn up by the Boundary Commission which is chaired by a senior judge.
Evening Stainless – accurately explained, but useless in respect of any reader wearing red or blue tinted spectacles… :-)
GNB
@ Chris B
One of the reasons Wales has a National Assembly, is because of this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryweryn_valley
Westminster still refuses to transfer the legislative powers to Cardiff which would stop this happening again. This could still happen to any suitable village or Valley, whether Cardiff objects or not.
The rise of Plaid Cymru from a protest group to a major party in Welsh politics is down to the flooding of Tryweryn Valley.
@GNB
“As to solutions, I shy away from PR because it always involves regional or national party lists, which I abhor”.
I totally agree with your abhorrence, lots of dodgy deals done in back rooms.
However the party list drawn up beforehand in party HQ (the ‘closed list’) is not universal. There are PR variations where the list is derived by the candidates who get the most votes (the ‘open list’). The details of at what level the votes are aggregated to derive the list vary and there are degrees of openness.
Personally I have a certain liking for the idea of a ballot, probably for some rather than all of the seats.
So if we had a UK Parliament of, say, 600 MPs then maybe 500 would be elected from equally sized* constituencies. Anyone who wanted could put submit their name and the remaining 100 would be selected by random ballot from that group.
There might well need to be some restrictions, minimum & maximum age, not a certified lunatic or member of the Lords (they are not allowed to vote), etc. Maybe you might want to say that noone who was (or had been in the last 5? years) a member of a politcal party was eligible.
The result would hopefully be 100 independents who would not vote along party lines and so the government (rarely having 300 out of 500 seats) would actually to make its case well in order to get legislation passed.
@ Chris B
‘ you could probably get away with moving a lot of government services out of London and spreading the jobs around the country’
In fairness quite a few have moved in 2005-2009, 24000 moved out of the SE and London alone. I think was a plan to move another 15,000 by 2014. This is a trend that has been happened since the 90’s. Although I believe London has the largest number if CS, 74000, the gap is narrowing all the time.
‘I don’t see why Wales needs it’s own assembly’
I would guess it got tied in with the Scots dev in the late 90s. People in Wales have a strong identity as a nation. People in England identify with a region but not with that as a seperate country. People in Wales have their own language, identity etc.
@Chris B
21 US states, with all their trappings of state government and associated edifices and extensive powers, have fewer people in them than Wales.
29 US states have a population smaller than Scotland.
@Observer
Having just paid a visit to this blog I imagine his basement is well stocked with assault rifles, MREs and grab bags.
@ Topman,
I dunno, you see a lot of English flags about. I think there is a lot of national identity as English. It just seems English politicians are less inclined to tap that nationalism everytime they think they can gain a few extra quid or a bit extra power.
P.S. That 74,000 turns out is about right, and was more than I thought there was….
@ Simon257,
That sort of thing could just as easily happen to any other part of the country. Wales should not be considered a more or less special case. Take HS2 for example. It won’t touch Wales, but a lot of people are going to find a brand new railway running through their back yards. Should the people along the route get their own assembly?
@ Phil,
“21 US states, with all their trappings of state government and associated edifices and extensive powers, have fewer people in them than Wales. 29 US states have a population smaller than Scotland.”
That doesn’t make it right for here. A lot of that is because of the political history of the US. And in some regards I can understand their position given how different somewhere like Hawaii or Nevada is from Ney York State, both culturally, economically and geographically.
@ Chris B
But it does show that the population of a given region or area for which the existence of an assembly / parliament and executive government is posited should not be a factor.
On how cretinous and shit local politicians are I entirely agree with you on. Deep reform is needed at the local level to remove bearded Town Hall politkers who think they are in the West Wing. Deep thought is also needed about what services are best delivered at each level of Government (or indeed not by Government at all). Many functions lend themselves to larger organisations to ensure capacity, but a good many should be devolved to community or parish level if the local electorate fancies the idea. District Council can’t get a grip on the financial situation and wants to turn off your street lights at night, well I think the local Parish council should be able to ask people to cough up the dosh to pay for them to stay on.
@ chris b
Sorry I should have been clearer. I meant people in england see their local areas as a region not a country in its own right. Wales is somewhat different, in thats identified with and as a country. Thats a fairly understand standing of wales. No other similar sized area, within england identify themselves as a country.
Doesn’t seem unreasonable that they then have powers devolved to them in line with their status.
@Phil
That already happens in some places. We have a seperate charge for pavement lighting controlled by the parish council.
@Phil – How did you know I had a beard? :-)
Although I refute the rest of the description, certainly in my own case…it’s every bit as slack in it’s thinking as the assumption made in those circles that anybody seeking a military career is a time-served psychopath and in all probability a neo-fascist as well…and you aren’t, are you? Apart from Sol, obviously…
A somewhat offended Gloomy
Gloomy please indulge a man his rant. I’ve had the misfortune to know and work with many councillors who acted as if rose petals should have been thrown down in their paths. And some who were caught committing benefit fraud by not declaring their allowances! I think there is a massive capability deficit in LAs at the moment which is true for councillors and the paid service. Men of quality such as yourself are thin on the ground in some regions.
Im too lazy to have been a fascist.
@topman
Oh really? Good stuff. You must have one of the more organised and larger parish councils.
@ Phil,
“But it does show that the population of a given region or area for which the existence of an assembly / parliament and executive government is posited should not be a factor”
— I think it depends. One of the main reasons for having a Scottish parliament was the notion that Scotland was underepresented in Westminster and that politicians there were not interested in Scottish affairs, and that as such Scotland should have its own parliament in order to better manage local issues. The East of England is 10% larger population wise than Scotland and yet also has less MPs, so if Scotland is underepresented in Westminster then the East of England is facing a massive political deficit surely?
As for the local councils, if they could be trusted then I could agree with your idea of giving them more money raising powers and more control over their local affairs. The reality is that at the minute most councils make the Westminster government look positively frugal and a beacon of quality management. Our local council has introduced a scheme to shut off street lights between midnight and 5am. They declined to explain to the electorate that this scheme wont actually start paying dividends until about 2020. And given their penchant for pissing money up the wall, I think most people would rather see the council try cutting its own cloth back a little first before it goes walking around with the begging bowl asking for more money.
That for me is the real danger. You give councils the opportunity to take an inch and they will. Never mind cutting an inch off their outgoings to make room, they’d sooner protect their own salaries and expenses while hiking taxes than to take a long hard look at their own spending first.
The bastards.
@ Topman,
“Sorry I should have been clearer. I meant people in england see their local areas as a region not a country in its own right.”
— Ah right, I’m with you now.
I just don’t feel Wales is really that much of a special case. The fact that a very, very long time ago they existed as a separate nation and that they enjoy taunting English visitors by speaking in Welsh :) is not really a case for self governance, especially given their phenominally bad track record of self governance so far.
If I were living in the Swansea/Cardiff or surrounding regions I’d want my local government to be pushing for closer ties with Bristol, Gloucester, Worcester etc, not trying to move away from them. If I lived in Bangor or Rhyl I’d be highly suspicious of the motives of Cardiff politicians putting political barriers between me and Liverpool/Chester etc.
@chris b ….. Well in mate N Wales aint S Wales hence 3 tory mp’s lol !!!! As for the NW ‘region’ divvies looking at a map really think scousers and mancs are goin to ‘come together’ …. I dont think so !
Sorry thread but this bu**sh*t about ‘regions’ is just that you really think mackems and geordies are goin to work in a regional assembly imposed by westminster ???? Whole point is it is up to the people to decide and fuck me on merseyside and Cheshire alone there is the same amount of people that voted yes in scotland!!
James Bolivar DiGriz
Sorry I had a decent post written to clarify what I meant, but that got eaten by the system. shorter (and probably better version)
To clarify I was using Tory/Labour as short hand for right and left leaning opinion, whereas we actually have 5 or 6 parties that encompass that spread.
My point was looking at say 1997 or 1979 you have Thatcher/Blair getting 43 % of the national vote and ending up with 55% or more of the seats, because of the first past the post system. As opinion diversifies into multiple parties, with significant % of the vote, the current system gets worse and we end up with even lower share of the Vote generating the largest party (which may or may not have a majority). This is a failure of democracy by any reasonable standard.
Our fetish for creating majority control based on minority share of the national vote (if I recall correctly, the largest share of the vote won in modern times was 48 % for Thatcher) is really quite peculiar.
My fear is that on the current system, an English parliament would exacerbate this effect, so that, more often than not, we would have a Tory seat majority of 60 % based on a 50 % share of the vote. I’m not convinced this would be a good environment for UK democracy. Worse still, with that sort of vote share, all political parties tend to become complacent (look at Labour in Scotland, or the Tories with UKIP, or all three main parties with their panic issue of the Scottish “vow”, which already seems to be breaking down).
On the boundary commission, it my be impartial, but the instructions to it were to have 50 fewer MPs and to even out the size of seats +/- 5 %. Whilst one might not disagree with the aim, the reason it was done that way was purely political with the aim of creating fewer Labour seats. Evening out seat size alone whilst maintaining 650 MPs, would not have been so advantageous to Cameron/Osborne.
I think I understand your point but I don’t think that you have thought this through. Introducing PR would, at least IMO, make it impossible for any one party to form a government.
Looking at the UK as whole, setting a 1% minimum and taking figures from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010#Results
then only Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP, BNP & SNP would have got any seats, with 94.73% of the votes.
Allocating seats pro rata to their votes only adds up to 615, so allocating the remainder again pro rata adds up to 649 which is perfect.
That gives
Party No. %age of
seats seats
Conservative 247 38.00%
Labour 198 30.46%
Lib Dem 158 24.31%
UKIP 21 3.23%
BNP 13 2.00%
SNP 12 1.85%
I did that because I thought I could not find the England only figures, but I had another look and saw that I could extract them from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2010_United_Kingdom_general_election_by_parliamentary_constituency
Doing the same analysis (but on 533 seats) gives
Party No. %age of
seats seats
Conservative 215 40.34%
Labour 153 28.71%
Lib Dem 131 24.58%
UKIP 18 3.38%
BNP 11 2.06%
Green 5 0.94%
In neither case can any one party form a government. That means some form of coalition is necessary. I have a problem with post-election coalitions because the electorate have no say in it.
In party X’s manifesto you might not like items 1-3 but you vote for them because you want items 4-8. However in a coalition between X and Y, it might be that items 7 & 8 get dropped a couple of others that you don’t like get added.
I agree that (to look at a real example) Labour currently targeting 35% of the vote expecting to get more than 50% of the seats is a failure of democracy. However the policy document for the coalition being hammered out in secret and not being subject to any sort of vote is also, IMO, a failure of democracy.
“On the boundary commission, … the reason it was done that way was purely political with the aim of creating fewer Labour seats”
I have never heard that before. Do you have any references to support that?
Obviously evening up constituency sizes would benefit the Conservatives (and Cameron was well aware of that) but no reasonable person could really object to this as it would be making the system fairer.
“Evening out seat size alone whilst maintaining 650 MPs, would not have been so advantageous to Cameron/Osborne.”
I don’t see why that would be. Can you explain?
@Nick
Our fetish for creating majority control based on minority share of the national vote (if I recall correctly, the largest share of the vote won in modern times was 48 % for Thatcher) is really quite peculiar.
Not at all – the ability to get a decisive majority is actually considered one of the best features of FPTP and PR systems have been tweaked to get a similar effect. That’s why Italy changed from a pure PR system that gave them a government life expectancy of around 9 months from memory, to one where whoever “wins” the PR vote is assigned 55% of the seats and the remaining 45% are shared out proportionally to vote share. In the home of democracy, the Greek Parliament has 250 seats assigned by PR and then the winners get a Brucie bonus of an extra 50 seats.
My fear is that on the current system, an English parliament would exacerbate this effect, so that, more often than not, we would have a Tory seat majority of 60 % based on a 50 % share of the vote
This kind of effect is overstated – there’s only something like 2 elections in the last century where England had a different result to the whole of the UK, although Scotland was responsible for the LibDems being part of the coalition in 2010. Without Scotland, Labour need to win 80 seats rather than 68 seats including Scotland.
El Sid
I’ve read that same comment regarding the potential English parliament as well. However, the way both the Tories and Labour are acting right now, it doesn’t seem that either of them believe that. We also don’t know what an English parliament would look like. Evening seat size per constituency and a lower number of MPs compared to the current boundaries may well create an advantage to Labour. I don’t think anyone can really argue that seat size shouldn’t be very similar (but it ought to take some regard of local geography and history imo), but what id the “best” the number of MPs for the parliament.
I also have to say, what about the House of Lords and the Uk parliament. The UK parliament with its lower work load pot devolution ought to have a smaller number of MPs than today ?
James Bolivar DiGriz El Sid
I used to think the same way re having clear majority. However, I keep having to look at Germany that hast had one party government since the 1960s (I think). Whilst there have been left and right led governments )and the odd right/left coalition as well), it does seem to have had the effect of creating the strongest economy in the EU (even if its not the richest on a GDP/head basis – both the UK and France are wealthier).
James on your examples, you are correct, but actually the voting public hasn’t given a majority to any party. That means that no parties manifesto actually commands complete support. Some compromise is ought to be necessary. There is no good democratic way to do this except by letting your elected representatives (and they are meant to represent the voters first and party second) reach a deal to run the country for the benefit of all voters and all shades of opinion.
James Bolivar DiGriz
From memory the average Labour seat size is 58,000 compared to 65,000 for Tories. Averaging up decreases the number of Labour MPs on average, averaging down increases the number of Tory MPs. Given that we are looking at +/- 5 %
58,000 + 5% = 60,900 [at least 2,900 voters more per seat]
65,000 – 5 % = 61,750 [at least 3,250 voters fewer per seat]
I think average up will give very slight more Tory MPs compared to today’s ratio (with a smaller total number of English MPs) than averaging down (higher total number of Mps in the English parliament), but it would depend on exactly what the value of the “average number of voters” per seat chosen was. The Tory party potentially wins either way.
@Nick, a rather odd view of how German gvmnts have been formed in the main, see this bit from Wiki
“balance of power in the Bundestag. It has been in federal government longer than any other party, as the junior coalition partner to either the CDU/CSU (1949–56, 1961–66, 1982–98, and 2009–13) or the Social Democratic Party (1969–82). However, in the German federal election in 2013 the FDP failed to win any directly elected seats in the Bundestag, and came up short of the 5 percent threshold”
As these LibDems held the balance of power more often than not, they first drove a tight bargain. Then they fypically held the Finance post to ensure no slippage from what actually had been agreed as for policy/spending priorities… Many Alexanders over the time, no point naming them.
@Nick
September 22, 2014 at 7:03 am you said:
“On the boundary commission … Evening out seat size alone whilst maintaining 650 MPs, would not have been so advantageous to Cameron/Osborne.”
September 24, 2014 at 5:25 am you said:
“Evening seat size per constituency and a lower number of MPs compared to the current boundaries may well create an advantage to Labour.”
So I am very confused as to whether you think fewer MPs would be good for the Conservatives or for Labour.
On FPTP vs PR. Whilst I believe that PR is a bit more unstable than FPTP, I think that El Sid is painting an extreme position about how unstable PR is. AFAIUI, the examples quotes have lots of parties and that is what makes PR countries politically unstable. When you always need a coalition of three or more parties to get a majority then they pull in different directions so often that things fall apart easily. If the coalition is only between two parties it is easier for it to stick together.
I believe that some FPTP systems are quite unstable as well. That is when people are voting largely on other non-political issues (ethnicity, religion, etc) and the voters are grouped geographically. Imagine that (virtually) all of Scotland voted SNP, all of Wales PC, all of the SW of England Lib-Dem, all of the North of England Labour and all of tech South of England Conservative. The Conservative might be the biggest party but a Labour/SNP/PC coalition might be able to scrape a majority whilst being quite unstable.
“That means that no parties manifesto actually commands complete support”
I never said that it did. In my example I talked about someone voting for a party as the overall balance of the manifesto is acceptable, not its totality. I suspect that there are very few people, even the leaders of the party, who are totally happy with the manifesto. If you then remove some key parts of that manifesto when in office people have a right to feel betrayed.
“There is no good democratic way to do this except by letting your elected representatives … reach a deal to run the country”
Sorry but there is. You can come to an arrangement beforehand and present a joint manifesto. I believe that happens in some PR countries, possibly Denmark.
Remember I talked about the electorate have no say in a post-election coalition.
“elected representatives (and they are meant to represent the voters first and party second)”
I know that this is the idea but it is not true in reality. Much as I would like this to be the case we have to work from where we actually are.
As I said earlier
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/09/scottish-defence-service-things-day-1/comment-page-2/#comment-307156
I have a certain liking for the idea of a ballot for some of the seats.
@Nick
it does seem to have had the effect of creating the strongest economy in the EU (even if its not the richest on a GDP/head basis
So you’re saying that the German system of government is best because they have the biggest population? It’s a point of view I suppose. A counter example would be the US system, which is generally a pretty extreme FPTP system with antagonism, porkbarreling and ineffectiveness built into it within the Beltway. But they do have a big economy (the UK would be the 49th state on GDP per capita).
I think people in general (and politicians in particular) vastly overstate the effect politicians have on the economy in general, although there’s specific counter examples (usually of it going wrong). But sticking with Germany, I think you can argue that the way PR has let the Greens hold disproportionate influence has been a disaster for the German economy, whether it’s the 7-8% they got that put them in power under Schroder in 1998-2005 or the 10-15% they’ve been getting in recent state elections which has put them into coalitions at state level across West Germany and frightened Merkel into binning nuclear power altogether in 2011. It’s left them with the most expensive electricity in Europe, with an unstable grid and some of the highest CO2 emissions – whichever way you look at it it’s a disaster from a practical point of view.
I also think we have a bit of an inferiority complex when it comes to the German economy, partly thanks to the poor media coverage of it, and partly because we still think they’re having their post-war boom when for a generation they’ve been pretty similar to us (and arguably they’ve followed us with a 10-year lag when it comes to the decline of manufacturing etc). Obviously historical figures are complicated because of the integration of East Germany, but the World Bank GDP figures for the last 30 years put UK GDP growth averaging 2.45% and Germany 1.85% (Eurozone 1.86%, France 1.75% for comparison); over 20 years we average 2.35% and Germany 1.39% and over 10 years it’s in the range 1.2-1.3% depending which year you take, to 2012 we’re slightly in front, to 2013 they nose ahead. I suspect that if you just looked at West Germany they would be pretty similar to us.
El Sid
There are a lot of quite different GDP number per head out there. Looking at world bank web site the UK is $39.3k, compared to US ($53.1), France ($41.4), Germany ($45.1), Ireland ($47.4). Given where the French economy is today and what Ireland has just been through does that make sense to you ? It doesn’t to me. I can’t say I have spent any time in Germany, but my wife is French and France certainly doesn’t feel $2k per head richer than the UK.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
Whilst I’m somewhat disbelieving regarding these numbers, it would seem that the UK, has one of the lowest GDP per head numbers in Western Europe (Italy is lower), which doesn’t suggest that we haven’t been as economically successful as we like to think.
We may have grown faster than Germany or France since 1980, but the raw numbers suggest we started from a lower base in the 1970s and haven’t caught up. [again I doubt the numbers as the UK economy was bigger than France up to 2008]. Also since Germany incorporated a much poorer East Germany in that period, Western German GDP would be higher still (and they wouldn’t have spent 200 billion on tax funding East German infrastructure).
Whether this is down to the political system, the growing gap between rich and poor (the UK is high up in that statistic), it does seem that something is wrong with economic management in the UK.
@Nick
“We may have grown faster than Germany or France since 1980, but the raw numbers suggest we started from a lower base in the 1970s and haven’t caught up. [again I doubt the numbers as the UK economy was bigger than France up to 2008].”
I have read in a couple of places recently (but don’t ask me where, I’ve forgotten) that we are due to overtake France again (in terms of overall GDP) some time in 2015.
Anyway, does GDP per head always matter as much as GDP overall? For instance, in the world of Defence. With an overall GDP of £500 billion, you are not likely to be able to afford two aircraft carriers, whereas with an overall GDP of £1.5 trillion, you might be (and we just have done). Or are my economics just too crude for words?
Nick – it has been a huge disappointment that the current Gov’t hasn’t applied itself to measures that would have encouraged and facilitated greater exports. I always thought the Tories were supposed to be business-minded? To my simplistic mind the only two ways to make a state richer are either to find resources in the ground that previously were shipped in (reduction of imports) or creating stuff the world wants to buy (increase in exports). Bigger exports, smaller imports. Moving cash around inside our own borders might make people feel better, might redistribute the wealth already here, but doesn’t make us richer as a country.
@Nick
Here’s probably not the place to get fully into economics. But just to quickly address some of your points. GDP is not a perfect measure of economic activity as by definition it’s “domestic” and doesn’t tell you if that activity leads to money being retained in the economy. So for instance, when Google routes profits through Ireland for tax purposes and then moves them on to the US or wherever, that clocks up GDP but only the retained tax (and some accountants fees) stays in Ireland and contributes to Irish “wealth”. Measures such as GNP/GNI are better at describing that retained wealth, and as a result Ireland has a particularly inflated GDP relative to GNI.
The other thing is that to compare countries you usually end up involving exchange rates, which can skew things or at least distort things by at least the 10% kind of differences that we are looking at here. It’s worse when you get to Eurozone countries where it’s fairly easy to demonstrate that Germany is in an artificially low exchange rate whereas somewhere like Greece has an artificially high one. The World Bank tries to adjust for that effect a little bit with its ATLAS metric, but it doesn’t fully cover it, that’s why I used local currency GDP growth (NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG). If you want a per capita metric then ATLAS GNI may fit your prejudices :-) closer – NY.GNP.PCAP.CD but it’s still not perfect.
We may have grown faster than Germany or France since 1980, but the raw numbers suggest we started from a lower base in the 1970s and haven’t caught up…..something is wrong with economic management in the UK.
Countries don’t have a divine right to GDP, if you have a “bad” decade like we did in the 70s then there’s no fairy wand to magic back that GDP. Once you lose something like a semiconductor or machine tool industry, network effects mean it tends to stay in the countries you’ve lost it to, it’s way harder to start from scratch. That’s why so much effort was expended on saving GM a few years ago, the US would not have got that chunk of the car industry back. Conversely, Germany would find it nearly impossible to replicate Lloyds of London or the Aberdeen oil services industry. All you can say is that we were crap in the 70s but since then have done OK, even if there are legitimate concerns about debt levels, housing supply, government share of the economy etc.
I mentioned the East Germany effect – as I say I suspect that we’ve broadly kept pace with West Germany, although all that reconstruction money counted as an “artificial” boost to GDP… That’s why I also mentioned the Eurozone as a whole, which we’ve also outpaced comfortably since 1980 – East Germany was a relatively small proportion of that whole. I’d guess that rather than trying to correlate with PR vs FPTP, you’d be better off trying to correlate with socialist vs right-wing governments…
@Chris
Osborne’s tried a bit to be fair, the real trouble is that we’ve had a Business Secretary who doesn’t really like business very much and thinks he knows something about economics but doesn’t. He was the one meant to be burning red tape and so on, but it’s not really happened. (Yes, I know what Cable’s old job was. I prefer to deal in the evidence of my own eyes, such as the interview he did with Andrew Neil where he was hopelessly exposed on the modern economy. Embarassingly so.)
El Sid
I agree GNP is better measure in theory, but I doubt whether any of these are particularly well calculated (like the economy of iScotland almost impossible to know before you create it). However, apart from places like Ireland (and the Netherlands to a degree also) which are using tax/legal environment to create head office and tax wheeze based growth, the relative measure between countries is likely to be more important measure. Having said that all of Google’s and Apples billions sitting in Irish and Dutch banks (they cant remit to the US without paying 35 % tax on it) must be generating investment by those banks, a large proportion of which will be in Ireland or the Netherlands.
To answer MikeW’s point, clearly absolute size sets the amount you can afford, but higher GDP/head means your total GDP is larger your economy is and the more you can afford to spend. Its a virtuous circle.
I think Chris is largely right, Circulating money in the UK doesn’t increase GDP/head per say. However, increasing the wealth of the poorest sector, does probably mean more money is spent domestically (food, property) and raises Government tax take (every pound spent above the basic rate tax threshold, about 30 % comes back in the form of PAYE and NI and a further amount of increased VAT – less than 20 % as Food and some clothes are zero rated).
Spending by wealthier people is more likely to be exported (holidays, imported consumer goods etc), although an element will be creamed off by UK agents (retail sector etc). Redistribution of wealth within the country is likely to boost growth and wealth generation ultimately as well as increasing employment. You can’t have a consumer led economy without consumers. The real question here is about balance and whether its better to have public spending via public sector or private. There are pros and cons with both.
UK manufacturing is on the whole very good and focused on high tech sectors to a larger degree than is commonly imagined. We produce more cars in the UK now than we did in the 1980s; we also strong in the design and more specialists element in that sector. What we don’t keep in the UK (to the complete extent) is the profit generated by this activity (distributed offshore). Nor do we have the major corporate entities owning this production being UK companies. That means another element of potential wealth generation (senior management jobs plus support infrastructure) is off shore. Worse still investment decisions are taken offshore.
You might also argue that a higher proportion of our pensions investment is made offshore as a result of a smaller pool of large international corporates. The UK is rather poorly represented in the Fortune 500 list of major publically owned international corporations (less than France or Germany for sure).
Using El Sid’s explanation, this may well mean our GDP is higher than our GNP by more than is perhaps the case in Germany or France.
UK government strategy for rebalancing the economy is cutting corporate income tax to 20 % (from about 28 %) and some support for IT sector and belatedly pharmaceuticals. We need to do more than this (supporting science and engineering degrees by eliminating tuition fees for example, tax benefits to support apprenticeship based training, much better tax breaks for capital investment, simplifying the tax system itself). Whatever, this is a slow process – 10 to 20 years -, which doesn’t play well with the electoral timetable.
@Nick, a lot of good stuff there. However, I would disagree with regards to the tax breaks and tuition fees. For the former, it complicates the tax system as well as disadvantaging SME’s: we don’t need to “support” BAE, we need to make life as friction-free as possible for those coming up. Cutting tuition fees for engineers will ensure their wages out of college drop, and I’d aver the big issue with engineering in the UK is the historically low wages paid have a knock on effect on the prestige of the profession.
@El Sid (& Thread)
“I think people in general (and politicians in particular) vastly overstate the effect politicians have on the economy in general”
I suspect that you are both right & wrong. They overestimate their positive effect and try and ignore their negative effect. Belgium recently went througt a very long period (well over 400 days IIRC w/o a government), during which time the economy grew quite nicely, in some quarters being fastest growing Eurozone economy. Constantly having to adapt to new/changed rules is a drag on business, especially smaller businesses.