Scotland Watch

[UndercoverElephant]

CSPAN just had on a rebroadcast of Mondays debate between Darling and Salmon. This was the first time I had seen either of them.
I thought Salmon won it handily.
The most telling shot came from the audience. Question was "If we are better off together why are we not better off already?".

Nah. I saw that debate, and that particular question was nothing more than a witty one-liner with no actual substance whatsoever. The question is utterly meaningless. "Better together" means "Scotland and the rest of the UK are both better off together than either would be if they separated." "Why are we not better together already?" is a totally different question (i.e. "why are we [who is we?] better off than we are?"). I'd say that question was a candidate for the least "telling shot" in the whole debate. Great as part of a poem or song lyric; of no relevance at all in a political debate.

Darling wouldn't let the currency question go even though Salmon repeatedly answered it well.

Darling wouldn't let it go because SalmonD DID NOT answer it well. He barely answered it at all. The question was "What is your Plan B, given that your Plan A isn't going to fly because you require our permission for it [and it will be denied]?" His response was "We've got THREE plan-B's! So there!" This is a typical Alex Salmond delivery of a line that sounds clever, but does not stand up to scrutiny. Are three Plan-B's actually better than one? Well, no they aren't. He came up with this answer as a way of providing some sort of answer to the question Darling asked him repeatedly in the first debate and he couldn't answer at all, without actually answering it. You can't have "three Plan B's". If Plan A fails, which it would, then he's actually got to decide on ONE Plan B. You can't implement three. So why couldn't Salmond just tell the audience which of his three options it would be? Answer: because if he'd done so then Darling would have taken him to pieces - Darling would have made it very obvious why that Plan B was not very appealing at all. By providing three "answers" instead of one, Salmond just dodged this bit of critical examination. Again, if you were taken in by this tactic then you're too easily taken in. It's a classic example of "the Salmond problem" - it works quite well in a debate or as a TV soundbite when nothing actually rests on it, especially when the target audience is already on your side or incapable of understanding the underlying issues, but it's absolutely useless if what you're doing is making tough decisions required to run a country. It's just rhetoric, and it doesn't take much scratching away at the surface to reveal there's nothing of any value behind it. Smugness, pomposity and the ability to keep a straight face while talking utter crap are not desirable traits in a political leader.

Salmon missed an opportunity when Darling asked what an Independent Scotland would do if North sea Oil revenues dropped a half million pounds. The obvious answer is " the same thing a united UK will do as voting NO will not keep that from happening.

You don't get it. Alex Salmond and the nationalists are depending on oil as a very significant chunk of their national income. Therefore they are very vulnerable if oil revenues collapse. The united UK is nothing like as dependent on oil income.

[vtsnowedin]

Well, as I already said, I'm actually rather hoping for a yes win. It would be a fascinating political spectacle watching Salmond and his cronies actually dealing with the realities of negotiating the terms of independence, while the people who voted yes find out just who was bluffing, and who wasn't.

One thing we know for certain is that there is going to be a general election in the UK, including Scotland, before actual independence could happen (i.e. when negotiations have actually been going on for quite a while, and a lot of the hard realities have well and truly dawned). For me, this sounds like first class entertainment.

Yes that would be fun to watch if your own personal fat wasn't in the fire.

I'm not sure that it is. Not much of it anyway.

If it happens what parts of the present government will the Scots chose to leave behind and what others will they just change the letter head on the stationary and carry on?

Don't understand the question. The "present government" is a UK government made up of MPs elected from all parts of the existing UK, including Scotland. If Scotland were to become independent there would have to be some sort of one-off negotiated agreement as to what happened immediately after, and I suspect it would be another election both in Scotland and the remaining UK. If you're talking about the civil service, which is the non-elected body of people who actually carry out the instructions of the elected officials, then all of those are based in London and I fully expect them to remain so. Nobody will "just change the letterhead [to Scottish] and just carry on".

The really big fear of some people south of the border is that the loss of Scotland will condemn us to permanent tory rule. I used to think this too, but I've been convinced otherwise during the course of the independence debate. If anything, I think the shock to the unwritten British constitution of Scotland leaving would so shake things up that the political left would be forced to re-invent itself. I don't think it would be the disaster some people believe it would be.

By "parts of government" I meant such things as the body of common law, the NHS, Social security and welfare programmes , Army, Navy, rail system, Transportation department. Gas taxes. Vat.
It would be a great challenge taking the reigns but it is also a great opportunity to try different approaches where the present UK setup is falling short.
You could not do much of it at first and would have to continue most laws , rules, and departments en masse with just a letterhead change, then consider each issue in detail at Parliament.

[vtsnowedin]

You don't get it. Alex Salmond and the nationalists are depending on oil as a very significant chunk of their national income. Therefore they are very vulnerable if oil revenues collapse. The united UK is nothing like as dependent on oil income.

Perhaps I don't . I think the UK's public debt is such that the coming decline in oil revenues is going to bite in a big way. In fact I can't imagine the English settling on a separation agreement with Scotland that doesn't retain a proportionate share of the North Sea oil fields for England.
But we were watching two schooled debaters jockeying for position, for Salmon to propose a solution would have handed Darling an opportunity to attack that solution only while ignoring all others hence winning points . Salmon didn't bite.
While they both talked over each other incessantly I think Darling came over as being by far the ruder and relying on scare tactics vs. Salmons optimism.

Just my Yank view of the proceedings presented for your amusement and not intended to sway anyone's vote.

[UndercoverElephant]

By "parts of government" I meant such things as the body of common law,

Scotland had its own legal system when it joined the Union, and has always retained it separately to the rest of the UK.

the NHS,

The NHS isn't the government. It's the NHS. The government just funds it, and makes laws that govern how it operates. So in this case the answer is all about how much money the Scottish government can afford to spend on health. The Scottish bits of infrastructure will obviously remain Scottish.

Social security and welfare programmes

Ditto. All depends on available funds, which in turn depends on the currency question.

, Army, Navy

Big unknown, especially the nuclear submarines currently based in Scotland, which the nationalists have vowed to get rid of at the same time as vowing to join NATO, which is a nuclear alliance. Not properly thought through, like most of their plans.

rail system

The bits in Scotland will remain Scottish. There's a few franchises for cross-border services, but these are mostly in private hands anyway.

Transportation department. Gas taxes. Vat.

All set in Scotland.

[UndercoverElephant]

You don't get it. Alex Salmond and the nationalists are depending on oil as a very significant chunk of their national income. Therefore they are very vulnerable if oil revenues collapse. The united UK is nothing like as dependent on oil income.

Perhaps I don't . I think the UK's public debt is such that the coming decline in oil revenues is going to bite in a big way.

The oil is something of a red herring. The nationalists are grossly exaggerating the likely future revenues. In reality that party is almost over.

In fact I can't imagine the English settling on a separation agreement with Scotland that doesn't retain a proportionate share of the North Sea oil fields for England.

Of course. There will be a massive argument about what direction the line is drawn out into the north sea. The Scots will demand it is drawn east-west, giving them all the oil and gas. The English will point out that it was "officially" drawn perpendicular to the coast (or a continuation of the land border) (by Blair's government), giving something like half the remaining resources to England.

http://www.oilofscotland.org/scotlands_stolen_sea.html

There is a shocking fact that few people in Scotland or elsewhere know which is just as disgraceful as the 30 year Westminster administration and deceit over Scotland’s oil. This is the as-yet unexplained and secret action by Westminster Order in 1999 to move Scotland’s marine boundary from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Carnoustie. To this day this lost Scotland 6,000 square miles of the North Sea, nodded through at the time by the feckless and treacherous Lib/Lab arm of Westminster based in Holyrood.

The shocking thing about this secret order is that it was not openly discussed in the Commons, passed by the house of Lords and then passed by a very select Labour and Liberal committee in the Scottish Office.

Ho-hum....

But we were watching two schooled debaters jockeying for position

Nah. We were watching one smug smart-arse who shows little grasp of understanding the big political/economic issues and one quietly-spoken ex-chancellor who understands it very well.

Salmon didn't bite.

SALMOND not Salmon.

While they both talked over each other incessantly I think Darling came over as being by far the ruder and relying on scare tactics vs. Salmons optimism.

Optimism? I'd call it delusion.

[vtsnowedin]

SALMOND not Salmon.

.

Did not notice the D. Had a Tom Salmon Governor here once so didn't find a fishy sounding politician out of the ordinary.

[vtsnowedin]

, Army, Navy

Big unknown, especially the nuclear submarines currently based in Scotland, which the nationalists have vowed to get rid of at the same time as vowing to join NATO, which is a nuclear alliance. Not properly thought through, like most of their plans.

I thought Salmond won that one handily When he pointed out that NATO members Norway and Canada are non nuclear countries.
As far a defense department expenditures go What would an independent Scotland need to defend against? Englishmen poaching fish?

[UndercoverElephant]

, Army, Navy

Big unknown, especially the nuclear submarines currently based in Scotland, which the nationalists have vowed to get rid of at the same time as vowing to join NATO, which is a nuclear alliance. Not properly thought through, like most of their plans.

I thought Salmond won that one handily When he pointed out that NATO members Norway and Canada are non nuclear countries.

Yeah, but they don't already have a nuclear submarine base on their territory at a time they want to apply for membership! This is typical of the "have your cake and eat it" attitude of the Nationalists. They definitely want to have the protection that comes with being part of NATO, but they don't want to pay the price of giving NATO what it wants from them in return.

As far a defense department expenditures go What would an independent Scotland need to defend against?

Depends on the context. You might say the same about the UK as a whole - what do we need an army and Navy for now, apart from the occasional war with Argentina? We certainly don't need the capacity to get involved in pointless, illegal wars in faraway places like Iraq. That's some sort of stupid hangover from when were a major world power, and a complete waste of money, IMO. On the other hand, if/when the shit really does hit the fan, then "Scottish independence" can be reversed very quickly by the English army, just as it was on numerous occasions in the past. Scotland can't defend itself against England. Both economically and military, Scotland couldn't compete with it's larger neighbour to the south. That is history, it's got a lot to do with the enormous chip on the shoulder of Salmond and the other nationalists, and in a future world where international law is breaking down and the English want to get hold of Scottish resources without having to pay for them, the English will just take them, again. Scotland has provided many famous regiments for the British army, but they were paid for and resourced by British taxpayers. The history of Scotland's battles with England is one of defeats, apart from one or two famous exceptions that certain Scottish people still hang on to as defining moments in their history. A bit like the very rare occasions when Scotland actually managed to beat England at football.

Englishmen poaching fish?

I suspect they'll have to give up most of their own fishing rights to the EU - specifically to the Spanish, who have a veto over any Scottish application to join the EU and have said they intend to use it.

[vtsnowedin]

UCE wrote:
.

I suspect they'll have to give up most of their own fishing rights to the EU - specifically to the Spanish, who have a veto over any Scottish application to join the EU and have said they intend to use it.

One has to wonder if Scotland becoming independent for England is good would not independence from the EU be even better?
Or is that a whole different kettle of fish?

[Snail]

That is history, it's got a lot to do with the enormous chip on the shoulder of Salmond and the other nationalists, and in a future world where international law is breaking down and the English want to get hold of Scottish resources without having to pay for them, the English will just take them, again. Scotland has provided many famous regiments for the British army, but they were paid for and resourced by British taxpayers. The history of Scotland's battles with England is one of defeats, apart from one or two famous exceptions that certain Scottish people still hang on to as defining moments in their history. A bit like the very rare occasions when Scotland actually managed to beat England at football.

Good god,
It seems Scotland's biggest threat is England. Better together indeed.

Why mention football: Scotland became world champions in 1967 when we beat.....England.

Vtsnowedin: if you want a laugh watch Wembley invasion, no doubt on youtube.

[UndercoverElephant]

That is history, it's got a lot to do with the enormous chip on the shoulder of Salmond and the other nationalists, and in a future world where international law is breaking down and the English want to get hold of Scottish resources without having to pay for them, the English will just take them, again. Scotland has provided many famous regiments for the British army, but they were paid for and resourced by British taxpayers. The history of Scotland's battles with England is one of defeats, apart from one or two famous exceptions that certain Scottish people still hang on to as defining moments in their history. A bit like the very rare occasions when Scotland actually managed to beat England at football.

Good god,
It seems Scotland's biggest threat is England. Better together indeed.

For hundreds of years, before the union of England and Scotland, the biggest threat to Scotland was England. And Scotland, in return, posed a long-term threat to English security because they, in effect, permanently left the back door open for French invasion from the north. The Scots, as well as occasionally launching raids on the borders and the one or two forays as far as Derbyshire, had a ongoing agreement with the French: "Anytime you fancy landing an army in Scotland and marching south, we'll welcome you with open arms, supply you with resources and men, and share the spoils if we win."

That is the historic reality. And yes, we both really are far better off together, especially if the world is heading for unstable and uncertain times. This is just one example of many where the Scottish nationalists are taking the benefits of the union for granted, and assuming they will continue after independence. If the Scots think that post-independence they will have their "best mate" on their southern border then they've got another think coming. The breakup will be deeply unpleasant, not unlike a nasty divorce. The Scots will then find out what its like when England is as anti-Scottish as Scotland is already anti-English. And if push comes to shove in a messed up future world, England will simply annex Scotland, take what it wants, and the Scots will be in no position to do anything to stop them.

[Tarrel]

SALMOND not Salmon.

.

Did not notice the D. Had a Tom Salmon Governor here once so didn't find a fishy sounding politician out of the ordinary.

It's not helped by the fact that his sidekick is Nicola Sturgeon, thus enhancing the general fish orientation.

Sorry. Another red herring.

[Snail]

[Tarrel]

VTS, just to clarify, there are certain aspects of government and public services that are already devolved to Scotland. These include:
- Education
- National Health Service
- Environment
- Local Government policy
- Transport

Scotland has had its own legal system for many years.

These devolved powers lead to some subtle (and not-so-subtle) differences in the way things are handled in Scotland. Some examples:
- Water utilities are state-owned, whereas they are privatised south of the border
- University education is free for Scottish residents
- Social care for the elderly is free
- There are no medical prescription charges or charges for eye-tests
- Aspects of criminal and civil law are different (e.g. there is a verdict of "not proven" in Scotland, which doesn't exist south of the border). Procedures for purchasing property (real estate) are also different
- There is a right to roam across private land in Scotland, that doesn't exist in rUK.

Currently, Scotland has no independent tax-raising powers, apart from at Local Government level. The Scottish Government's expenditure on the above services is funded through the Barnett Formula, a per-capita transfer of funds from the Treasury to Scotland. There is a debate over the fairness of the Barnett formula as, at the moment, it allows for higher per capita public expenditure in Scotland than is delivered in the rest of the UK.

The Scotland Act (2012) will devolve some tax-raising powers to the Scottish treasury. IIRC, they will be able to vary the income tax rate +/- 10 percentage points from that in rUK. They will also have some sovereign borrowing powers. This has already been passed into law and will come into effect even if there is a "No" vote in the referendum.

Throughout the referendum campaign, the Nationalists have pointed to various policy changes they would introduce in an independent Scotland. Better Together have argued that, with their devolved powers, the Scottish government have the ability to do some of those things anyway, so why haven't they? The Nationalists' response is that only with full control of all government policy will they be able to deliver a coherent, integrated strategy that is a best-fit for the Scottish people.

Of course, as has been pointed out on here, they would have to do that within the context of EU membership and, potentially, adherence to any fiscal / monetary rules laid down in a negotiated currency union.

[vtsnowedin]

I'd be worried about all those "free services" Who is paying for them? Nice to have naturally as long as the books balance.