Scotland Watch

[UndercoverElephant]

I'd be worried about all those "free services" Who is paying for them?

English taxpayers.

[RenewableCandy]

Yes, via the said Barnett Formula.

But going back to my previous post, one has to ask what is the advantage to HMG of the said formula? There very obviously must be one, or else it would long ago have been quietly cut.

That Scotland would otherwise be a net contributor to UK tax coffers, and knows this, is the most logical explanation I can muster. Anyone else think of a better one?

[Tarrel]

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

Good question, and it goes right to the heart of the independence debate.

The Unionists would argue that the Barnett Formula is skewed in favour of the Scots, allowing more spending on public services than would otherwise be possible. The counter-argument is that Scotland's tax contribution, averaged per capita, is higher than the rUK, although this includes oil taxation from Scotland's share of the oil fields.

The Nationalists' argument is that, on balance, the generosity of the Barnett Formula is compensated for by the additional tax-take. So, if you float Scotland off as an independent country, the effect on spending power per capita would be broadly neutral. Of course there are a huge number of variables in play here, many dependent on the outcome of negotiations about the detail of independence. These include:
- Projected North Sea oil revenues (the subject of much debate currently in the referendum campaigns)
- Interest payments on any negotiated share of the UK's sovereign debt
- The rate of these interest payments
- The rate of contribution to the EU
- Potential export balance of renewable energy as capacity is developed
etc.

The Nationalists repeatedly point to the "Nordic" model of high employment, high tax and high public services as a way forward. This does seem to fit with the generally more socially democratic Scottish mindset. The question is, would Scotland be prepared to put up with the higher tax rates that go with this model?

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, via the said Barnett Formula.

But going back to my previous post, one has to ask what is the advantage to HMG of the said formula? There very obviously must be one, or else it would long ago have been quietly cut.

The only possible advantages are (a) keeping the ungrateful Scottish nationalists at bay and (b) avoiding the political difficulties of "rebalancing."

[RenewableCandy]

ungrateful

Ah.

[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.

Good question, and it goes right to the heart of the independence debate.

Thanks,I do try to add substance to the discussion from time to time.

[vtsnowedin]

The Nationalists repeatedly point to the "Nordic" model of high employment, high tax and high public services as a way forward. This does seem to fit with the generally more socially democratic Scottish mindset. The question is, would Scotland be prepared to put up with the higher tax rates that go with this model?

I find it hard to visualize a "socially democratic Scottish mindset" .Of course my view comes from Scrooge McDuck and the "Lady of the Lake" mixed with Scottish descendant Vermonters I know that pinch every penny until it squeals. Did all the tight fisted Scots move out and leave a bunch of dependent whiners behind?

[kenneal - lagger]

The Nordic model doesn't rely on government provided non jobs but on productive employment, some of it in the oil industry. Their agriculture, much of it small scale and suffering from a short growing season and low temperatures and light levels, is well subsidised though from oil revenue, but it is still a productive industry.

Our socialist governments have thought that the government employing people in administrative posts can provide a useful addition to the economy. Such jobs will always be a drain on the economy as they have to be paid for by taxation on productive jobs. The government jobs may mean that people are paying tax but they don't pay as much tax as their earnings so the balance has to come from taxation on productive jobs. If Scotland goes down this road they will very soon flounder and be back looking for Union again.

The danger would be that they create a load of jobs subsidised by the oil revenue and when that revenue reduces the would then have to make he unpalatable decision to scrap those non jobs, just as UK governments have had to it the recent past.

[Little John]

This piece by Paul Mason sums it up for me. I've emboldened what, for me, is the key to all of this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nout-polls

You could tell it was getting serious when Gordon Brown made friends with Alistair Darling; and when the Scottish Daily Mail began running doom headlines about the future of the Union. I don't know whether the narrowing of the poll lead for the no campaign was just a blip, but it doesn't feel like it.

Something incredible is happening in Scotland. The little pin badges – Yes or No – that people wear are sparking open conversation: in the pub, the swimming baths, the post office queue. An entire country of 5 million people is asking itself, sometimes quite vociferously, what it wants to be.

It's even more incredible if you consider the possible outcome. If enough people tick the yes box, then come 2016 the flag of Great Britain will have to go minus a whole colour.

It probably won't happen. But few south of the border realise how volatile the outcome is. Yes, the polls reflect bookie William Hill's confidence that there's just a one in five chance of a majority for independence – but the variables are bigger than for most political events.

Having spent last week in Glasgow, I would say the biggest variable is going to be turnout. When political enthusiasm reaches the relatively apolitical world of the council estate, the pub, the nightclub and energises people, turnout can do weird things to poll predictions. Alex Salmond claimed there would be 80% turnout. I think the chances are even higher – and if the polls actually cope with such volume, every percentage point above normal introduces volatility not captured by normal polling.

At the Sub Club, a world-famous nightspot in Glasgow, the debate was remarkably coherent, even at 2am among the intoxicated smokers huddled outside. If I could distil the vox pops among those under-30s to a single thought it would be: "We want to run our own country."

They have heard all the dire macro-economic warnings – about the pound, the banks, the debt, the non-reliability of oil money. Set against the idea of making a clean break with Westminster politics and neoliberal economics, these are risks many of them are prepared to take.

One reason the political class is not hearing the debate properly is that, on each side, there are mismatched political leaderships and tin-eared campaign groups. On the yes side, many of the young people I spoke to despise Alex Salmond. On the no side, it's fair to say Alistair Darling is not hugely representative of a coalition that includes people from the Orange lodges and the Scottish Tories, and the gay clubbers I met who were firm no voters.

If, on the morning of 19 September, we wake up and that 4/1 horse of independence has come in, the levels of shock in official circles will be extreme. The Conservatives will have presided over the breakup of the Union. Even compared with handing Zimbabwe to Zanu-PF, and Hong Kong to the Chinese Communist party, that will be a major psychological moment.

Even more traumatised will be Labour. The prospect of a majority Labour government at Westminster after 2016 will be remote. The party in Scotland will likely go into meltdown, with a Podemos-style left emerging among the pro-independence Labour camp, the Greens and the progressives around groups like Common Weal.

There will be immediate ramifications beyond the UK: in Madrid and Brussels there will be outcry; in Barcelona public joy; in Moscow quiet glee.

But the official narrative does not allow us to consider the possibility of a yes victory. The political class – and I include Salmond's SNP in this – is like the tightroper wobbling on a wire between two skyscrapers. Its members can't allow themselves to think of the consequence of falling off. The old certainties will be so dead anyway that it will scarcely matter.

What we can say, already, is that the no campaign – for all its resilience in the opinion polls – failed in its plan to turn the referendum into an issue of macro-economic risk. If it has worked, it is among the older population and not the majority of the young.

The most coherent of the young people I spoke to understood the macro-economic risk. But they weighed it against two increasingly intolerable burdens: the inability of Scotland's relatively left-leaning electorate to influence Westminster; and the inability to budge Scottish Labour away from the free-market and pro-austerity policies associated with Brown and Darling.

What this means is, even if the yes vote fails on 18 September, scoring somewhere in the mid 40s, the pattern of all future Scottish independence debates is set.

Independence has become a narrative of the people against big government; about an energised Scottish street, bar and nightclub versus the sleazy elite of official politics.
Alistair Darling, leader of the pro-union Better Together campaign Alistair Darling, leader of the Better Together campaign. Photograph: Andrew Milligan/PA

And in response, the left part of the pro-union camp has had to develop its own, "more radical than Darling" rationales. It's not something you hear from the Westminster parties, but via social media I have picked up a strong meme among Scottish trade union members that independence under the SNP is "not radical enough to bother".

Once established, political psychologies like this do not go away. History shows they intensify until something gives, and at some point it is usually the borders of a nation state.

What we know already is that a significant number of Scottish people have a dream: where statehood, social justice and cultural self-confidence fit together into a clear and popular project.

The rest of Britain may be stunned, but should not be surprised if the enthusiasm for this dream propels enough people into the voting booths to give the yes camp a narrow victory.

If it happens there'll be a lot of finger pointing, but it's obvious in advance where the biggest problem lies: it's become impossible to express opposition to free market economics via the main Westminster parties.

Some English and Welsh voters think they're doing it by voting Ukip. But the referendum offered Scottish voters a way to do it by destroying the union. Whether you think that's illusory or mistaken, it's formed the narrative on the streets.

That's where we should be watching now; the high-camp shouting match of men in suits is a diversion.

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, I'd broadly agree with this, but there's a fundamental problem for the yes camp: they're voting for an unrealisable dream. The numbers don't add up. Whoever were to take over the governance of an independent Scotland would not be able to deliver on all the promises that have been made by the yes campaign. The nationalists will be overjoyed for a few weeks, but then over the coming months, well before the actual date of independence, the whole thing will have turned very sour indeed as reality replaces fantasy and the "macroeconomic questions" have to be given real answers. Give it 2 years and most of them will be wishing they'd voted no, but by then there will be no way back.

I still think it is possible, after a narrow yes vote, that the negotiations on the details of independence will effectively fail, followed by a general election result that calls into question the result of the referendum. A total fu*k-up in other words.

[Tarrel]

Another debate just starting on STV. Being streamed online. Different format. Three people from each side, in "Town Hall debate" style. Chaired by Bernard Ponsonby, who is excellent.

[Tarrel]

Patrick Harvie, leader of the Scottish Green Party, on his feet debating defence and foreign policy against Ruth Davidson - Scottish Conservatives. Putting in a strong performance.

Ruth Davidson just cited Vlad's supposed boast that he could "take Kiev in two weeks" as an argument for why we need nuclear weapons!

[Mr. Fox]

supposed boast that he could "take Kiev in two weeks"

Alas, the Putin quote would appear to be yet another media (Italy's 'La Repubblica') fabrication.

Chizhov is now threatening to release a recording/transcript of the phone conversation!

Chizhov said such disclosure of confidential conversations at this level "goes far beyond the bounds of the generally accepted diplomatic practice."

"I am aware that the administration of the Russian President has both a written and audio recording of the telephone conversation in question and to clarify things is ready to release them if you do not inform [us] of your objections to the release in the next two days,"

Still, that won't stop them getting their war on.

[Tarrel]

George Monbiot's view in The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... d-scotland

Scots voting no to independence would be an astonishing act of self-harm.
England is dysfunctional, corrupt and vastly unequal. Who on earth would want to be tied to such a country?

[OrraLoon]

Oh dear, Mr Undercover"Home Counties" Interests Elephant, I think that you've left out the your usual [yet essential] bit about the population / resources balance.

Sure, there's plenty of natural resources per head compared to the rest of the UK. It's not so much that Scotland couldn't have made a go of it as an independent nation, but that this specific yes campaign has been a total shambles, run by a bunch incompetent morons. Alex Salmond didn't actually need to get into such a complete mess on the currency, on Europe, on defence and on countless other issues. He got into that mess because he's very arrogant, and much better at delivering a clever line than actually coming up with a good political strategy or real solutions to real problems. Scotland is in no position to become independent at this point in time, because several very basic policy issues have not been sorted out. Do you really want Scotland to be run by a bunch of people who have had years to sort out credible answers to questions like "what currency will you use?", but still haven't managed to do so three weeks before the referendum takes place?

Alex Salmond, not so long ago, claimed that "for many years, Sterling has been a millstone around Scotland's neck". That was bollocks. Now he's saying "It's our currency, and you can't stop us using it!" Guess what? That's also bollocks, because it is based on the absurd notion that a currency is an asset, and that an independent Scotland has as much right to be in a currency union with the rest of the UK as it does to a share of the UK's gold reserves.

There's a lesson here, for those willing to learn something, and it's that Alex Salmond simply hates the English and will say or do anything that feeds his hatred. If he was even remotely rational then he wouldn't end up talking so much bollocks. He doesn't want "Scottish independence". What he wants is to have his cake and eat it - he wants all the benefits of independence, but none of the drawbacks. He wants the freedom to have total political control, while somebody else (and he doesn't care whether it's the English or the Germans) picks up the tab. And it's a fantasy. And that's why I genuinely hope there's a Yes outcome, because I'm going to find it highly amusing when these Scottish nationalists find out where they've actually been led by Mr Salmond. Moses he is not.

So is the real problem with the Yes campaign that it is too successful or a shambles?
As for Kerensky, he will depart, by one means or another.
It's laughable to suggest that K. hates the English. He's been positively encouraging English immigration – and it might come back to bite him on his fat posterior. My bigger worry would be that it leads to a Northern Cypriot or Eastern Ukrainian situation.
K. also referred to an 'arc of prosperity' embracing Norway, Iceland, the RoI [and by extension, us]. Now, while I'm in favour of a northern energy and military alliance of small countries [which could include places like Nova Scotia when Canada breaks up] , I think that this is just wilful dumbing-down by an intelligent man attempting to yoke things operating under unlike systems together.
After independence it might be a good long-term idea to tell a good proportion of the financial establishment to get tae…their new English domicile. Now, that really would be an example of political and economic pain for gain, but is K. the man to do it? His ex-chum Fred The Shred says no.

P.S. You [and DearBoy Beria of course] are to blame for me overinvesting in gold! Still, come the morn of 19 Sep…