| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| azzuri |
Principles go overboard as SNP turns hard to the right...Principles go overboard as SNP turns hard to the rightBY CAMPBELL MARTIN It is normal for British unionist parties to attack nationalists. These attacks are inaccurate, and designed simply to scare the people of Scotland from re-taking what is rightfully theirs. For me, as a socialist within the SNP from 1977-2004, the most glaringly inaccurate unionist jibe thrown at the SNP was that members were "tartan Tories". The SNP was not a socialist party, but it was sufficiently to the left of the political spectrum to allow people such as me to be comfortable as a member. I do not dispute there were, and remain, members of the SNP who, post-independence, would favour a society driven by the free market. However, those SNP members with a centre-right tendency were Scots first and would never have dreamed of advocating the policies of the Conservative and Unionist Party. Ironically, when the glitter has begun to fade from New Labour, when the people of the UK have finally seen through Tony Blair, the SNP has actually become a tartan Tory party. The first sign was the adoption by some in the SNP hierarchy of what is best described as "independence lite". This involves "parking" independence and, instead, arguing the SNP could better manage the Scottish Parliament within the UK. This was the philosophy of the failed former leader, John Swinney. Unfortunately, it has remained the favoured option. To the independence-lite advocates, any subsequent rejection of independence in their promised referendum would not matter too much. The price these SNP would-be Ministers seem willing to pay, however, is for independence to be set back generations. The second obvious sign of this repositioning was the decision to hand the enterprise brief to Jim Mather, an advocate of free-market, pro-globalisation backed by bodies such as the World Trade Organisation and by the economic strategists of the White House. New SNP's aim is to push "fiscal autonomy" and advocate a "competitive" Scotland. Scotland must compete in the global market – apparently against the likes of China. This begs the question of just how far down the SNP would see Scottish wages and conditions driven to allow workers to compete with oppressed people globally who build the obscene wealth of multinationals. Recently, the SNP's drift to the right has become a charted course, the engine on full throttle. Senior figures now advocate not independence, but "a culture of independence". At the party's spring conference, deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon said: "The party wants to create a culture of independence, which would let everyone make the most of their lives." What's the difference between: "We have a vision of a society of responsible, compassionate and free citizens, working hard and saving hard to be independent of the state" and: "We need the type of reform that successful countries have used to motivate their people . . . adopting a strategy of constant improvement coupled with mechanisms that reward hard work"? The first quote is from former Tory leader William Hague, in 2001, the second from Jim Mather in August 2006. Sadly, it doesn't stop there. The party now favours cutting business taxes to make Scotland-based companies more competitive. In addition, Mike Russell and Alex Neil, MSP, recently have endorsed the use of so-called tartan tax to cut income tax in Scotland by the maximum 3%. This week an internal SNP paper was leaked, proclaiming the SNP now favoured "smaller government" and would be prepared to cut executive departments, resulting in civil service job losses. These positions have supporters. "I am delighted to confirm today that we will cut taxes in Scotland," said former Tory MP Peter Duncan, in March 2005. "We will cut taxes on people and business and cut government interference and regulation to match the competition in the global market-place," said the Scottish Tory manifesto in 2001. The Russell/Neil tax proposal would see a bigger benefit to higher earners, confirmation that the SNP's support for redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation could be at an end. As a socialist advocate of independence, I find it sad the SNP has abandoned its principles and moved to the centre-right. The people of Scotland have had enough of New Labour and will say so at next year's Scottish election. As principal opposition, the SNP will benefit, mostly by default. It may lead the next Scottish Executive. But that may not be the end of the story. By adopting an independence-lite strategy and Tory policies, it may face pressure from pro-independence Independents, Greens and whatever materialises from the self-destruction of the Scottish Socialists. They could force the SNP into actually delivering on independence, rather than settling down to manage devolution within the UK. On May 5, 2005, the Westminster election, The Daily Telegraph ran an editorial headed: "Small government + freedom + low tax = vote Tory." I never thought I would see the day the Telegraph's option could also be answered with "vote SNP". see - http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/68013.html |
||||||||
| Economist |
Scotland needs more "socialism" and left wing policies a bit like the Eskimoes need more ice. We've had 7 years of that under the Lib/Labs and we can see the state that the country is in. | ||||||||
| CassiusClaymore |
The SNP is WAY better off without economically illiterate half-wits like Campbell Martin.
Most people who read his poorly-written diatribe will be more, not less, inclined to vote SNP as a result. Why has he not joined the SSP? |
||||||||
| Cado |
Ive never understood why both concepts can't easily be combined - since they both refer to two completely different things.
I personnaly view the world in two fundemental forms 1) Holistic - ie our social and moral values. Our vision of where we want to go and what sort of society we wish to live in. We often hear this when prospective, future Govts paint us their 'artists impression' of the future they invisage for us. 2) Hard numbers The physical word is just that, physical. Everything is tied together with science of some description, ie chemistry, economics, biology etc. This is all comprised of the knowledge we've aquired and gained over centuries - an understanding of how the physical world in which we live is structured and how it works. The problem with the two political polars at present IMO (Labour Tories) is that they focus on one of the above but neglect, even dismiss the other. ie the Tories have always been pro free market - economic theory and evidence over the centuries (IMO) has backed this (free market) as being an essential component in a society being able to advance their economy and, over time, be in a position to have a better PHYSICAL standard of living compared to those societies who've chosen the absolute version of the 'planned' economy. However, the Tories have always neglected part 1 - social justice - yes, a free market, but to what end? for what purpose? What about the ineviatible social consequences? The Tories have always, rather arrogantly IMO, dismissed these concerns "the free-market will sort em out" Labour were the absolute converse (well, used to be) - plenty of effort in the area of social justice - an issue and vision that I suspect weighs heavily on thr minds of many users of this forum. However labour have always neglected, even dismissed IMO, the reality of economics. The phyical limits that naturally exist, that cannot be overcome. Virtually all previous Labour Govts struggled with the economy - the 70s being an obvious time. Labours 'holisitc' model for social justice was not compatible with the 'physical' laws of economics - things eventually broke. The Tories 'phyical' model for economic success was not compatible with many people sense of 'social justice' - things eventually broke. Politics within the UK still generally occupies one of these two polar opposites - both sides mutually suspicious of the intent of the other. Anything that sounds like social justice gets decried by the other side in that'll damage the economy. Everything 'economic' aimed towards growth gets decried as being socialy injust. For things to work we need both. No social justice comes from having an economy defined using 'holstic' concepts - its a mismatch of concepts and things don't work. No economy will survive long if the concept of social justice is only ever view as cold statistics, ie unemployed, GDP per head, growth % - there is more to life than this. So, being blunt, I view the comments by the former MSP as being comments from the "holistic but no economics" camps. Though, a quick warning for the SNP - economics without social justice will render them open to the accusation of Tartan Tories. This would be tragic IMO All it will serve to do is to force Scottish Politics back into the two polar extremes that presently exist within the UK - this just leads to left and right swings, rather we need constant progressive development of both fronts, simultaneously. Find a nice, happy medium that allows balance and stability, that allows onr Govt to hand over to the other without the successor feeling the need for anything to radical - just a bit of adjustment of coarse as appropriate. So, I'm going ot have to be dismissive of the above comments - because I see no acknowledgement that good economic thinking is absolutly essential in any prospective Govt, the economic machine needs to keep functioning because it produces everything we have - the more we make, the more we have. The more healthy our economy them more options we have, the more available captial we have - the more services etc we can provide. This shuld be a constant train of thought in all prospective Govts - the only difference between them being we do we go as a society. As for re-distribution of wealth - its far easier to redistribute wealth as its being created - we can't redistribute what we don't have - them more we have, the more we can spread around. It needs to be made first. Anyway, a few thought. |
||||||||
| CassiusClaymore |
Excellent post Cado.
I would only observe that you have to get the economics right before you can spend the cash which a successful free market economy will deliver to the government by way of tax receipts. Incidentally, I once heard Tommy Sheridan saying that he would oppose tax cuts even if they resulted in an increase in the tax take! To me that sums up the economic illiteracy of many on the left. |
||||||||
| Anthropos |
Re: Principles go overboard as SNP turns hard to the right..Cambell Martin is a prize idiot, the SNP were wise to kick his arse out the door.
Oh no how terrible!  Where are all the sensible people advocating a planned economy when you need them?
Could someone arrange for Mr Martin to receive a copy of this book: 
It might help him to understand why West Europeans are not competing with the Chinese.
FFS - Only a moron would use an argument as stupid as this. To repeat: Campbell Marin = Prize Idiot. He really ought to be in the SSP dreaming about the future Brigadoon Republic. Best to leave politics to the grown ups. |
||||||||
| Rinty |
tNice to see that Martins political points abouyt how the SNP have developed answered by such in depth analysis.He asks real questions about the SNP and where they are at the moment and one has to ask how they can on one hand, cite Norway as an example while also looking a Ireland and also looking at a low wage low tax economy. Rather than attack Martins vision of the SNP or Mathers, we should be looking at the "all thing to all people" mish mash of polices that the SNP present to the public. I know that in this company it ias not worth defending the SSP but most right wingers I know at least admit that we do put forward a consistent vision of what we want for Scotland. Campbell Martin is probably closer to that than the other parties, but the SNP are really riding a wave of saying anything that will win votes and curry favour. I dont think that you polar opposites CADO or anything like opposites or that whoever said that the Lib?Lab pact is socialist has even bothered to try to look at it. We currently have a pro-privatisation free market Tories and Labour. In Scotland the Labour party are pinned back slightly by the Libs and by a more socialistic outlook of a large minority of voters. What the SNP want is low tax and high public spending - it doesnt add up. |
||||||||
| Cado |
You need to make the money before you can spend it - this needs to be hammered home! The Govt itself generally produces nothing - every penny it has is taken as a percentage of what is produced via production - the Govt just takes a share of total production in order to direct it towards whatever it sees fit to spend it on.
I think at present we have a total tax rate of around 48%. Therefore - out of total production (100%) 48% is allocated to the Govt, 52% is returned to production. The fact that is often neglected is that in order to produce we first need resources to work with - take too much out of production and production slips. We need 'money' (ie material resources, valued in £s) in order to create more resources. Since Govt takes it share as a percentage of total production the only sustainable way to increase resources to Govt is via growth in total production - thus the income generated via tax receipts increases also. The only real 'but' to this is the question of what the Govt does with the resources it has. Education is a very real investment in our economy - thus it does help production. As are other things. The scandic countries do demonstrate that high tax economies do work - however these are mature nations that fully understand the value of economics in the decisions their Govts make - ours rarely have. IMO. The economy is everything - with a healthly productive economy we can go anywhere and achieve anything we want - with no economy we're dead in the water and no matter what society may like to do, it will be unable to do. Economics is just another tool in our kitbag, along with all the other tools we possess. It needs to be used correctly for it to be of any use as a tool. However, we are at total liberty to use these tools to construct whatever future we wish. Its at this point I'll happily give way to the 'artists and visionaries' for inspiration. |
||||||||
| Rinty |
bI agree Cado.What I am saying is that Campbell Martins point is valid as the SNP are trying to be both thing. They want to raise less tax and spend more money. What Campbell would like to see is high tax high spend. Ant govenments power amounts to simply raising tax and spending it, they dont amount to much more than that. Mathers arguments would be fine in the Scottish Enterprise party, Martins arguments are fine in the Scottish Socialist Party but ultimately the SNp want to be both. They want to appeal to the slightly left of centre sentiments of a sizeable minority (possibly majority) of Scots voters while appealling to the business community that they won't waste money and ruin the economy. At the moment it is working for them as they appear to be rising in the polls but if they were in power the conflict between the left and right of the party would be an economic mess. The left of the party dont want to hear arguments from people like Martin, the right of the party dont want to hear arguments about slimming down public spending so they agree to a truce that plays well in the polls but doesnt add up. Its easy to just say, this is childish or niave or that it will never work, it is difficult to make arguments for a socialist economy or a free market libertarian economy. |
||||||||
| FALSYDE |
CAMPBELL MARTIN'S POSITIONAs the Co-ordinator for the SEP I could be expected to support the views for example of CADO et al however I wonder if it is either appropriate or wise to be quite so rude or even any point about the man's views. C.M. is entitled to his views, they are as valid to him as ours are in opposition however he should be allowed to express them without being called an idiot.I often joke that if we use the analogy of every village having its idiot then Scotland has an embarrassment of riches, our country has two, the SSP and the Greens, both of whom have the barest tenious grip on economic reality but their right to express and advocate them, ludicrous and unsustainable as they clearly are is the price of democracy. It is perhaps best to devote energies to enlightening them, or more productively, those who might be tempted to be seduced by those views. Perhaps the bigger picture would be best kept in view. On the assumption that everyone involved here is a nationalist, before we behave like a bunch of ferrets in the sack could we concentrate on the 'project' i.e. the resumption of Scotland's sovereignty. For our part in the SEP we will happily get into bed with nationalists of every hue to achieve that while making it crystal clear where we see and want our country to go in the end. It is often claimed that the SNP is a broad church encompassing nationalists of all persuasions, however the leadership, particularly the current one, is not inclined to discuss, engage or in any way accommodate views which are thought to be opposed to his or perceived to be a threat to his on perception of his place in the greater good. Regretably events seem to suggest that Mr. Salmond may prove to be the problem given his current approach. I personally know for a fact as was told so by one of our own supporters that he has/had the view that "what Scotland needs is a right of centre nationalist party" clearly understanding the demographics and other influences, yet instead of engaging and trying to work out the best route to defeat the Unionists his then rhetoric seems to have been a throw away comment at a dinner engagement, that's a hellova a shame for Scotland as the mark of a real leader his his/her ability to draw together all threads as a means to achieve success, meantime however Mr. Salmond is seemingly positioned to gamble at each election for the possible miracle to happen. "Free in '93", " a penny for Scotland", etc, etc, amongst many other examples. No amount of rhetoric is going to succeed with a voter public which is justifiably deeply mistrustful of politicians and all their works, what they want to see and insist on is hard economic argument and not meaningless empty swell words. The simple undeniable fact is that there is absolutley NO POSSIBILITY of the SNP delivering what we all seek on their own as they are disengaged with those nationalists in the centre or centre right ground. It is entirely unreasonable to expect any one party to do so as in every normal mature democracy there are a spread of parties advancing their 'angle', Scotland is NOT a normal mature democracy! As long as there are parties biased exclusively to the left and left of centre, those nationalists as somebody has already rightly pointed out will not vote for independence if they perceive that by so doing they will end up in an even more basket case Socialist valhalla as many of them c. 25-30% of the voters have travelled the world because they are successful, seen the failures and have no wish to live it here. CM has a contrary view, lets respect it but unless there is a sensible alternative as we see it, this 'project' is going no where. CM will no doubt disagree, so be it. Name calling is no advance on the argument. Unless and until there is a general acceptance of the above facts, we will still be here in x years bumping our gums while the world leaves us behind and the get up and go Scots continue to get up and go as they have seen no future as things are, and don't expect any until they change. Sorry for taking up so much space on this. |
||||||||
| Cado |
Apologies Rinty! I was carrying on from Anthropos point.
I think we must have all posted within the same timeframe. |
||||||||
| IF Convenor |
Rinty, you seem to believe that raising taxes brings in more money and cutting taxes brings in less. If only it were that simple!
When you cut taxes you stimulate the economy and it becomes more productive. People also become less inclined to avoid paying their taxes. With more economic activity and less tax avoidance you actually get more tax revenue. Increase taxes and the opposite effects come into play. This is not just theory, it has been proven by governments all over the world. Given this known effect, I can only deduce that SSP taxation policy has no connection with financing government but, rather, that it is entirely about punishing people who are perceived to have more than they ought to. |
||||||||
| Rinty |
yIFI do not believe any such thing and you cannot deduce SSP tax policy from one members comments on a forum. I undertsand the arguments that low tax economies can actually stimulate more tax revenue, I just dont agree with them as a long term stratgey. I dont oppose them in the way that I oppose the new labour/tory mess of PFI etc. In actual fact I think that the SEP have a far more balanced policy than the mainstream parties. The SSP run all of their plans through university depts for verification and ARE fully costed. These costed analyses are offered to the press at every manifesto with the full arguments from paisley University, the press choose to ignore that as it is easier to prtray the socialists as mad idiots who cant count. Caricatures are how the press deal with radical arguments and I prefer, in this forum to look at things in a more balanced way, essentially how they add to the mix that will deliver independence. What I am saying is that the SNP have a policy of trying to appeal to all, The SEP, SSP and to an extent Campbell Martin, have a principled stance based on their economic beliefs. I ignore Ians points on SSP policy as I dont share the need to attack others by ridicule, I prefer to make balanced points. The SEP in my mind make sound arguments based on their political and economic beliefs. I welcome them and, even though I dont agree, I see them as a party who can make a clear argument, like the SSP. It is ridiculous to say that progressive taxation is punishment of rich people, it is in fact the poorer people who benefit that matter and that richer people can afford more. For someone on low wages and tax credits each extra pound they earn is in effect taxed at about 75%, for someone who is on a high income it is taxed at 40%. In my opinion, the most important thing in 2007 is Independence First. And I have made the point here many times that the evidence shows that more pro-independence parties with clear agendas increases the pro-independence vote rather than trying to catch all in the SNP. When the SSP peaked in 2003 it allowed many people who previously didnt vote for independence to do so and come over from Labour and the trades unions. I belive that this fragmentation led to a highere independence vote even thought the SNP fell back. I think that if Mather et all went to the SEP the same thing would happen. Many pro-business people in the tories would vote for independence but not the SNP. I would like to see 4 strong pro-independence parties with the SNP being the largest in the middle as social democrats, the SEP and SSP giving the more polarised arguments. |
||||||||
| IF Convenor |
Of course I don't disagree with your statements about the need for a broad spectrum of pro-independence parties.
If I can return to SSP tax policy. I don't dispute that it may be fully costed and run by a panel of academics. I dispute that it makes much sense or that it is not about punishing the rich. I remember when the SSP were publishing figures for their proposed levels of income tax and Scottish service tax. I used the SSP's published proposed rates for these two taxes and I calculated that anyone on over (I think it was) 100,000 a year would be taxed at a combined rate exceeding 100%. |
||||||||
| Rinty |
tBut you were not comparing two taxes that would be implemented together. The SSPs income tax policies are a long term policy based on the system we have no, as is the service tax proposals. We dont advocate both. The service tax bill is costed against the income tax being as it is now, the income tax policy is based on the poll tax being as it is now. |
||||||||
| IF Convenor |
So these two SSP policies are not meant to be taken together? That's an interesting way to write a manifesto, with mutually exclusive proposals. How are we meant to know which ones will be put into effect?
How do you propose to get either measure passed without majority support, and if you get majority support what's to stop you passing both? |
||||||||
| Rinty |
tThe way the manifesto was written was six points for change in the system that we have at the moment.These six included the service tax but NOT the income tax. The rest of the manifesto (200 points and policies) were clearly presented as aspirational ways of doing things if the SSP were in power. The practical reasoning was that we knew the SSP were not going to be in power so we presented six things that we would push for in the Scottish parliament. So the election manifesto included the service tax but not the income tax proposals, read it again. The SNP and others with real chances of winning power presented full legislative manifestos we didnt. |
||||||||
| Robert Craig |
I wonder why Campbell Martin is standing as an independent - he seems better suited to the SSP.
However I wouldn't say the SNP's principles have gone overboard - there's only one that matters - Independence - and we know that is what the SNP stands for more than anything. |
||||||||
| Rinty |
tCampbell was kicked out of the SNP so had no choice but go independent. I dont think that he is standing as an independent next year, from what I hear he wont stand at all.I think he did discuss things with the SSP but didnt make the jump. One problem might have been the SSPs wage policy whereby their elected officials can only take the equivalent take home pay of someone on £25k rather than the MSP salary of over £50k. |
||||||||
| Robert Craig |
Re: t
That's the opposite from what I heard - he's going for Cunninghame North: http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/67902.html |
||||||||
| SLG |
Martin will stand for re-election: http://www.campbellmartin.org/2.html
I heard that the rumours that he wouldn't give up half the salary as required by SSP MSPs, also heard it claimed that those rumours were just an attempt to damage him. Maybe he'll join up with Sheridan's new party. |
||||||||
| Rinty |
yyou're probably right about the half salary thing as many claimed the same about Margo MacDonald. |
||||||||
| SLG |
Well whatever the reason, I bet they're both glad they stayed out of it now! | ||||||||
| Cado |
quick post.
But there is one obvious misunderstanding in much of the thinking here - well IMO. You're thinking in 'Statics', not 'Dynamics' no, I'm not trying to invent some new form of BS. The economy is a dynamic system - it changes on a daily basis as various forces within it seek to balance one another out - the Govt (ie tax) is just another one of these forces. The things that ultimately drive and balance the economy is us - everyone of us wants/needs things ie accommodation, food, clothes, a 'lifestyle' etc. These are the demands - the thing that can meet these demands is also 'us'. Govt raise tax as a mechanism to aid spending on collective services - no different in principal to everyone putting a few quid into the kitty to buy tea etc for the works canteen (if you have a stingy employer....) If Govts adjust the tax bands - there is a difference as some people will take home more, others less. However over time the forces within the economy will balance this out - so in the medium/long term it makes no difference. ie When GB stuck a penny on employers NI to help fund the NHS - many people cheered. It wasn't them who was paying - it was their employer. However this money was still taken from the total system. Result? Guess who got a slightly smaller pay rise the following year - to offset the loss to companies. Income Tax wasn't introduced till after WW2 - I can't guess at how many changes in bands % rates etc there have been in that time - how much long term difference have these alterations made to society? Very little I'd argue - because no matter what you take and from where, the system will always balance over time. IMO - the key to understanding the comparative differences in wealth lies in understanding why those differences occur in the first place. Seeking to constantly tinker with tax is only a short term means of reallocating take home pay within the system - for the medium and longer term, IMO it isn't much use - for that we need to delve deeper into the 'dynamics' of economics - rather than looking at things as if they stand still (statics). |
||||||||
| Anthropos |
Re: CAMPBELL MARTIN'S 'POSITION'
If the cap fits, and in Campbell’s case it is a pointy one with a large D on it, then wear it. What exactly are Campbell Martin’s views? He doesn’t like the direction he perceives the SNP to be going in, and how does he respond? With a lot of adolescent nonsense about China, and the “oppressed people globally” and “obscene wealth of multinationals”. He compares quotes by William Hague and Jim Mather and expects readers to be horrified because one of them is – gasp  – a Tory! And needless to say in league with the forces of darkness.  That is not grown up politics.
What can we conclude from Mr Martin’s moronic diatribe? Well either Campbell Martin is stupid and doesn’t know how to respond when his cherished prejudices are challenged by current SNP policy; or else he could easily have written something approaching an intelligent critique of the SNP’s current direction, but is so contemptuous of his probable readers that he doesn’t think he should bother. Neither of those is admirable. |
||||||||
| Anthropos |
Re: t
See previous post!
Yes probably, but that is also their main weakness. For my grandparents generation socialism was necessary, Trade Unions were necessary. But my grandparent’s world was one of scarcity and shortage, whereas our world today is one of plenty, and the problem with the SSP is that they cannot change and adapt to this new world as other parties can because the must stick to a set of principals which belong to a dead world.
In other words they want to have their cake and eat it.
No it doesn’t, I agree with you, and I have been critical of the SNP’s political schizophrenia for a good number of years. A few years ago the SNP didn’t think they would win power so they were – and this is not uncommon I suppose – inclined to make promises they knew they would never have to keep. Now however as they feel they are getting closer to genuine power they are having to become a bit more realistic and so SNP policies have to be grounded in the will to govern, and if the economy is to improve then things like tax cuts to encourage growth will be necessary. In the early days of Holrood the SNP tried to out Labour Labour, they stuck rigidly to the Scottish social democratic consensus of high public spending, pseudo-egalitarianism, state control of the health service and schools, the consensus that has given us slow economic growth, poor health and poor schools. I don’t really see that they had much option but to adopt more liberal policies, more of the same wasn’t really an option, and given than Campbell Martins utopian fantasy is not feasible, it was always really a case of ‘when’ rather than ‘if’. |
||||||||
| Rinty |
r
I did and it was fine example of what I meant when I said (ironically) that his points were met with in depth analysis. I was obviousl pointing the fact that it wasn't. Instead some people just hark on about "stupid" "adolescent" wihtout arguing why Campbell is wrong. Cado at least addressed the points but saying his ideas are utopian or out of date is purile unedified nonsense. |
||||||||
| RedScotland |
To say that socialism is no longer relevant in Scotland would be to be blind to the obscene inequalities which continue to exist and which in fact have grown in recent years. It would be to ignore the fact that people in Drumchapel live 10 years less than those in Bearsden. It would to hide from the reality of massive unemployment and the shift towards low paid service sector jobs. I think every country needs a party like the SSP to stand up for those who are forgotten by the main parties which all pursue the same middle class votes - even Norway which is the world's richest nation has a radical leftist party (the Socialist Left Party) and it usually wins far more votes than the SSP. I agree with Campbell Martin's analysis of the situation in the SNP and it's indeed sad to see it moving towards the same centre-right position in Scottish politics as Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The vision of another Irish style high-growth low-tax economy, where no attempt is made to tackle poverty and low pay, is not one which I or hopefully most Scottish people would like to see. I've just came back from a holiday in Norway and it's amazing to see what a small independent country like Scotland, in control of its own natural resources, can achieve if it's prepared to use it's oil wealth wisely and implement the necessary taxes for an extensive welfare state (the top rate of personal taxation is 65% unlike in the UK where it's only 40%). |
||||||||
| Cado |
Mr Campbells comments do seem to have hit a few raw nerves. Fundementally his comments reflect three things IMO.
1) He is a socialist and is making this clear. 2) He is offering a critique of the SNP. 3) He's explaining that because of item no1 he can no longer participate in those it item no2. This would seem to be an outcome that is mutually beneficial to both parties in that Mr Campbell isn't 'trapped' into being part of something he doesn't agree with. The SNP don't have a problem with an unhappy MSP within their ranks. By giving each other space they're now free to develop their thoughts without treading on each other toes by having to campaign under the same banner. I don't see him actually saying anything which I see as being critical of the SNP - he's just saying what he see's relative to his persepective. Though - the concept of 'left and right' I can understand, when we get onto the territory of 'centre left, centre, centre right' things get a little more fuzzy. Though I think this whole concept of left/right is total bollocks anyway - I think it would do EVERYONE a favour if this 'axis' concept was thrown out of the window asap - it is of no help whatsoever. I have no idea where it comes from, I have no idea what useful purpose it actually serves. The thought that in this world, with all the complexities, everything can be positioned at some point along this one single linear axis is nuts. There is also another issue in this, Mr campbell is now an independent MSP - he's possibly trying to lay out his outlook to his constituents which (I presume) he's hoping will re-elect him in May - by saying what he's saying he's making clear that he's an independent and now seperate from the SNP. In fact, all of this could stem from the above paragraph. |
||||||||
| IF Convenor |
Imagine the SNP giving a businessman the enterprise brief! What were they thinking??? | ||||||||
| Anthropos |
I don’t think there is much point in getting into a debate over why liberalism works and collectivism doesn’t as it is likely to end up with ‘why a theoretically perfect socialism is superior to a practical and imperfect liberalism’ (though if perfection were an available option, the choice of economic/political systems would be irrelevant). However I think your post does highlight why socialism is irrelevant to today’s world, let me quote you more specifically:
Middle class voters are pursued because they are the majority and hence it is their votes that win elections and therefore political power. In today’s world the typical person has more freedom and opportunity than at any other time in history, and for the most part most people can cope with that freedom. However a small minority can’t cope with it. We live in a meritocracy that economically rewards people in proportion to their merits in economic terms, but a meritocracy by definition doesn’t reward everyone. Those who are incapable of benefiting from those freedoms and opportunities, and who are shackled by the welfare dependency culture, understandably do become bitter and resentful, and it is to these feelings that the SSP successfully panders. They can't of course do anything but make empty promises that they will never have to keep, but they do provide an outlet for that section of the electorate. So yes the SSP does have its own niche market, but it is still an irrelevance because it is essentially just a pressure group. The majority of the electorate will never allow them power, for although they might pay lip service to fuzzy egalitarian notions, in the end they like their freedom and will not give it up just because the poor cannot cope with it. |
||||||||
| RedScotland |
I wasn't comparing the existing system to a "theoretically perfect socialism" but to Norway where high taxes and an extensive welfare state and public sector has beneffitted the country enormously and created one of the wealthiest and most egalitarian societies in the world.
I don't know whose freedom you are talking about but it certainly isn't that of the vast majority of Scotland's population who are working class, on low pay, and are deprived of all power and influence within a capitalist economy. The only system which can deliver genuine freedom is one where all hierarchies have been smashed and where the workers democratically control and manage the economy - admittedly this will not happen immediately but that is the sort of society the SSP is determined to build. Meritocracy will only ever exist in the imaginations of a few neoliberal economists but it's impossibly unrealistic in a capitalist economy where those from a wealthy background inevitably have far greater opportunities than everyone else as their parents can afford to send them to an expensive private school, pay their way through university, give them money to start businesses etc. And it's not just a small minority who "cannot cope" under capitalism or a third of Scottish children would not be living in poverty.
No party will ever win an absolute majority of seats in the Scottish parliament due to a PR system based on cooperation but it doesn't make any of them irrelevant to the political process. |
||||||||
| IF Convenor |
I have news for you; Norway operates a capitalist economy. The workers don't control it any more than they do in Scotland.
And they're hierarchical too. You don't get much more hierachical than having a monarchy. |
||||||||
| RedScotland |
I'm aware of that and being on the radical left I'd like to see Scotland going much further than Norway towards the creation of a socialist society. However Norway (unlike Scotland) does have very high taxes, a large public sector and an extensive welfare state - policies which have enormously beneffitted its people and could easily be implemented as the first moves of an independent Scotland. It seems though that the SNP would like Scotland to follow a different path, that of tax cuts and further deregulation which will do absolutely nothing to cut the despicable levels of poverty and deprivation which blights huge sections of the population. |
||||||||
| IF Convenor |
I wonder how much personal experience you have of Norway. I've worker there and paid taxes at different times for a total of 12 years. It's a lovely country but the tax system practically forces everyone into debt and it would all crash and burn tomorrow if it wasn't for the oil.
The reason for the big debts is that people can write off loan interest against their taxes so everybody borrows for everything just to keep their tax bills at a level they can survive with. I'm sure the banks love it. The headline tax rates are not what people actually pay. Nobody who actually has any money wants to pay taxes, it's only those without who find high tax high spend attractive. If you try to force the issue you will simply drive money out of the country as the targets of your policy (always someone else, never you) put their money out of your reach. I'm not wealthy but I have a few bob and, believe me, no socialist republic's going to take it off me and squander what I sweated for. I'm lucky; I can live anywhere and do my work. Others are not so lucky, but even they will find a way. I can see a lot of doctors and lawyers and self-employed businessmen moving out of your Scotland. They only need to step across the border. |
||||||||
| Niall |
A Charaid. I have read the SSP manifesto very carefully and the result of your policies would be fiscal flight as the professor pointed out in the preamble. The highly qualified middle managers, businessmen and professionals the country would need to run it would just up sticks and off to a gentler fiscal climate. Why should a consultant in hawick on £100,000 pa pay £64k in tax when he could move to Newcastle and pay tax of £35k? You are dreaming of a utopian paradise which is impossible to realise. 'S mise Niall. (An Accountant of 35 years public practice.) |
||||||||
| IF Convenor |
I personally don't consider handing all my hard-earned cash over to the workers' collective to squander on my behalf as anywhere close to utopian. | ||||||||
| RedScotland |
I was only there a few weeks and I don't doubt what you're saying considering the prices but Norway is first on the UN Human Development Index due to its extensive public services and welfare state, giving it a relatively happy population and one of Europe's highest birth rates. Last November Norwegians elected a new left-wing government which promised to increase taxation even further so obviously there is a large amount of public support for such policies. In regards to the oil money they have used it wisely to promote the growth of the industrial and agricultural sectors and have at the same time built up a fund of almost £100 billion which can keep the Norwegian economy going long after the end of their oil reserves.
The flight of capital and certain middle and upper class people will be a detrimental effect, how much is impossible to judge but Norway doesn't seem to have a huge problem with wealthy or highly educated people moving to other countries where they'll pay less taxes. Although it would be difficult if Scotland was either in the EU or EFTA, some measures probably can be taken to restrict capital movement and if corporations threaten to close down their operations there is no reason why they can't be taken under democratic worker's control. I understand what you're saying about not wanting to lose money you've worked for but if people see enough benefits in terms of hospitals, schools, pensions etc. I do think attitudes would begin to change. |
||||||||
| Cado |
I'm not sure Norway (or the other scandic nations) are a good comparison for where we are in Scotland. I agree that they do have well managed stable economies and societies and that they do challange the apparanent rule of "low tax/high growth; high tax/low growth" however simply borrowing one nations economic structure and surplanting it on another doesn't mean everything will work exactly the same.
The obvious point is that as a Socialist you are making reference to the nature and structure of a non-socialist country. Well, the Scnadic nations certainly don't call themselves socialist (I think the term used is Social Democracies). Its the totality of everything that goes into making a nation work, economics is only a part of it. ie the society, the structure of democracy, the 'outlook' of the Govt, the nature of how industry/services work. My point being, that even if you see an economic structure that inspires you - how many of the other aspects of these nations fit in with your own (or socialist) outlook? Secondly, Scotland is different, it may be that there are aspects to these societies that mean that this approach works, in Scotland we need to work with what we have, warts and all. One aspect to the Scandic nations (well, IMO) is that they are pretty devoid of ideology etc. I presume that because they've been on the perifery of Europe and that as societies they have developed pretty much seperately from the on-goings in central/western Europe, they've pretty well avoided any 'infusion' of political ideology. I think it would be cruel to call them 'bland' but they don't seem to have much of the ecentric extremes that we do. By 'we' I'm meaning the broader UK/Western culture. Though I accept that this outlook could be based on perception from being 'outside of the box'. I've only really spent time in Denmark - though I think their outlook isn't THAT dissimilar to the other scandic nations. The crux of my point, although Scotland is geographicaly 'northern/western' European, I think the Scottish culture is pretty different, enough so that any direct comparison isn't valid, IMO. We may be northern european but we're not Scandic, basically. So really Ive got two point. 1) Can Scotland (culturaly etc) easily be compared to Scandic nations 2) As a socialist, do you feel you can easily cite examples of what other Scandic nations are doing when they don't claim to follow nor be socialist? |
||||||||
| Blackadder |
Scandinavian countries tend to be a little right of centre. In other countries, the Social Dems are like the Tories here. The greens would like to be Socialists, but the socialists are all in retreat except in Russia where the Mafia heads up everything.
... A Blackadder View of the World Today (Hodder & Stoughton 2005) only £10.99 at all good bookshops. |
||||||||
| Pragmatic Pict |
If anything Labour are turning right wing. Ooh and they have traitors to the cause! Scotland! 
|
||||||||
| Cado |
OK - I recognise 5 of those flags.
The top left eludes me though, where's that? |
||||||||
| Shadowman |
The only reason Norway can afford to have such a lavish welfare state is because of its oil reserves; moreover, the fact that it has "saved up" a large amount of oil money means that this benefit will continue after the oil is long gone (something Scotland could never do on the scale Norway has). However, the fact that they are sitting on a pot of black gold also probably creates a large amount of complacency, and the fact that I can't think of a single global Norwegian firm (apart from Statoil and Norsk Hydro) suggests as Norway recieves less from oil and begins to run down the oil fund, the Norwegians may find it hard to sustain their standard of living in the long term. Man cannot live by dividends from oil reserves alone.
Norway doesn't have a problem with its brightest citizens fleeing because they have nowhere to flee to that is linguistically or culturally similar enough. If Scotland became an independent socialist republic with 98% tax rates, you can bet your bottom dollar (or rouble as you'd prefer) that there would be a veritable exodus to England, which by then would almost certainly be in under a perpetual Tory government with the lowest tax rates in Europe. Unsurprisingly, your solution to the accompanying flight of capital would be to prevent it from leaving. If this occurred Scotland would never recieve a penny of foreign investment, and with its small population base it would never be able to generate the kind of capital needed to create viable businesses that can compete in global markets. As for multinational corporations, your response is to nationalise those that threaten to close down. If you had even driven anything produced by BL, you would have experienced why worker-run businesses never produce what the public wants at a reasonable cost, because union leaders don't understand the basics of supply and demand. Finally, you express the hope that people wouldn't mind paying more taxes if they get better public services. That is undoubtedly a sensible statement, but the unfortunate truth is that higher taxes will never generate an improvement that is proportionate to the increase in resources. You only have to look at the NHS to see proof of that. Going slightly off-topic, how do you reconcile your socialist belief that resources should be distrubuted by need with your nationalist belief that only Scots should share oil monies? What makes the English, Welsh and Northern Irish workers less deserving? |
||||||||
| Avatar |
"Norway doesn't have a problem with its brightest citizens fleeing because they have nowhere to flee to that is linguistically or culturally similar enough."
That doesnt really make sense, you're saying that people will only leave their country to move to another that speaks a similar language or has a similar culture - then why do we have many chinese/polish/pakinstani/indian/german people living in Scotland? People will go to where they can get decent jobs and a better standard of living regardless of culture or language. |
||||||||
| Pragmatic Pict |
That is Brittany or if I believe u spaek cymraeg then it is Llydaw |
||||||||
| Cado |
I don't really beleive in this absolute view that everybody flees either. Otherwise the bulk of the 'capitalists' in this country would have gone to the US - the remainder going to either Can/Oz/Irl/NZ. Simply because i'm sure that for whatever matters to people - one of those nations probably does that aspect of it better.
Ive heard joiners are doing well at the Olypics in London at the moment - there are still joiners here. Without drifting onto the topic of absolute economics - if anything this proves that the absolute free market doesn't work (absolutly) - in that for many people there is more to life than money - otherwise many more of us (in Scotland) would have gone elsewhere. The same with other countries. However - where Shadowman does have a very good point - is in regards to what happens in Scotland vs England. Carlisle and Newcastle aren't that far away at all. Commutable in fact. You'd could easily live around/near the central belt and work over the border. Or if you paid tax based on where you live rather than work (not sure what the law is on this) - then a move to just over the border isn't going to be that much of a wrench. It would be wrong to say that this means our tax can't be higher (my point above that many people won't move for money alone) - however it does mean that for what the Govt takes - there could be more pressure to spend it effectivily and efficiently. Simply because we pay tax and expect services - so any future Scottish Govt needs to balance these two considerations IMO. People may not leave because of high taxes alone - however poor services on top of that could be the tipping point in their calculation to move. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
I reckon you're confusing right-wing with authoritarian. They're running to the ideas of Stalin far more than they're running to Thatcher's these days. |
||||||||
| IF Convenor |
It doesn't require that everybody leaves, it only requires that enough people leave to hurt the economy.
It's like in a business where there is free competition (i.e. not a monopoly) and there are several companies competing. If things get busy and the companies need more skilled workers they'll start offering higher wages to attract people from the competition. If one company is slow to raise the wages it'll lose employees. it doesn't have to lose them all, it just has to lose enough to damage its competitiveness. We all live on the same planet and if Scotland can't sell its goods and services due to some competitive disadvantage the whole country will suffer. |
||||||||