| 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. |
| SLG |
SNP drop ban on Tory dealsSoS have an article on the proposal that the SNP drops its opposition to coalition deals with the Tories. I expect lots of 'tartan Tories' type headlines when it actually happens - but I think it is the right thing to do and won't be too damaging. There won't be any official coalition at Holyrood, but with PR now in local government, the SNP need to be able to deal with the Tories where appropriate.I think it's also an indication of the success of Annabel Goldie. They may not be going up in the polls, but they have (at Scottish level at least) lost much of the 'anti-Scottish' stigma that they have had for so long. The Tory brand has been 'detoxified' as one SNP MSP supposedly said. http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1849022007 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| sgmillerton |
smacks of desperation and what makes you think the tories would want to work with the snp? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
How desperation? The SNP have a ban on working with only one party at the moment - the Tories. Removing that ban will bring their policy on working with the tories into line with their policy on every other party. Does that sound desperate to you? The reason they are doing this is because there are a number of councils where the Tories and the SNP are already working together and it makes sense to be able to admit that formally. I think you're just wanting to attack the SNP without having a clue what you are saying. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| sgmillerton |
no, it smacks of a minority govt. who admit that they have to work with other parties at some point to get their policies through on a vote. do you really believe that the snp would be saying this if they had 70 or 80 seats in a majority govt.would they chooky. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
So it doesn't sound depserate to you any more, that's good. The SNP have always known that they were a minority government and have always known that they have to work with other parties. Can you give any evidence that they have thought otherwise?
Yes. Because this is about local not national government. The SNP have already worked with the Tories at Holyrood to win votes. This proposal will ahve no effect on that. It would allow for a formal coalition, but that is not even on the cards at national level. Did you even read the article? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| sgmillerton |
yes, it still smells like desperation. no party wants to work with other parties if they can help it. labour had no wish to work with the lib dems in a coalition but they had to to get things done they wanted to do.
these desperate tactics are not just an snp thing, all parties are guilty of it at some point. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
In the world of PR, it's reality, nothing less. There is a big difference between desperation and being aware of the political reality. But if it makes you feel better to refer to this as desperation, then fair enough. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Interesting enough, but I don't think it'll change much in practice and probably end up simply creating headlines for Labourites. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| sgmillerton |
yep, i refer to this as desperation. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Not at holyrood, but it might improve the government in some councils where there are loose agreements between the SNP and Tories that might work better if formalised. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Strikes me as the sensible thing to do. I'd sooner see them working with the Tories than Labour. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| RadgeJougal |
The Labour party is to the right of the Tories these days anyway... | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Anthropos |
Re: SNP drop ban on Tory deals
I must disagree with your analysis. The Tories have not lost any 'anti-Scottish' stigma, the SNP have merely decided to face reality. If there had been a Labour-Tory alliance after last May's election I doubt anybody in the SNP would be saying the Tories were 'detoxified'. Some people have been expecting this for a while, and given the fact that the Liberal Democrats refused to play ball, then the SNP really don't have a lot of options open to them. On things like economic policy it does look like the SNP have more in common with the Tories than the Lab-Libs so the 'we will work with anyone except the Tories' policy has to go. What will be interesting is to see how this plays with the left of the SNP and with the electorate more generally. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Ah, you'll have to forgive me, I didn't even consider that element of it. Are there any councils that spring immediately to mind as being in this position? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Re: SNP drop ban on Tory deals
Sure, the SNP would be tagging the Tories as 'anti-Scottish' to make political capital if they could and the reason they are dropping this ban is political realism. But I do think attitudes to the Tories are shifting. No matter how much the SNP might need the Tories, they could not be done this even a couple of years ago. The party wouldn't have allowed it. IMO, where there was hatred, it has mostly turned to dislike and there is a younger generation coming through who are willing to give them a bit more time. It is also reflective of the expanding middle class, higher home ownership, increased taxation etc. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Are the Tories not proping up the SNP in North Ayrshire? I'm sure there are others, but can't think at the moment. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
SoS says:
Quite a few. It's a sensible move I think; a recognition that the political landscape has changed for good. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| October1974 |
The Tories prop Labour here in Dundee. The SNP would only be able to go into coalition with them if there is a constitutional amendment at Annual Conference. It has no hope of getting through from people I have spoken to today. I for one will be voting against. We should stick with the present minority Government. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Why? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Well I'm not sure an SNP/Tory coalition at Holyrood, is something I'd welcome - at the moment. I'm pretty happy with the minority government arrangements as they are. I think it is also quite stable, for the time being.
I do feel sorry for the Scottish Conservatives, though. Events seem to be shaping them, rather than them shaping events - and from what I gather there are big institutional problems and problems at grassroots level. The fact is, they aren't going anywhere. The English party sees them as a cross they have to bear, and probably would like to get rid of them. And, perversely that is quite probably something that would lead to a renaissance for them in Scotland. And at the moment, still, the Tories are about as welcome in large parts of Scotland as a dose of genital warts. And that is ashame because aside from their, sometimes freaky, unionism (although not quite as freaky as that of the Labour party), I think large parts of Tory philosophy are in tune with a lot of Scotland. Much more so, than Labour will ever be. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
It rather seems to me that the SNP are simply converting their bogeyman from the Tories to Labour. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
If the SNP are to get their budget through & they should because it is far more competent than the Lab/Libs ever managed, it will only be with the help of the Tories.
This may not be a formal coalition but it is reality. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| sgmillerton |
tartan tories indeed. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
There's a lot of sense in that. I think that a formal coalition with the Tories would be a bridge too far for the SNP at present, but in the medium term it's a real possibility. Given the likelihood that there will eventually be some sort of UDI by either the Scottish or (maybe more likely) the English half of the Conservative & Unionist party, it makes sense for the SNP to be in a position to take advantage when it happens. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
Or rather the Labour party are taking on many of the characteristics of the Tory party that led to them being so hated. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Looking towards the future, which party out of Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives is most likely to first agree to full fiscal autonomy and to then be in a position to get it passed into law at Westminster? Think that also helps to explain this development. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
The problem is that "full fiscal autonomy" is code for independence (If you aren't paying any money to Westminster unless you choose it then there is no union).
We have to take the various taxes on a case by case basis. For example I have called for a cut in corporatiion tax to achieve Irish growth & it would be interesting to see if any parties other than the SNP would support that - if Scots Labour supported it Brown could hardly refuse - which is a reason why they won't. On the other hand the SNP's enthusiasm for cutting CT may be precisely because they can't. Certainly they have shown no interest in cutting income tax, which they can do. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Full fiscal autonomy is the only economically fair, equitable and stable way of dealing with public finance in the UK. If that conflicts with the integrity of the UK, then that's just tough. If it means that it results in independence, then again, that's just tough. Perhaps that is why some of the Unionist parties would rather run away from the question that answer it. Probably why the LibDems have ditched the Steel Report, the Tories are extremely cool on the matter, and why Labour would like to pretend none of this is happening. The case for "economic federalism" has been thoroughly dispensed with on these forums plenty of times, so I'm not going to rehearse all the arguments again. One only needs to look at the structural composition of the UK and its fiscal system to see how such a positon is not possible. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
It doesn't have to mean independence. The Basque Country and Navarre have it in a Spanish context and although the former would probably go for independence if there was no reason to fear what the Spanish Army might get up to the latter are highly unlikely to. If the Tories really want to limit the voting rights of Scottish MPs at Westminster the Barnett Formula will have to be scrapped and the Scottish Parliament will need tax raising powers for most of the votes at Westminster on England and Wales issues to be truly irrelevant to the Scottish electorate. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
Presumably full fiscal autonomy would be the only fair, equitable & stable way of solving the injustice that Bearsden pays more taxes than Coatbridge but gets less benefit payments. If letting the rich areas keep all the money conflicts with the integrity of Scotland then tough.
Or perhaps not. Still doubtless many south of England tories will be pleased to see Scots calling for the removal of the bonus we get from the barnett formula. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Reductio ad absurdum. We could reduce that arguments from towns to streets, households, families and even individuals if you like. But I think you can see it is a straw man argument. We already see that there is inherent institutional, structural and governmental differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK - which is the essence of the argument.
Living within its means and managing its own finances is something that the Scottish Government should aspire to. The "Barnett Formula" is only a bonus if it gives Scotland a great deal more in spending than Scotland raises taxes, and quite simply, it doesn't. Despite the myths propagated by the economic illiterates in the media and elsewhere. Besides, the funding of Scotland should not be dependent upon some kind of secretive formula, that has no basis in law and decided by Manadrins in Whitehall. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
As regards Barnett. Quite simply it does. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
No, because the formula only applies to the budget of the Scottish Government, which is less, a great deal less than total government spending in Scotland, or on behalf of Scotland. Indeed for the 2007/08 financial year the budget of the Scottish administration was around £27bn according to the Budget (Scotland) Act 2007. Indeed not all of that budget was decided by the Barnett Formula, either. And as I'm sure you can see that level of spending is significantly less than the estimation of the total Scottish tax yield. It's all in here, if you're interested |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
Indeed - total tax yield pays for many other things such as defence & our embassies abroad & membership of the EU etc which are shared expenses.
It is the inherent nature of shared expenses that they be shared. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Yes, but those shared expenditures are nothing to do with the wicked, evil Barnett Formula. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Nonsense. Most federations do not grant this 'full fiscal autonomy' to their subdivisions.
There's been a lot of scaremongering on your behalf, but I really don't see how it's in any way difficult. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Not really. You've told us firmly that you believe it to be impossible, but with all respect, that's hardly the same thing.
That's an interesting angle too. It seems a reasonable assumption that the next general election will be closer than the last couple have proved, in which case the presence of half a dozen SNP MP's could be just the back up that Cameron needs to form a government. English-votes-for-English-issues in exchange for a degree of fiscal autonomy? Always a possibility. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Most federal states, developed as federal states, Aventinian, not unitary states fracturing their institutions to construct a federation. And certainly not federal states that would have one component part that is as powerful as the federation itself. For that reason, the federal structures of Canada, Australia, Germany, Switzerland etc would not be applicable to a federal UK.
Not at all. I am more than happy for Unionists to take Scotland down this route, for a variety of reasons - not least the inherent failures of the idea, and structural problems such a settlement would bring. I am extremely happy to see Westminster and Her Majesty's Government become an increasing irrelevance at the expense of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. It cedes the argument much more, onto the ground that pro independence groups occupy. A kind of constitutional watering station between here and independence, it makes independence much more likely and much easier too.
It was in response to the paucity of the suggestions of the pro-federalists who couldn't muster a coherent argument as to how such an entity would work, or how we would make the transition from here to there. And their inability to answer the question put to them. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
The United Kingdom has been less than unitary for a great deal of its history. Occasionally you see it described as a 'Union state' instead, to demonstrate that it has indeed retained certain particulars of state within its borders and on its exclusive behalf. Moreover, I don't accept that just because most federations formed a certain way that some cannot form in another way.
I'm sure that's what was said about devolution, but at the moment we have considerably lower pro-independence rates in polls than before the creation of the Scottish Parliament. Personally, I think solving the economic imbalances in this country would only strengthen its unity. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
Why not? Why must an asymmetrical federal structure fail? I accept that it might fail, but that's not the same thing at all.
So to be welcomed?
All (or most) tax-raising powers are devolved to the Scottish parliament. A percentage of this is passed on to Westminster to cover federal costs. What's so hard to follow about that? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
I think you'd accept it would not be stable and have a high likelihood of failure. We shouldn't really be accepting any constitutional settlement that might fail. That defeats the purpose. Essentially, asymmetrical means "unbalanced" and of course asymmetrical devolution in the UK has been such a resounding success 
Compared to what we have now, most definitely. The constitutional mess and tensions and disparities it will create are not so welcomed.
There's nothing hard to follow about it - it is essentially independence, or financial independence, or fiscal autonomy (or whatever you might want to call). I'm not sure your unionist friend above, would agree with such a model given that that is the case. Indeed the situation that you describe is effectively the reverse of what we have now. Economically, that is not fair, equitable or stable either. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
The UK is a unitary and highly centralised state. It is not decentralised, it did not develop in a decentralised fashion. Power centripetally moves to the centre and the shared UK institutions there reflect that. Devolution did nothing to alter that.
The point Aventinian is that the overwhelming majority of federations formed as federations and evolved in such a way - their institutions evolved in that way. They didn't get of the bed one morning and decide to become a federal state and then set about carving up the state to reflect that. They also didn't have overwhelming structural imbalances in their state, either.
Yes and most of the anti-devolutionists said that it would break-up the UK. And given that that is looking considerably more likely now than it was 10 years ago, perhaps they are right. They said it would create tensions in the UK - they were right. They said it would lead to resentment. They were right. They said that Scotland would seek to increase its governmental powers after devolution. That is now certain to happen in the near future. Why did they say all this - what were all the assumptions predicated on? They were predicated on the fact the devolution was unbalanced and at odds with the fundamental nature of the UK constitution - which is centralisation. You want to take us further down the anti-UK line, by increasing the power of the Scottish Parliament and doing nothing to address the asymmetry. I am in total agreement with that 
The economic imbalances can be solved very easily - make Scotland responsible for raising all of its taxes and deciding all of its spending requirements. Fair, equitable and transparent. But, at the end of the day you wouldn't really have a United Kingdom any more. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
As regards asymetrical federations may I point out that Holland is not actually the name of the counrty but of the largests sub-state within the Netherlands. The union of Poland & Lithuania was also quite certainly asymetrical but survived until conquered from outside. Asymetrical federation may be more difficult, I would certainly prefer if the English were willing to have regional assemblies, but it is certainly not impossible. Though I acccept it is not as certain of success as you require:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Oh certainly there is no form of government that is good and there is no form of democracy that is good, either. However in order to achieve some form of stable government, they don't inject structural asymmetry into the mix as a means to try to make things better! As for your second point, why should people in England accept their country being split up into little regional chunks, to satisfy the form of government that Scottish Unionists want to see? I think we can all see that is not going to happen - and that is where the desire for a UK federation becomes substantially unstuck - as you yourself allude to. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Think people need to try to look at this objectively rather than trying to prove their desired outcome is inevitable. Can anybody name an example of a stable federation, either symmetrical or assymetrical, in which the largest sub-sovereign state federal unit contained ca. 90% of the total population? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Cymro |
I didn't think most tax raising powers had been devolved to be honest, and shouldn't that be 'tax varying'? It's important to note that as well as rising tax by a certain amount that the Scottish Parliament if it felt necessary would be able to lower taxation too. I suspect a push in time (though being resisted by Unionists) to adopt a model simmilar to Spain where the regions raise their own funds and pay a percentage of that to the Spanish State centrally, the opposit to the UK basically. This difference is quite big in that there can be no more accusations of certain regions or countries scrounging off other countries within the state. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Yet it has become massively decentralised with devolution with very few hiccups along the way.
I don't see why that couldn't be seen as an advantage rather than a disadvantage.
I wouldn't say most.
A good deal of correspondents seem to think otherwise. Yes, the SNP is more electable, but that is not translating into support for Scottish independence.
I don't believe in asymmetric devolution, I support extending the idea to England.
Yes you would, you'd have the UK that you described with the Scottish authorities paying the UK-wide authorities for their contribution to UK-wide services. But again, I do not support that. I suppose fiscal federalism, which is how most federal states operate. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
Britain & the Isle of Man/Channel Islands/Gibralter/Caymen Isles?Bermuda
The Dominions of Canada & Nova Scotia (united in 1930s). The USA & Puerto Rico |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Really, centralised financial arrangements, the core of any of these arguments. Centralised sovereignty. A subnational legislature. And so on, and the UK is "massively decentralised"? I don't think so.
Well, if you can't see how that is an advantage, then I'm not going to spend time stating the obvious.
I certainly would. Much more importantly, the majority of them were correct in their assertions too.
Seems to be plenty of support for independence around, c50% according to the big Strathclyde University election study when the straight question was asked. However that is not the point is, the logical outcome of increasing the powers and sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament in this way will lead to independence. Such a transition would certainly make independence much easier when thought about, for the great majority of Scots.
The reverse of what we have now, which is such a success. 99% independence in other words. And you think that would save the United Kingdom?
It's funny how your not remotely interested in how "most federal states work" when I point out to your their different institutional structures, yet you are quite happy to apply the fiscal federalism of "most federal states" when it comes to financial issues. It's either one or the other. I'd argue that the fiscal federalism of most other states is in no way applicable to the UK. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
I wasn't aware we were in federation with the crown entities and dependent territories of the crown constituted a federal arrangement. The same goes for Puerto Rico's status with the USA. Unless of course you are arguing that Scotland should become a crown territory of the UK or a dependency. I have heard dafter things, mind you.
In my own ineloquant way, this is what I have been trying to allude to. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
You appear to have reprinted the answer to William's question before reprinting the question.
2 long posts which uniquely manage to be both repetitive & say nothing at the same time. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Yes, I believe it has been massively decentralised. In fact, virtually all domestic activities are dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. Of course sovereignty is not devolved, but it hardly matters to the day to day governance of this country. Anyway, like I say, it's a very simple operation. Set up the agencies and do it. Absolutely no problems there.
That's exactly what I said it could be.
23% is the other figure which is haunting your ilk. And moreover, would this be the same Strathclyde University whose pre-eminent politics professor said "he SNP's victory in May was a success for the party rather than the cause of independence that it espouses."?
It's not about ease, it's about simply not wanting it.
Not at all, I just find it enormously odd that you seem to overlook this rather obvious way of governing a federal state when it comes to Britain.
Would you? I can't say I've seen that argument. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
On the contrary, we need a settlement that might fail. Politicians who promise infallibility are dangerous liars.
It has been a qualified success. It could be improved, by altering the structure in such a way that the current main difficulties are removed e.g. by lancing the (partially justified) grumbling down south about Scottish over-representation, and by providing a much greater degree of financial clarity.
It provides greater freedom to ensure local solutions to local problems, and financial responsibility, without any need for the indulgence in flag-waving or chest-beating that nationalism brings.
I'm not here to impress unionists! |
||||||||||||||||||||
| agentmancuso |
'Tax raising powers' means the legal authority to set and collect taxes, not to put them up.
That sounds like a sensible option to me. I doubt that it will be resisted by anyone except the Labour party in the long run. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| SLG |
This would appear to be the logical next step. I also feel it's one of the SNP's biggest challenge - to find a way to work with the Tories and Lib Dems to achieve this. This won't be easy. The Lib Dems, although this is the settlement they desire appear to be a long way of being able to work with the SNP. The Tories, although they're all pally with the SNP at the moment, I still think they are not quite ready to sit down and talk about strengthening Parliament. They will need encouragement - probably from English Tories as well as the SNP. I'm pretty sure it will happen though. Although I favour independence, I would be happy with a Parliament that raises it's own taxes and some extra powers such as broadcasting. Obviously, I'd also like the Parliament itself to have the power to leave the Union. At least at that stage things become much more transparent and it's easier for people to really see what the Union means for us. At the end of the day, I can't see that scenario lasting. But it makes sense to me as an achievable next step. Events, of course, could move things on much quicker and further than I expect at the moment. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Nova Scotia joined Confederation in a Canadian context earlier than that. I think you are thinking of Newfoundland, which was a separate Dominion until direct colonial rule had to be reimposed in the 30s when Newfoundland's economy collapsed with the Great Depression. Post WWII Newfoundland then opted for integration with Canada becoming the tenth Canadian province. The other examples aren't really federal as there is no representation in a federal parliament. The most recent example in Europe that would possibly fit would be the third post-1991 Yugoslavia followed by Serbia and Montenegro but it was only a transitional arrangement to full separation. Beyond that I think continental nations with island groups are the best bet e.g Tanganyika and Zanzibar forming Tanzania and Denmark's arrangements with the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Hard to think of an example that has hung around in a stable manner for any length of time where there is a shared land mass. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Incidentally, I recall hearing in opinion surveys that it was Newfoundland which had the strongest provincial identity of any province in Canada. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
Thanks William it was Newfoundland I was thinking of. The Tanganyika-Zanzibar Union is a good example whichI hadn't thought of. I think the fact that these have been island/mianland links is inhereent in the way such unions are established rather than in their survivability (if anything a common land border should make unions easier. An example along these lines could Texas' union with the USA after spending several years of independence from Mexico. There is also the Polish Lithuania union. I don't think Yugoslavia, at any stage since 1990, is a reasonable example since it facing the full power of the NATO states trying to pull it apart.
In summation I don't think anybody has demonstrated that our union is doomed & in fact it cannot be demonstrated by anything but real life. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Power certainly does, when it is centralised. One cannot suggest that the UK is massivly decentralised when the very powers of that (the financial levers) are overwhelmingly concentrated in the one place. And to throw into the mix is the old axiom that "Power devolved is power retained". It is most true.
The problem isn't about setting up the "agencies" and it'll all happen. The "agencies" already exist. You would clearly like to destroy them - and then try to make them work together again in a new settlement.
And c50% seems to be the figure haunting your ilk. Once again, from the same study you refer to Aventinian:
The aforementioned professor and his team seem to think it fairly common to reach such a conclusion when trying to glean an answer to the issue.
OK if independence is made much easier - to occur - most Scots will want it. The main barriers to independence are not so much cultural or nationalistic - they are economic and practical - I think you know that to be true too. There is no great desire for the Union to exist in Scotland, or indeed continue - save perhaps for convenience. The perceived inconvenience would be removed by moving further down this route of more powers.
It isn't an obvious way, and it wouldn't be a federal state in such a case.
In other words, its not been a success. I know a few unionists - and from a Unionist point of view, it seems to be an unmitigated disaster. It is that angle, I'm most interested in. From an independence point of view, it has been pretty successful. The true unionists argued against devolution - with arguments that have generally come to fruition - the "untrue" unionists supported devolution and hoped that it would settle down and be stable. It hasn't.
So you want to make Scotland de facto independent - independent in all but name in the model you outline above which we can call "a form of federalism, that isn't federalism by any accepted definition". What is it about the few remaining powers reserved to Westminster, that would turn into a land of chest beating, flag waving nationalists? You are already legitimising the Scottish independence question, by moving to (almost) that point. People can see that, they aren't stupid.
That's OK then
Exactly. In the same way that the life expectancy of devolution and the current settlement has dropped significantly since 1999. So in summary we have Aventinian's fudge of the issue and most of the questions around it "set the agencies up and it'll all be alright" (you can imagine how nationalists seeking independence would be excoriated if they provided such a bluff) and we have agentmancuso's "let's make Scotland independent, but not give it the concomitant powers of independence because everybody will turn into a flag waving, chest beating, patriotic nationalist." And we're about as far from federalism in all of this as one can get. And no coherent position from any of them. On this issue of more powers, I'm beginning to see why the LibDems have ditched the Steel Commission, the Tories are frightfully cool on the issue and Labour (when they're not distracted by other things) would prefer that none of this were happening.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
But there is no indication that these levers are pulled for any great political reasons. They are on inflation or near enough, and there is no control over how they are spent. Plenty of federations actually have less financial freedom in that regard.
Why? It is power never exercised.
I'd be happy keeping HMRC as one body, so long as it could impose different taxation standards. I wouldn't be against multiple organisations though. Equally, I don't require them to work together as such. Simply keep to the areas within their remit.
So do you agree with his assessment or not then? Because there are plenty of people willing to back him on the point I made.
I'm afraid I know no such thing. I don't pretend to be a sociologist or a man of the people, but from even a strictly nationalistic ground, an overwhelming majority of people in every poll on the subject identify themselves to have some degree of British identity. I really don't think, no matter how easy, Scottish people would want to give away their British citizenship, their British Armed Forces, or their Foreign and Commonwealth representation. Nor do I think even the enormously vast majority of Scottish people see the other Home Nations as foreign countries or ever will. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
That's not the point I was making. The point is that these powers are not dencentralised. Given that they are the core of the core of decentralisation then I'm not sure how one can suggest they are decentralised. Administratively very little has changed since the arrangements prior to devolution.
Compared to Scotland and the United Kingdom - absolutely not.
That's not the point. The mere fact they exist at the political whims of Westminster does not display a satisfactory degree of decentralisation
I suppose the second point is fair enough, as that is similar to independence - the infrastrastructure for that is already in place, it would require a great deal of upheaval but that isn't so problematic in the long run. The broader point however is how all of this would work in a federal [sic] structure in the UK. If we make Scotland effectively financially independent as agentmancuso suggests, then one has to wonder how that would play not just administratively, but politically, given that one side of the federation [sic] would represent 90% of the aforementioned federation [sic].
I certainly agree with his assessment that given a straight choice people are as likely to choose independence as they are the union. Giving people a straight choice is the only way the issue will ever be settled.
I wouldn't say an overwhelming majority, and certainly a substantial number reject any notion of Britishness - I am happily one of them. Even so that identity is secondary - as any poll will show. I don't think that is strong enough personally.
I wonder. I think if given a choice between British citizenship and Scottish citizenship, the overwhelming majority would opt for the latter, polls would seems to suggest this. I'm not sure that defence matters all that much, as for foreign relations, I do believe that the Scottish Election Study asked whether people though Scotland should have its own representation in this regard, from one of the questionnaires and there was a substantially positive response. But it is really interesting you bring this notion of identity and British nationalism into the debate - especially given you so castigate Scottish nationalists for doing so in their arguments. Still the base points haven't been a addressed - especially with respect to England. Why would England - a country within the federation [sic] that is as powerful as the federation [sic] itself, would wish to adopt these arrangements - to, if we put it in Aventinian's terms - bury their nation's identity for some kind of British state existing. Similarly, given that it seems that making Scotland financially independent is possibly the only way this whole model could be actioned, as has been admitted, (and that is not federalism) then what good reasons are there for Scotland not to have its own control of the very few powers that would remain? How is that possibly stable, when you concede the great majority of the argument to those who are pro independence? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
This thread just serves to reinforce my position that those who advocate federalism have little knowledge of how actual federal states work and that what they actually want, when pressed, is not in fact federalism at all. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
It has reinforced my belief that separtists much prefer assertions (federations don't work, it is necessary for us to be independent etc) to looking at what has & hasn't worked worldwide. To be fair I suppose they may think anybody who looks at federation or the status quo first is similarly blinkered. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Is this supposed to be some form of dramatic irony? No-one has said that federations do not work. What is being suggested that a federation [sic] of the UK - with one part of the UK comprising 90% of the aforementioned federation [sic] is not a recipe for healthy, stable of happy relations between member states of United Kingdom. What the pro-federalists [sic] are suggesting isn't federalism. They haven't a clue how to get there, they haven't a clue how it would work. They haven't even considered the other parties in the argument - England or Wales or Northern Ireland or what form of government they would want. And indeed whether a largely independent England would wish to, or need a federation with the other countries of the UK, when its own domestic government are as powerful as the federation [sic] itself. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Neil |
Yes it is & saying it isn't doesn't make it so. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
We're getting into deeper shades of irony here. However thinking, logically about the constitution, about the governance of the UK, about federalism in general and using examples from abroad, it doesn't take much of a boffin to work out the counter argument. It isn't saying anything, it is providing reason - territory where the pro-federal arguments falls down. |
||||||||||||||||||||