Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

No, Boris, he argues that Labour and the SNP are very similar in their unwillingness to reform major institutions and devolve power to local communities.

 

I think many aspirations of the Yes side could be accomplished by a Scotland-Norway Union.

 

We would always want and welcome allies, I doubt a union would be necessary though. I'm all for forging links with other similar countries, for mutual benefit, I just don't want decisions on our future being made by their capital city, when we have one of our own.

[Boris]

No, Boris, he argues that Labour and the SNP are very similar in their unwillingness to reform major institutions and devolve power to local communities.

 

I think many aspirations of the Yes side could be accomplished by a Scotland-Norway Union.

 

Ah, ok. Haven't read it, just basing my thoughts on the abstract on Amazon! ;-)

 

Sounds worth a read.

 

I agree... you old cynic.

 

*sups a few suds from half empty pint glass*

 

*hic*

 

[Boris]

Whilst I would welcome a YES win, if NO wins the day I don't think it will be by such a huge margin that independence will be killed off for a generation.

 

Firstly, we would see exactly what devolution reforms would be given and how they would work. It may be that we would have the trappings of independence and eventually think, why not?

 

Secondly, another 20 years of neo-liberal govt at Westminster may well break the camel's back.

 

I suspect that the Tories will win the next general election and then we will really see what they are all about. The same thing they have always been about. They are not a true "capitalist" party, despite their rhetoric. No. Their main aim is to stay in power and consolidate the elites that they are part of. Follow the money. They scratch the back of big business, big business returns the favour by funding the party. Thus the mutual self satisfying clique remains. If they were truly capitalist then perhaps our society would be more of a meritocracy? Surely, from a business perspective, you would WANT investment in state things like education to create the workforce equipped to meet the challenges? You would want to get the talent from wherever it may be, rather than from a clique, surely?

 

Anyway, my point being is that life at Westminster will not change as the whole class system demands that it does not.

 

An independent Scottish, while it will no doubt have a new elite to contend with, can also be the opportunity to create a society based on egalitarian and meritocratic ideals. Surely that will benefit society far, far more?

 

Apologies for quoting myself, but....

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fury-tory-party-donors-handed-3123469

[TheMaganator]

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/10bn-fund-rejects-scots-schemes-over-independence-1-3300895

Another business wary of what's going on. Our constitutional uncertainty is damaging. Expect more of these stories.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Christ... have a word, eh?

 

 

Is that last pasted link honestly supposed to be taken seriously?

[Boris]

http://m.scotsman.co...dence-1-3300895

Another business wary of what's going on. Our constitutional uncertainty is damaging. Expect more of these stories.

 

I wouldn't expect anything else! Project fear...

 

;-)

[TheMaganator]

Christ... have a word, eh?

 

 

Is that last pasted link honestly supposed to be taken seriously?

 

Why should it not be taken seriously?

 

I often wonder if Yes voters only listen to the SNP and nobody else.

I wouldn't expect anything else! Project fear...

 

;-)

 

Mr Gull is not part of BT, as far as I am aware.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

I for one am going to vote no now, purely because of the death blow to our economy posted in that link.

[Boris]

Mr Gull is not part of BT, as far as I am aware.

 

But part of the system that needs Westminster at the helm?

[TheMaganator]

I for one am going to vote no now, purely because of the death blow to our economy posted in that link.

So it shouldn't be taken seriously then? This isn't the first and it won't be the last business that's considering its options up here - Lloyd's is another (as is the ex ICT owner).

 

But we don't need businesses here, I suppose.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

 

So it shouldn't be taken seriously then? This isn't the first and it won't be the last business that's considering its options up here - Lloyd's is another (as is the ex ICT owner).

 

But we don't need businesses here, I suppose.

 

A business that leaves will be replaced. The Tories ready attempted this bull shot through Scottish Widows and RBS at various times. It's all a lot of shite and in RBS' case, they came out and said so.

 

This is the most feeble possible argument that people use, imo.

[Boris]

So it shouldn't be taken seriously then? This isn't the first and it won't be the last business that's considering its options up here - Lloyd's is another (as is the ex ICT owner).

 

But we don't need businesses here, I suppose.

 

If businesses leave, then that surely opens up the market to new businesses?

 

I'm not really too uptodate with Lloyds and the ex ICT owner, but what is their reasoning for leaving come independence?

 

Economics or simply a fit of pique?

[2NaFish]

If businesses leave, then that surely opens up the market to new businesses?

 

I'm not really too uptodate with Lloyds and the ex ICT owner, but what is their reasoning for leaving come independence?

 

Economics or simply a fit of pique?

 

We'll also 'lose' Michelle Mone.

[Boris]

We'll also 'lose' Michelle Mone.

 

Going "bust", then?

[redm]

Meant to post this up yesterday but got all caught up in other stuff. Project Fear really is becoming very desperate indeed.

 

"Foreign Office caught asking Spanish press to undermine Scottish independence."

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/foreign-office-caught-asking-spanish-press-to-undermine-scottish-independen.23387895

 

But Project Fear doesn't exist, does it? It's just a myth made up by rotten yes voters. There's nobody leaning on organisations or institutions or using media owned by pals in high up places. Uh huh.

Edited February 10, 2014 by redm

[SE16 3LN]

If businesses leave, then that surely opens up the market to new businesses?

 

I'm not really too uptodate with Lloyds and the ex ICT owner, but what is their reasoning for leaving come independence?

 

Economics or simply a fit of pique?

A business that leaves will be replaced. The Tories ready attempted this bull shot through Scottish Widows and RBS at various times. It's all a lot of shite and in RBS' case, they came out and said so.

 

This is the most feeble possible argument that people use, imo.

It's been said already, but Salmond has a bit more than two years to put a currency in place that people have confidence in. If he fails to do that then the scenario's described in article's like this will become a reality. It's all very well laughing and shouting project fear every time someone mentions it, but it is the one non negotiable. If he can't convince people he has a viable plan by referendum day then he will lose the vote. If he can then he may win it.

[Boris]

Meant to post this up yesterday but got all caught up in other stuff. Project Fear really is becoming very desperate indeed.

 

"Foreign Office caught asking Spanish press to undermine Scottish independence."

 

http://www.heraldsco...penden.23387895

 

But Project Fear doesn't exist, does it? It's just a myth made up by rotten yes voters. There's nobody leaning on organisations or institutions or using media owned by pals in high up places. Uh huh.

 

[Gregory House M.D.]

 

 

 

So basically this is why I'm a soft No. There are no real arguments for except because we feel Scottish and not British?

 

So because you are a tory the arguments are invalid?

 

 

[graygo]

If businesses leave, then that surely opens up the market to new businesses?

 

 

There'll be hunners of jobs up here when they all close down and move South

 

Imaginary scenario - Subway close down all their shops in Scotland due to uncertainty - Graygo opens up a chain of sandwich shops in Scotland to fill the void.

[Gregory House M.D.]

The business' that matter are already behind independence. The no campaigners can try to delude and scare people all they like.

[TheMaganator]

The business' that matter are already behind independence. The no campaigners can try to delude and scare people all they like.

Which businesses that 'matter' support independence?

[2NaFish]

There'll be hunners of jobs up here when they all close down and move South

 

Imaginary scenario - Subway close down all their shops in Scotland due to uncertainty - Graygo opens up a chain of sandwich shops in Scotland to fill the void.

 

you'll be rolling in dough?

[Psychedelicropcircle]

 

It's been said already, but Salmond has a bit more than two years to put a currency in place that people have confidence in. If he fails to do that then the scenario's described in article's like this will become a reality. It's all very well laughing and shouting project fear every time someone mentions it, but it is the one non negotiable. If he can't convince people he has a viable plan by referendum day then he will lose the vote. If he can then he may win it.

 

 

We will be using the ? not because Salmond says we will or cameron says we won't because the market will demand it, 47 billion crosses the border in both directions 2012.

[Coco]

We will be using the ? not because Salmond says we will or cameron says we won't because the market will demand it, 47 billion crosses the border in both directions 2012.

 

Yet there is ?350bn of trade with the Eurozone ... and no entry into the Euro?

[Gregory House M.D.]

 

Which businesses that 'matter' support independence?

 

Heads of the Oil and Gas industry have already came out in support of it. BAE, contrary to Project Fears claims, have also supported it. There are literally thousands of business's supporting independence.

 

The hilarious, or rather sad, thing is- Every argument against Independence these days is that it would have a negative impact on England. As if we're meant to give a ****

 

Also, the MoD and Foreign office are using snide underhand tactics to derail the referendum because they are absolutely alight with fear of losing us. It isn't because they like us and want to keep us, it's because they are set to become a lot worse off.

 

 

Too much risks they said. We'll all be skint they cried.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Ezio Auditore da Firenze

[Boaby Ewing]

I tend to take anything businesses say about political change with a massive pinch of salt.

 

Their default position is normally "we don't want change" or "give us certainty" or "whoever will tax us less" if they're feeling particularly honest.

 

That's not a dig, it just doesn't hold that much weight with me. They'll adapt, despite any frothing at the mouth about doing business elsewhere.

 

You don't decide how to run a country based only on what businesses want.

[djf]

It's ignoring the real argument. If you're suggesting that businesses will leave because of [independent Scotland factor] then cool, debate the [independent Scotland factor] but these businesses are presumably already gaining by operating in Scotland so they will either carry on doing so or vacate and allow another business to gain.

 

"Uncertainty" is just a negotiating tool to protect their lot whatever the outcome.

[Coco]

It's ignoring the real argument. If you're suggesting that businesses will leave because of [independent Scotland factor] then cool, debate the [independent Scotland factor] but these businesses are presumably already gaining by operating in Scotland so they will either carry on doing so or vacate and allow another business to gain.

 

"Uncertainty" is just a negotiating tool to protect their lot whatever the outcome.

 

Take the example of RBS. HQ in Edinburgh (at least nominally), employing a huge number of people here but with most of their business outwith Scotland.

 

Post independence, the vast majority of their business is done in a foreign country, with a foreign major shareholder (perhaps), with a foreign regulator and foreign lender of last resort (if that can be achieved). What rationale would there be for them staying in Scotland? The quality of the workforce?

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

 

 

Take the example of RBS. HQ in Edinburgh (at least nominally), employing a huge number of people here but with most of their business outwith Scotland.

 

Post independence, the vast majority of their business is done in a foreign country, with a foreign major shareholder (perhaps), with a foreign regulator and foreign lender of last resort (if that can be achieved). What rationale would there be for them staying in Scotland? The quality of the workforce?

 

They have already come out and said that they have no plans to leave Edinburgh and that they see no difference in being in 28 different foreign countries compared to 29. This shot has been perpetuated from day - by better together, and yet pretty much every report I've read that contains the company in question's press release, has said that they do not support the scaremongering from Westminster.

[Coco]

They have already come out and said that they have no plans to leave Edinburgh and that they see no difference in being in 28 different foreign countries compared to 29. This shot has been perpetuated from day - by better together, and yet pretty much every report I've read that contains the company in question's press release, has said that they do not support the scaremongering from Westminster.

 

There would be a huge difference to their position for the reasons I mentioned.

[Boaby Ewing]

Take the example of RBS. HQ in Edinburgh (at least nominally), employing a huge number of people here but with most of their business outwith Scotland.

 

Post independence, the vast majority of their business is done in a foreign country, with a foreign major shareholder (perhaps), with a foreign regulator and foreign lender of last resort (if that can be achieved). What rationale would there be for them staying in Scotland? The quality of the workforce?

 

Presumably. That and legacy, retail base, branch network etc. Same reasons Scottish Widows and Standard Life are up here as well.

 

As you say, RBS's headquarters are only 'nominally' in Edinburgh anyway. The vast majority of the work down at Gogar is back office.

 

Might they relocate entirely in the future (more so than they've already done with off-shoring and near-shoring) if Scotland becomes independent? Possibly.

 

But given Edinburgh's financial services sector has already shrunk by at least a quarter since 2008, it's questionable whether it would even be that big a deal if they did. And independence is very unlikely to be the only factor.

[Coco]

Presumably. That and legacy, retail base, branch network etc. Same reasons Scottish Widows and Standard Life are up here as well.

 

As you say, RBS's headquarters are only 'nominally' in Edinburgh anyway. The vast majority of the work down at Gogar is back office.

 

Might they relocate entirely in the future (more so than they've already done with off-shoring and near-shoring) if Scotland becomes independent? Possibly.

 

But given Edinburgh's financial services sector has already shrunk by at least a quarter since 2008, it's questionable whether it would even be that big a deal if they did. And independence is very unlikely to be the only factor.

 

No certainties in any of these sorts of things of course. The dynamic effects of changes to the constitutional structure are so hard to estimate - and almost certain to be wrong in most predictions.

 

And that's why they tend to be ignored - with the idea that the current structures would stay the same.

[Patrick Bateman]

Honestly, this 'foreign country' stuff makes my eyes bleed. Here's the thing; multinational corporations do not care, so long as they can make profit. They don't hold the same the same airfix, Kate N Willz tea towel set british nationalists values that some expect of them. Here's another wee secret; these big companies also do trade with 'foreign countries' - But, eh, aye, they might suddenly stop because they hate the idea of an independent Scotland so much, so best vote no, eh? Or are we expect to believe that the act of union is why these companies do business here, perhaps they're doing it for our own good, and without them, we'd be back to a mixture of arable farming and border reaving. That seems to be the sort of mindset on show from team no.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Assertions that x company will be leaving, leaving the Scottish economy in ruin are as bad as asserting Scotland will be a land of milk and honey after independence.

[Patrick Bateman]

Assertions that x company will be leaving, leaving the Scottish economy in ruin are as bad as asserting Scotland will be a land of milk and honey after independence.

 

Indeed, except one side is far more guilty of if that the other, largely because they're reluctant to ever deal with the concrete evidence. I'm still waiting on someone explaining how Scotland's best interests could be reflected in a parliament where we have 9% of seats representing Scotland ahead of one where we have 100%.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Patrick Bateman

[Coco]

Assertions that x company will be leaving, leaving the Scottish economy in ruin are as bad as asserting Scotland will be a land of milk and honey after independence.

 

Correct. No harm in discussing potential predictions though.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Assertions that x company will be leaving, leaving the Scottish economy in ruin are as bad as asserting Scotland will be a land of milk and honey after independence.

 

It's actually quite pathetic.

[Patrick Bateman]

Thankfully the EU will stop the british parliament from reinacting the Alien Act from 1705 due to its anti-competitive nature. Seriously though, it's amazing to see the number of folk who mouth off about how Scotland was some peasant backwater before the Act of Union without knowing anything about the context.

[pablo]

Some business may relocate South, and lot's more won't. But if your livelihood depended on a company

remaining in Edinburgh, why would you take a risk? Assuming you're not a fundamentalist of course.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Some business may relocate South, and lot's more won't. But if your livelihood depended on a company

remaining in Edinburgh, why would you take a risk? Assuming you're not a fundamentalist of course.

I personally think it is a lot of hot air and bluster but question for the yes side. If the workers in a business were told by the owners that their business would relocate in the event of a Yes vote, what would your counter-argument to those workers be?

[Patrick Bateman]

I personally think it is a lot of hot air and bluster but question for the yes side. If the workers in a business were told by the owners that their business would relocate in the event of a Yes vote, what would your counter-argument to those workers be?

 

If I was a worker at that business, I'd start consulting an employment lawyer. Whilst it's understandable for a business leader to say that a change in Scotland's constitutional status will make them have to consider their strategy, I don't think a single business has said they'd relocate because of independence. Besides, the fact we'd be able to vary business rates to make Scotland more competitive might tempt those firms into staying. Businesses in Scotland might also be attracted by the fact Scottish tax payers money will no longer be used to subsidise infrastructure projects that solely benefit the south east of England, namely Crossrail and HS2, meaning it can be used to improve infrastructure in Scotland instead.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Patrick Bateman

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Correct. No harm in discussing potential predictions though.

 

There is no harm indeed. But they are predictions: that's all they are. I think people get too hung up on predictions. It's understandable - people are uncertain about their future, they want to know as much as possible, so they seek out experts and their takes.

 

The issue is that every 'expert' or individual who is assumed to have a greater grasp upon a subject is no better than a chimp throwing darts. The predictions of you, or I, or Bateman, or TheMaganator, or the biggest roaster on JKB is as valid and as likely to happen as a (so-called) expert prediction.

 

My criticism here is not entirely applicable to only one side of the campaign: both sides are at it, to varying extents at different times.

 

I believe independence is what we make of it (if it comes to fruition). Not enough is made of the reality that we don't really know what's going to happen post-independence, or indeed the future of the UK if a No vote emerges victorious. This debate is a question of who we want to control our, the people of Scotland, whether born here or living and working here, destiny. Here I believe Bateman's repeated line of 9% of representation in the House of Commons is most pertinent. I don't need to repeat his argument: he's articulated it concisely many times in this thread. In short, I think a legislature, with power to legislate over every policy area, that is 100% accountable to the people of Scotland is the best placed to interpret our collective future.

 

But, hey, it's human nature in partisan debates to assert different scenarios. Psychology rules supreme. I'm not criticising any poster in this thread, but I think it's important to stress that we should be skeptical and critical of every op-ed, article, or report that is posted. Generally, this thread's been good, as far as debate on the internet goes; much better than that abomination of a sub-forum on P&B, or Twitter overall.

[Coco]

There is no harm indeed. But they are predictions: that's all they are. I think people get too hung up on predictions. It's understandable - people are uncertain about their future, they want to know as much as possible, so they seek out experts and their takes.

 

The issue is that every 'expert' or individual who is assumed to have a greater grasp upon a subject is no better than a chimp throwing darts. The predictions of you, or I, or Bateman, or TheMaganator, or the biggest roaster on JKB is as valid and as likely to happen as a (so-called) expert prediction.

 

My criticism here is not entirely applicable to only one side of the campaign: both sides are at it, to varying extents at different times.

 

I believe independence is what we make of it (if it comes to fruition). Not enough is made of the reality that we don't really know what's going to happen post-independence, or indeed the future of the UK if a No vote emerges victorious. This debate is a question of who we want to control our, the people of Scotland, whether born here or living and working here, destiny. Here I believe Bateman's repeated line of 9% of representation in the House of Commons is most pertinent. I don't need to repeat his argument: he's articulated it concisely many times in this thread. In short, I think a legislature, with power to legislate over every policy area, that is 100% accountable to the people of Scotland is the best placed to interpret our collective future.

 

But, hey, it's human nature in partisan debates to assert different scenarios. Psychology rules supreme. I'm not criticising any poster in this thread, but I think it's important to stress that we should be skeptical and critical of every op-ed, article, or report that is posted. Generally, this thread's been good, as far as debate on the internet goes; much better than that abomination of a sub-forum on P&B, or Twitter overall.

 

Good post. One other thing which regularly strikes me with regard to this debate is how short termist much of the commentary is, with reference to recent Governments in particular. Constitutional time is different.

[redm]

Businesses may choose to relocate at any time and for a million different reasons. It's no more or less likely to happen in an independent Scotland than it is at any other time.

 

Let's remind ourselves that Edinburgh was recently ranked top European city for foreign direct investment, a result partly out down to attractive policy, improved infrastructure and increased number of airline routes. The last of which we can expect to see improve even further in an independent Scotland when air taxes are slashed - if not completely abolished altogether. The UK currently has the highest air tax in Europe.

Edited February 10, 2014 by redm

[Gorgiewave]

For the convenience of readers, here's the Tom Gallagher book I've mentioned and recommend to all:

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Illusion-Freedom-Scotland-Nationalism/dp/1850659966/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1392065277&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Illusion+of+Freedom

[Randy Marsh]

The book has rave reviews I see.

[Gorgiewave]

The book has rave reviews I see.

 

After the earlier negative reviews, it wouldn't harm to make the following points:

The author is frank about why the British connection in Scotland has been eroded. He makes no last-ditch defence of Britishness in this book. Gallagher argues instead that the SNP brand of nationism is very sub-standard with separatism offering no effective substitute for the extensive autonomy currently available to Scotland. He suggests that in our consumerist, post-religious age, the SNP has promoted a sense of victimhood among the Scots, especially those in younger age-groups. He faults the SNP for failing to offer much more than a "Lets Bash London" level of politics with little to indicate what practical vision the party has for an independent Scotland. The author has the measure of Alex Salmond who presents himself as a latter day Louis XIV, believing himself to be a ruler who is Scotland incarnate. The book manages to combine an accessible writing style with serious analysis and it deals with questions about contemporary Scotland which the Scottish media usually sidesteps. When published in late 2009, it predicted that Scotland would move in an increasingly populist direction, with Salmond dominating the scene; so far the author doesn't seem to have been proven very wrong.

 

Fairly warm, I'd say.

[coconut doug]

After the earlier negative reviews, it wouldn't harm to make the following points:

The author is frank about why the British connection in Scotland has been eroded. He makes no last-ditch defence of Britishness in this book. Gallagher argues instead that the SNP brand of nationism is very sub-standard with separatism offering no effective substitute for the extensive autonomy currently available to Scotland. He suggests that in our consumerist, post-religious age, the SNP has promoted a sense of victimhood among the Scots, especially those in younger age-groups. He faults the SNP for failing to offer much more than a "Lets Bash London" level of politics with little to indicate what practical vision the party has for an independent Scotland. The author has the measure of Alex Salmond who presents himself as a latter day Louis XIV, believing himself to be a ruler who is Scotland incarnate. The book manages to combine an accessible writing style with serious analysis and it deals with questions about contemporary Scotland which the Scottish media usually sidesteps. When published in late 2009, it predicted that Scotland would move in an increasingly populist direction, with Salmond dominating the scene; so far the author doesn't seem to have been proven very wrong.

 

Fairly warm, I'd say.

 

I've now read some of his stuff and he does have a good turn of phrase at times. I've never read anything quite so contradictory though. He seems blinded by hatred and the Scotland he describes i do not recognise. Perhaps Alex Massie puts it more succinctly in the following article where he describes Gallagher's contribution as "paranoid raving", "delusional nonsense" and states that "none of Gallagher's arguments make any sense". I agree with Massie.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2009/08/latest-lockerbie-conspiracy-megrahi-is-an-snp-agent/

[Alba gu Brath]

No, Boris, he argues that Labour and the SNP are very similar in their unwillingness to reform major institutions and devolve power to local communities.

 

I think many aspirations of the Yes side could be accomplished by a Scotland-Norway Union.

 

Hey! You've finally said something that I think I could warm to!

 

The Tom Gallagher book though....

 

 

Even Massie, no Salmond fan he, says the author is a loon.

[Gorgiewave]

I've now read some of his stuff and he does have a good turn of phrase at times. I've never read anything quite so contradictory though. He seems blinded by hatred and the Scotland he describes i do not recognise. Perhaps Alex Massie puts it more succinctly in the following article where he describes Gallagher's contribution as "paranoid raving", "delusional nonsense" and states that "none of Gallagher's arguments make any sense". I agree with Massie.

http://blogs.spectat...s-an-snp-agent/

 

It's not even remotely hatred, he's just not blinded by the bright lights of the victimisation / Is there for Honest Poverty? / anti-Thatcher ecosystem.