Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[jambo1185]

ONe of the things I wonder is has it gone far enough to alter the 45/55 split? Has it made a significant number of people who voted Yes now satisfied that these new powers are all that is required? Not forgetting of course that there are a large chunk of people in the 55% who would rather have seen less powers or even no parliament at all, how do they feel now?

 

If anyone is interested I'm still for Independence, so for me these proposals do not go far enough.

 

It doesn't really need to convince any of the 45 though, it just needs to satisfy enough of the 55 not to cross to the other side.

 

If you are for independence the powers could never have gone far enough, even if it was full devo max there would still have been cries of the vow has been broken, we can't do everything we want, give us more powers etc.... You need to take a step back and look at the package in acknowledgement of the referendum result and say 'ok, my fellow countrymen rejected independence, a package close to that was never going to be on the table, does what has been agreed between the 5 parties give us a better, more effective parliament', to be fair to Nicola, in amongst the grandstanding her answer was very clearly yes (it just wasn't as good as she wanted).

Edited November 27, 2014 by jambo1185

[Boris]

I was against a three option paper because I wasn't keen on any option winning without a majority or based on secondary preferences, but I could probably have been comfortable with two separate questions. I don't know how it would work in practice but maybe vote 1 was y/n to independence and then vote 2 was 'if the independence vote is no do you want devo max y/n' but I am certain that the pro-independence parties wouldn't want that because it would lower the pro-independence vote (maybe not decisively, but by a bit).

 

 

Had that been the case, I'd have voted no to indy and yes to devo max.

 

As this was dismissed by Cameron and HMG, and with no proposals forthcoming from any of the unionist parties at the time, it was all too little too late for me and so I voted Yes.

 

And I would again.  Not as I am an SNP devotee.  Far from it.  But to me that showed up Westminster for what it is.  We would no doubt be run by shysters if independent, but at least the electorate would decide.  Current Westminster set up and no one really has a say bar the marginals.  No way to elect a govt, imo.

[RosscoC]

The first step towards a federal UK.

[Coco]

When do I get a vote on these proposals?

[jambo1185]

Had that been the case, I'd have voted no to indy and yes to devo max.

 

And I think that's why that kind of scenario wouldn't have made it past the pro-independence lot either in the end. I don't think you are in a small % of people with that view Boris.

 

A 3-way paper, even if it lead to Devo Max rather than independence could still be spun by the SNP as not being an outright rejection of independence (assuming independence did not come miles last on first preference and barely picked up any second preference either), in the same way it would be in a two-stage vote.

[jambo1185]

When do I get a vote on these proposals?

 

According to the SNP you voted for them by voting No.

[Boris]

And I think that's why that kind of scenario wouldn't have made it past the pro-independence lot either in the end. I don't think you are in a small % of people with that view Boris.

 

A 3-way paper, even if it lead to Devo Max rather than independence could still be spun by the SNP as not being an outright rejection of independence (assuming independence did not come miles last on first preference and barely picked up any second preference either), in the same way it would be in a two-stage vote.

 

I think the YES campaign were happy to have it on the ballot.  It was Westminster that drew a red line through it (despite the SNP not really wanting it either).

[Boris]

According to the SNP you voted for them by voting No.

And Maganator!

 

[jambo1185]

When do I get a vote on these proposals?

 

The key is not so really what is being transferred, but how those powers will be used, and that's what we will be voting for at the next Holyrood elections. I mean theoretically a party could campaign on the basis that they will just match what they do in these areas to what the UK does, so the transfer of powers would basically mean nothing.

Edited November 27, 2014 by jambo1185

[jambo1185]

I think the YES campaign were happy to have it on the ballot.  It was Westminster that drew a red line through it (despite the SNP not really wanting it either).

 

I agree, I mean I don't think YES would have been as keen on two separate votes on the two questions because a very heavy No vote to the independence question would be a bit awkward (plus it's complicated in whether you would need a YES YES campaign, a YES NO campaign (which would be odd), a NO NO campaign and a NO YES campaign), as opposed to a transferable vote on one question.

[TheMaganator]

Correct, it wasn't on the ballot due to HMG's insistence. Had it been, I suspect it would have won and of course there may have been certain devolved issues (defence for example).

 

But to equate wanting independence or not to wanting "lots of reserved matters" is simply wrong, IMO.

If you voted No it was done with the acceptance that there would still be reserved matters. I don't know how it could be billed as anything else.

 

Both the Scot Gov & UK Gov's consultation came back with a majority in favour of one question. Don't just blame WM for it - neither government wanted it.

[Boris]

If you voted No it was done with the acceptance that there would still be reserved matters. I don't know how it could be billed as anything else.

 

Both the Scot Gov & UK Gov's consultation came back with a majority in favour of one question. Don't just blame WM for it - neither government wanted it.

You said "LOTS of reserved matters"

 

Bit of difference.

 

Of course I can blame WM for it - they were the ones who red lined it!

[jambo1185]

You said "LOTS of reserved matters"

 

Bit of difference.

 

Of course I can blame WM for it - they were the ones who red lined it!

 

That was a bit of clever political maneuvering from Salmond in the pre-referendum phase, made Westminster look like the 'bad guys' on that point.

 

On a side note, I thought Jackie Baillie has done pretty well as stand-in leader for Scottish Labour. Why was she not interested in running for the job?

[Socrates]

That was a bit of clever political maneuvering from Salmond in the pre-referendum phase, made Westminster look like the 'bad guys' on that point.

 

On a side note, I thought Jackie Baillie has done pretty well as stand-in leader for Scottish Labour. Why was she not interested in running for the job?

 

Salmond wanted devo-max, because, at that stage, he didn't think he had much of a chance of getting a Yes vote. Cameron said no, because he knew it would win if it was offered.

 

I think with all of this, you have two options. If the objective is to deliver a package in line with what the No people were talking about in the run-up to the referendum, which had lots of chat about more powers, and a lot less about what those powers would actually be, then this is a fair attempt at doing that. If the objective is to genuinely try and find common ground between the Yes and No campaigns, and agree something which could be seen as representing the views of the public as a whole, I don't think this does that. It does very little to satisfy the softer Yes people. As I said earlier, there's very little in here that would be a really difficult concession for any of the unionist parties, while there are a number of areas where further devolution could have been offered without catastrophic consequences for the UK - the minimum wage and employment law (devolved to the states in the US), further social security powers, corporation tax (UK government looks likely to allow this for NI) and perhaps limited immigration powers (things like allowing foreign students to stay and work for a limited period - not wholesale changes, but tweaking to help meet Scotland's needs).

[jambo89]

What else would you have wanted?

 

FWIW I've seen loads of people raging that it's gone too far.

 

A balance had to be struck. Nationalists need to respect that 55% voted to remain part of the UK. That means there'll rightly still be lots of reserved matters.

Corporation tax devolved for a start. The power to attract businesses to scotland and promote growth within the certain industries would have gone a long way to silencing the yes voters.

 

I also don't agree with the 10% of VAT bit. That sounds like it could be an administrative nightmare and to divvy up. Why not just relinquish control to the full 20%?

 

As to the rest of your post, I should say it's a bit disengenious of you to link the 55% rejecting independence as a rejection of more powers. That was never the question and it's not what people voted for.

[jambo1185]

Corporation tax devolved for a start. The power to attract businesses to scotland and promote growth within the certain industries would have gone a long way to silencing the yes voters.

 

I also don't agree with the 10% of VAT bit. That sounds like it could be an administrative nightmare and to divvy up. Why not just relinquish control to the full 20%?

 

As to the rest of your post, I should say it's a bit disengenious of you to link the 55% rejecting independence as a rejection of more powers. That was never the question and it's not what people voted for.

 

On corporation tax, given that the commission report basically copies the Conservative submission, I thought it was worth posting what they said. Not sure whether this was the reason it was not included or not in the end, but it is one view. Concern about a race to the bottom perhaps? Corporation tax is also responsible for less than 10% of UK tax revenue

 

"Numerous studies have noted that Corporation Tax is the least suitable of all taxes for devolution: it is not economical to collect on a small scale; it relates to activity that can easily be transferred across borders; it is highly volatile; and it does not generate a reliable yield. In any event its devolution would be complex in law, not least because of issues relating to the EU law on state aid."

 

From a quick scan, only the SNP asked for corporation tax to devolved going through the submissions (Lib Dems and Greens suggested a portion of receipts be assigned, in the same way as VAT is going to be).

Edited November 27, 2014 by jambo1185

[Socrates]

On corporation tax, given that the commission report basically copies the Conservative submission, I thought it was worth posting what they said. Not sure whether this was the reason it was not included or not in the end, but it is one view. Concern about a race to the bottom perhaps? Corporation tax is also responsible for less than 10% of UK tax revenue

 

"Numerous studies have noted that Corporation Tax is the least suitable of all taxes for devolution: it is not economical to collect on a small scale; it relates to activity that can easily be transferred across borders; it is highly volatile; and it does not generate a reliable yield. In any event its devolution would be complex in law, not least because of issues relating to the EU law on state aid."

 

From a quick scan, only the SNP asked for corporation tax to devolved going through the submissions (Lib Dems and Greens suggested a portion of receipts be assigned, in the same way as VAT is going to be).

 

Strange that it seems to be both feasible and desirable in Northern Ireland then.

[jambo1185]

Strange that it seems to be both feasible and desirable in Northern Ireland then.

 Is that not predominantly because of competition with the Republic though, which is hurting NI business and stopping them from being able to compete well for business? There's no such border competition between England and Scotland, so I suspect the cost/benefit analysis gives completely different outcomes in the two situations.

 

But yes, in principle I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to devolve it to Scotland, and it would be interesting to understand more about that reasoning, although as I say it's interesting it was not something many business institutions who made submissions were calling for anyway, and some actively opposed it due to the administrative complexity, cost, and burden it would create.

Edited November 27, 2014 by jambo1185

[TheMaganator]

Corporation tax devolved for a start. The power to attract businesses to scotland and promote growth within the certain industries would have gone a long way to silencing the yes voters.

 

I also don't agree with the 10% of VAT bit. That sounds like it could be an administrative nightmare and to divvy up. Why not just relinquish control to the full 20%?

 

As to the rest of your post, I should say it's a bit disengenious of you to link the 55% rejecting independence as a rejection of more powers. That was never the question and it's not what people voted for.

That's not what I said. I said they voted to remain part if the UK and they did.

 

All of this will be a nightmare to divvy up! 

 

I think sometimes elements of the Yes camp forget they lost the referendum. We've been given more powers!

 

Can we just get on with running Scotland for the best interest of Scotland now, rather than trying to further a cause that was rejected by the majority? 

 

The SNP signed off on this a matter of hours ago but are already whinging. It is pathetic. 

Edited November 27, 2014 by TheMaganator

[Thunderstruck]

That's not what I said. I said they voted to remain part if the UK and they did.

 

All of this will be a nightmare to divvy up!

 

I think sometimes elements of the Yes camp forget they lost the referendum. We've been given more powers!

 

Can we just get on with running Scotland for the best interest of Scotland now, rather than trying to further a cause that was rejected by the majority?

 

The SNP signed off on this a matter of hours ago but are already whinging. It is pathetic.

Agree with this.

[JamboX2]

The focus on taxation is the Achilles heel of the process. Huge missed opportunities on welfare, equalities, employment and social justice measures which are needed to cut poverty and break generational unemployment. Apparently, Scottish Labour and the Greens aren't happy the SNP chased tax powers over housing benefit and other welfare elements.

[jambo89]

The focus on taxation is the Achilles heel of the process. Huge missed opportunities on welfare, equalities, employment and social justice measures which are needed to cut poverty and break generational unemployment. Apparently, Scottish Labour and the Greens aren't happy the SNP chased tax powers over housing benefit and other welfare elements.

My reading of the report suggested that there would be powers to implement new welfare schemes so in effect any change to the housing benefits could be offset by the government.

 

That is of course if the government has enough money to pay for it which they may or may not do depending on the success of the new tax raising powers.

[JamboX2]

Appears the new divide will be The Vow has been Delivered vs The Vow hasn't been Delivered. Dividing line set out for the 2015 and 2016 elections and no doubt the next referendum.

 

Salmond said tonight the plan is to win most Scottish seats and demand more powers. I'd imagine he'll be told, no you signed up to and accepted Smith and then Sturgeon announces a new referendum in 2017/18.

 

Maybe Sandra White did know something when she was slapped down as knowing '**** all' by an SNP spin doctor in the Sunday Herald this week.

[Gorgiewave]

Appears the new divide will be The Vow has been Delivered vs The Vow hasn't been Delivered. Dividing line set out for the 2015 and 2016 elections and no doubt the next referendum.

 

Salmond said tonight the plan is to win most Scottish seats and demand more powers. I'd imagine he'll be told, no you signed up to and accepted Smith and then Sturgeon announces a new referendum in 2017/18.

 

Maybe Sandra White did know something when she was slapped down as knowing '**** all' by an SNP spin doctor in the Sunday Herald this week.

 

Who is Sandra White and what was she accused of not knowing?

[JamboX2]

Who is Sandra White and what was she accused of not knowing?

Left winger, RiC backing, SNP MSP who said in an interview that the next referendum is penciled in for 2017.

[Gorgiewave]

Left winger, RiC backing, SNP MSP who said in an interview that the next referendum is penciled in for 2017.

 

OK, thanks.

[MrWinningSmith]

It's all OK though we have full power over road signs.

[IMac]

What more could people want? It is not as if the Scottish government is going to use these powers anyways.

[JamboX2]

Corporation tax devolved for a start. The power to attract businesses to scotland and promote growth within the certain industries would have gone a long way to silencing the yes voters.

 

I also don't agree with the 10% of VAT bit. That sounds like it could be an administrative nightmare and to divvy up. Why not just relinquish control to the full 20%?

 

As to the rest of your post, I should say it's a bit disengenious of you to link the 55% rejecting independence as a rejection of more powers. That was never the question and it's not what people voted for.

VAT cant be devolved as its against EU rules to have different rates in a member states. All VAT receipts handed to Scotland would've been better.

 

The corporation tax thing is a red herring. I don't think there's actually much proof it assists in bringing more jobs and investment. All it does is hand more money to company shareholders. Investing in education to produce a skilled labour market and infrastructure investment arguably attract business more.

[GBJambo]

Hope they do try for another referendum. I doubt the uk gov will be so accommodating this time . The result will be the same

[jambo1185]

2017?! Ffs.

[jambos are go!]

Without the prospect of a referendum there is no point in the SNP. They know that and cant let go. In a generation, or 20 to 30 years, the future of oil revenue will most likely be resolved and the SNP may well face a 20% hole in their budget if its running out. In short they are desperate.

 

Big Eck given a roasting by Michael Portillo on This Week last night for claiming the VOW had not been met when it had. He also would not let him continually interrupt his arguements by asking questions. Other Unionists should take note.

[TheMaganator]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2852222/Salmond-mocks-Miliband-claiming-thing-saw-England-flags-respect.html

 

Salmond having a pop at Red Ed in his acceptance speech for politician of the year.

 

It is fairly funny, IMO. But if you give it you have to be able to take it. 

 

Had the roles been reversed - what do you think Salmond and the #44.7's response would have been?

[Gorgiewave]

Without the prospect of a referendum there is no point in the SNP. They know that and cant let go. In a generation, or 20 to 30 years, the future of oil revenue will most likely be resolved and the SNP may well face a 20% hole in their budget if its running out. In short they are desperate.

 

Big Eck given a roasting by Michael Portillo on This Week last night for claiming the VOW had not been met when it had. He also would not let him continually interrupt his arguements by asking questions. Other Unionists should take note.

 

Do you have a clip of this? I can't find it on youtube.

[TheMaganator]

Do you have a clip of this? I can't find it on youtube.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04t6wd2/this-week-27112014

 

Here's the iplayer link. Are you able to view this in Spain?

[Gorgiewave]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04t6wd2/this-week-27112014

 

Here's the iplayer link. Are you able to view this in Spain?

 

Thanks, but no, I can't. I don't know if proxy servers are illegal and/or likely to cause a system collapse.

[TheMaganator]

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/distiller-creates-pro-independence-45-whisky-1-3616936

 

Spirit of Freedom independence whisky launched. A blend, naturally

 

[TheMaganator]

Mr Salmond caught out telling porkies again - in a pathetic attempt ti stick the boot into the UK

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30231942

 

Hands up who thinks he'll retract his comments?

[Nookie Bear]

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/distiller-creates-pro-independence-45-whisky-1-3616936

 

Spirit of Freedom independence whisky launched. A blend, naturally

 

 

Comes complete with bitter after taste?

[jambos are go!]

Do you have a clip of this? I can't find it on youtube.

it should be on the BbC I player or virgin Catch up.

[TheMaganator]

FFS. This guy was reguarly championed online as being one of the great voices during the referendum. It's only 28 pages with pretty big font

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/distiller-creates-pro-independence-45-whisky-1-3616936

 

Spirit of Freedom independence whisky launched. A blend, naturally

 

45% proof. Amirite?

[Seymour M Hersh]

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/distiller-creates-pro-independence-45-whisky-1-3616936

 

Spirit of Freedom independence whisky launched. A blend, naturally

 

 

Probably should have been a wine made from extremely sour grapes.

[IMac]

45% proof. Amirite?

44.7 actually

[TheMaganator]

This is absolutely superb stuff from a Yes voter - commenting on their enease at what the Yes movement has become.

 

https://faintdamnation.wordpress.com/2014/11/29/jacobites-and-jacobins-the-problem-with-yes-fundamentalism/

 

"How else can Yes fundamentalists keep the following ideas going in their heads at once?

 

? Decentralising power is good, such as through networks like Common Weal;

 

While at the same time:

 

? The Scottish government needs more power.

 

These are contradictory ideas.

 

Meanwhile:

 

? Independent Scotland will be a real democracy, unlike Westminster, representing ideas squeezed out in UK politics;

 

But:

 

? Everyone should vote SNP.

 

At a stroke, the commitment to pluralism evaporates."

[jambos are go!]

Great speech from Gordon Brown this morning on how we can move forward to use the substantial additional powers to promote social justice in Scotland. He may retire as an MP but he will not be leaving the stage methinks.

[TheMaganator]

Thanks, but no, I can't. I don't know if proxy servers are illegal and/or likely to cause a system collapse.

Now on YouTube

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qv-ppxB0f1E&feature=youtu.be

[Gorgiewave]

Now on YouTube

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qv-ppxB0f1E&feature=youtu.be

 

Thanks a lot!

[Gorgiewave]

Now on YouTube

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qv-ppxB0f1E&feature=youtu.be

 

Less destructive of all hope than I hoped but somebody needs to call BS on him.

[jambos are go!]

Note that he cant resist playing the man/woman and not the ball at the end!