Scotland Indyref 2

And more from the IFS

One risk not faced by Scotland will be the consequences of tax revenues growing more slowly as a result of differential population growth. The Westminster government lost that argument in agreeing the new fiscal framework. That matters because, for decades, the Scottish population has grown less quickly than that in England. [b]That’s essentially why the Barnett formula remains so generous to Scotland. Originally it was supposed to lead to a gradual equalisation in spending per head, but the consistently lower rate of population growth in Scotland has left public spending per person there much higher than it is in the rest of the UK. The new devolution settlement will entrench that advantage, at least for now.[/b] [ who mentioned cake and eating it?]That extra spending is substantial, despite incomes per person being almost identical. Public service spending per person in Scotland today is still quite a bit higher than it was in England before the present period of austerity began. Of course, what is felt is that spending is being cut, even if less quickly and from a higher base than elsewhere in the UK. What is not felt is how much higher it was and how much higher it remains.

In fact, the Scottish government is looking to use some of its new tax powers to increase taxes relative to those south of the border to cushion the budget from further cuts. [b]That, of course is precisely the point of devolution. It allows the Scottish people to make a different set of choices[/b]

So c'mon Nicola get on with it. Report back when you have done so.

Doesn't that ^^^^ just illustrate why Scotland needs more control over it's fiscal policy.

What the fact that Barnett works in your favour? Ot that the ability to raise tax independently in the ST at least is weaker than under current arrangements?

"Please may be worse off than now" - is an odd attempt to win votes!

Be careful what you wish for.

[quote=epicyclo ]

aracer - Member
Is this the same racism of those who oppose Brexit?...

Well you did write:

"Those who oppose democratic self-determination in a country do so because of either they have a vested interest in the status quo, or because they do not think the people of that country are capable of running it themselves. The latter is racist."

again tHM would you stay in an unhappy marriage just because you are better off?

You keep forgetting that other people have principles other than what is financially best for me, quite possibly because you put money first second and third but not everyone does.
Please just accept this.

again tHM would you stay in an unhappy marriage just because you are better off?

You keep forgetting that other people have principles other than what is financially best for me, quite possibly because you put money first second and third but not everyone does.
Please just accept this.

JY - we come back to my argument about what actually makes a real difference to people's lives. In this case we have to remember that money actually means jobs amongst other things.

I note your ifs report but we can quote reports at one another ad infinitum so lets agree to disagree on that, its not really allowing people to make different choices if it can be shown that the tax and welfare powers recently devolved are ineffective at best. I note your ifs report but we can quote reports at one another ad infinitum so lets agree to disagree on that
I have many reservations about the EU and its influence over the monetary and fiscal policy of some member states. I would happily adopt a new currency for an independent Scotland and delay or abandon entering the euro till there are some reforms in the eu. I would also be happy not to use the pound which is one opinion I have changed since2014
Edit THM I said 1998 because the list you quoted is the list of areas originally devolved under the 1998 Scotland Act

5th - which is why Brexshit is Brexshit.

we come back to my argument about what actually makes a real difference to people's lives. In this case we have to remember that money actually means jobs amongst other things.

Only the gullible forget that many of the goods and services that we require have a cost and need to be paid for. Pity that the gullible are often the most vulnerable too who suffer the consequences of a lack of joined up thinking that is all too evident.

@aracer of course and I dont dispute his reasonings or his argument

It is a perfectly sensible approach to accept you will be worse of financially and still take the option hence why I keep using the divorce argument

Not everyone would stay in a marriage where they had no say, felt oppressed etc just because they had a better standard of living

Its NOT JUST about money though it is all he ever discusses

I note your ifs report but we can quote reports at one another ad infinitum so lets agree to disagree on that, its not really allowing people to make different choices if it can be shown that the tax and welfare powers recently devolved are [b]ineffective at best[/b]. I note your ifs report but we can quote reports at one another ad infinitum so lets agree to disagree on that

They are not, nor are they a sham as you suggest. So we will not agree, merely agree to move on.

I would happily adopt a new currency for an independent Scotland

Good because that is the only option available that is that makes even an smidgeon of sense

and delay or abandon entering the euro till there are some reforms in the eu.

But any talk of the Euro is absurd. Until the € finally collapses, you know what membership means. Significantly, less power of the key instruments of policy that you have now. So the EU argument (not you tbc) is either ignorant (at best) or intellectually dishonest (much worse)

I would also be happy not to use the pound which is one opinion I have changed since2014

Dont worry that is not your choice.

So from now on we have a starting point. Phew.

Any future discussions need to begin with the basic premise that the foundation is a separate Scottish currency. That is another thing that I agree with Stiglitz on. From here:

Q1 What needs to happen to achieve this?
Q2. Will this create a situation that is better or worse for the people of Scotland?

These are the only question that matter at this point. The rest is hot air and froth.

[quote=Junkyard ]It is a perfectly sensible approach to accept you will be worse of financially and still take the option hence why I keep using the divorce argument

I get your point, but I'm not sure how good the analogy is. Are the Scottish people [b]in reality[/b] that oppressed and miserable? Remembering that whilst they don't have full power over their own affairs a lot of stuff is devolved - will the stuff which isn't currently devolved make a real difference?

Are the Scottish people in reality that oppressed and miserable? Remembering that whilst they don't have full power over their own affairs a lot of stuff is devolved - will the stuff which isn't currently devolved make a real difference?

Aracer - of course not. They enjoy a standard of living that is higher than would otherwise be the case and significantly lower risks to that standard of living. You see, its not about money. Its about looking after the best interests of the Scottish people. Something the Narcissist should remember.

"Something the Narcissist should remember. " back to the petty name calling thm

No back to facts - like Bojo, Gove, Farrage, Salmond, Fox, Trump etc - anyone who puts their own self interest and ego ahead of those whose interests that they are elected to serve needs to be identified for what they are.

The knee-jerk reaction to Brexshit and BS about the single market falsify any pretence that her focus is on serving the interest of the Scottish people. As above, that argument is intellectually dishonest and a characteristic of narcissistic characters.

The term would be inappropriate if she started with the only viable foundation for further debate (see Qs 1 and 2) Until then....

Will this create a situation that is better or worse for the people of Scotland?

Everyone has different ideas of what constitutes better or worse. Yours seems to be entirely financial, which is fine. You also lack the ability to see that others have differing priorities, which is not good. I really can't understand why you spend so much time on here on this subject. Well I can, it obviously stokes your sense of superiority and you get a kick out of trolling. Either that or you have nothing else going on. Don't what is sadder.

Yours seems to be entirely financial, which is fine.

On the contrary. Rather than pretending, I am considering the wider interests of the people of Scotland - what the SNP are supposed to be delivering on, but currently failing to do so.

The issues are not just Scottish, much the same relates to Brexshit too

{XC ride pre Marr, dog walk with friends post Marr, part cooked family lunch, golf practice and now supposed to be writing a report but (hands up) distracted 😉 before dinner with friends, so dont worry about my sad little life]

teamhurtmore - Member
....You see, its not about money. Its about looking after the best interests of the Scottish people. Something the Narcissist should remember.

And the best interests of the Scottish people is having control over their own destiny. Sturgeon is doing a good job if the voting pattern is anything to go by.

BTW it's pointless sneering at the leaders of the Scottish govt. It's not a personality cause, so demeaning the leader does not deflect the voters from the movement.

Sturgeon is doing a good job if the voting pattern is anything to go by.

Votes - very true, as remarkable as people voting Brexshit and/or Trump given relative performance against goals etc. but you have to credit Nicola on this. Some achievement.

And the best interests of the Scottish people is having control over their own destiny.

Agreed - so define what they are (they are not found in the € obviously)

So step back and assess the strengths and weakness of the Scottish economy in its wider sense. Then work out the best structure which maximises the former and minimises the weaker which is more than simply "saying" having control its about "actually" having. This is what should have happened with Brexhsit too

[quote=km79 ]Everyone has different ideas of what constitutes better or worse.

Of course, but a lot of them seem to be somewhat theoretical.

[quote=epicyclo ]And the best interests of the Scottish people is having control over their own destiny

Best interests in what real sense? Is it better to have a job and be ruled from Westminster or not have a job and be ruled from Holyrood?

aracer - Member

Is it better to have a job and be ruled from Westminster or not have a job and be ruled from Holyrood?

There you go again with wild speculation and subterfuge. You can not know that. And it's an irrational question.

😀

Well it's a bloody ridiculous comment. 😆 westminster = jobs, holyrood = unemployment. Lets get back to the land of reality.

Which is that the difference bewteen holyrood or westminster will equate to a slight percentage jump up or down in the scottish economy. Which way is anyones guess and relies on actions after the event. But scotland, like the uk post brexit, isn't going to fall off a cliff.

Joe, I might respectfully suggest re-reading what aracer said. You may have got the wrong end of the stick 😉

There is more to this than the economy,or having a job. There is feeling valued by your employer and having secure adequately paid employment. There is having a good work life balance. There is being respected by your politicians at all levels and feeling that they listen to you and understand you. ( In a small country like Scotland participatory politics might work better than representative politics)There is feeling that the same rules and laws apply to all irrespective of wealth or social class, colour or creed.

Are the Scottish people in reality that oppressed and miserable

The reality is they get what england chooses- and its usually very different from what they want. The marriage analogy is you are "not oppressed" but you get what they always decide. You have some freedom - but only where they allow it and they can take it back etc. ye syou can ride tuesday night but only if they let you etc.
I think a fair few would consider than oppressive* if not everyone
* the term is unnecessarily emotive IMHO and democratic defecit is a far better less emotive descriptor that may help the discussion be a little more rational.

THM this made me laugh

Are the Scottish people in reality that oppressed and miserable? .....
Aracer - of course not. They enjoy a standard of living that is higher than would otherwise be the case and significantly lower risks to that standard of living.

PS if you wont engage with me then dont interrupt my conversation either its a bit rude and it nearly breaks your principled flounce 😉

teamhurtmore - Member
...So step back and assess the strengths and weakness of the Scottish economy in its wider sense....

The weakness in the Scottish economy is that we do not have control of the levers, so lack the ability to alter course to suit our strengths as various economic issues arise. At the moment we end up going the way that suits the major partner in the Union, namely England.

Independence is necessary to get full fiscal autonomy.

I think the term is ' cutting off your nose to spite your face'.

I'm sure if I was Scottish, I'd feel the same way to be fair, but from where we sit, it has never made any real sense.

[quote=gordimhor ]There is more to this than the economy,or having a job. There is feeling valued by your employer and having secure adequately paid employment. There is having a good work life balance. There is being respected by your politicians at all levels and feeling that they listen to you and understand you. ( In a small country like Scotland participatory politics might work better than representative politics)There is feeling that the same rules and laws apply to all irrespective of wealth or social class, colour or creed.

and how is independence going to affect any of that?

My assertion is that IS will be bad for the economy of IS and that of rUK, an assertion which seems to have a reasonable basis, simply for the same reasons that Brexit will be bad for the economy of UK and EU (which most knowledgeable people seem to agree with). Any arguments being made for IS having a better economy appear to be broadly similar to those being made for the advantages of Brexit - so you're now agreeing with jamba? 😆

One of the effects of a worse economy is generally higher unemployment. I'm surprised I need to explain that.

The weakness in the Scottish economy is that we do not have control of the levers, so lack the ability to alter course to suit our strengths as various economic issues arise. At the moment we end up going the way that suits the major partner in the Union, namely England.

Well leaving aside that is patently untrue, you are now considering giving up MORE sovereignty to those whose economies are far less in synch with your own. That is total madness.

Much of the wider interests have SFA to do with politicians anyway.

But take you first point into a wider context - are you safer being part of NATO despite not having total control over the levers?

I think the term is ' cutting off your nose to spite your face'.

*we do seem to prefer overly emotive descriptors on here

aracer - Member
My assertion is that IS will be bad for the economy of IS and that of rUK

In the short term, that's a valid analysis. But in the long term, the question for the scottish people, is that after the effects of the divorce, will scotland then be able do better than it does just now.

It's a question of whether people believe there will be short term pain for long term gain. A question that can be speculated on a thousand ways, and is fairly pointless to argue. Depending on your bias and how you measure "better" your answer will be different..

But ultimately that's the long term supposition I think.

[quote=seosamh77 ]But in the long term, the question for the scottish people, is that after the effects of the divorce, will scotland then be able do better than it does just now.

The Brexit argument 😉

aracer - Member
The Brexit argument

Pretty much, yes.

Why I favour a long term view. As I've alluded to, Brexit is a test case for Scottish independence. Behind the nonsense of Brexit, I can see the parallels. It was interesting POV being pro EU and Pro IS I thought.

I'm happy to wait and see. (But will still vote yes if the opperchancity arises. 😆 The chance to break westminster links will only come along once again imo.. )

"and how is independence going to affect any of that?"
Quite fundamentally aracer it will be much easier to make that case for reform of local government at Holyrood , and it will be easier to achieve consensus on employment law etc without a need to make the case at westminster. Constitutuional reform is currently a reserved matter so that is off the table without independence.

It was interesting POV being pro EU and Pro IS I thought.

You're planning to legislate to ensure employees feel valued by their employer and have a good work life balance?

"You will feel valued comrade, it's the law"

""You will feel valued comrade, it's the law" 😀
Plenty that could be done to achieve those things aracer we could consider a universal basic income to simplify the tax and benefit "systems" . We could repeal some of the anti trade union laws, put restrictions on use of zero hours contracts etc

Late coming back to this but:

airtragic - Member

Might this be something to do with Scotland having had far less inward migration

I know that immigration is a net positive etc etc, but you've got plenty of, shall we say, less enlightened folk up there who wouldn't see it that way in the event of a big influx, just as we do down here.

That's a nonsense argument. The most anti immigration parts of england are the part with the least immigration. Attitudes and levels of immigration in cities like glasgow, liverpool, manchester etc isn't all that different, neither are the attitudes in the cities.

Places with most immigration ae generally the most accepting of immigrants, imo. Obviously not always the case but it's a general trend.

That's debatable at least. Plenty seem to think it's the rate of change that's important.

[url= https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities ]Joseph Rowntree Report[/url]

Quote from it: "Even though areas with relatively high levels of EU migration tended to be more pro-remain, areas that had experienced a sudden influx of EU migrants over the last 10 years were often more pro-leave. This finding is consistent with the argument that when it comes to the effect of immigration on the referendum what appears to matter the most is the experience of sudden population change rather than the overall level. Indeed, as Geoffrey Evans and Jon Mellon show, public concern about immigration as a political issue over time in Britain strongly tracks actual levels of immigration."

Plenty of areas of Scotland that would be analogous to Peterborough etc, [u]if[/u] Scotland had had the same level of immigration.

On a second independence referendum being impossible without westminster approval. The UN would disagree. any attempt to hinder another referendum from westminster will move people into the yes camp and any sensible politician would know this.

T%he UN is quite clear on self determination of a people - win a referendum. become independent. No permission needed from the parent state

Independence would improve my life no doubt at all. A better NHS my employer. A greener energy policy. No fake Austerity.

A better NHS my employer. A greener energy policy. No fake Austerity.

Think all those cost money! Tough to square that with an acceptable deficit for EU entry.

Shhhs, air, dont spoil the dream. Anyway tj called for no fake austerity - seems like he would prefer the real thing.

T%he UN is quite clear on self determination of a people - win a referendum. become independent. No permission needed from the parent state

Shame it gets a bit foggy when it's the Falklands

If the falklands wanted to be independent the UN would recognise this after a referendum was won.