Implications of Scottish Independence

[Francesca R]

[ . . . ] focus on, say the West Lothian question?

Not sure what there is to add on this. It is a legacy unfairness to which the solutions are variations of:

1--Disallow Westminster MPs from non-English constituencies from voting on laws that only affect England
2--Create a devolved English assembly (a more expensive way of achieving the same outcome)
3--Go to full sovereign independence of Scotland (Northern Ireland, Wales)
4--Revoke devolved lawmaking powers from Scotland (Northern Ireland, Wales)

The system as it exists creates incentives. MPs who respond to those incentives are not particularly "scumbags" for doing so. And it is not apparent that Westminster MPs from Scotland who voted for fees only did so because it did not affect their constituents so much, and had it done so they wouldn't have. (Unless they are on record saying this)

 

[MikeG]

Not sure what there is to add on this. It is a legacy unfairness to which the solutions are variations of:

1--Disallow Westminster MPs from non-English constituencies from voting on laws that only affect England
2--Create a devolved English assembly (a more expensive way of achieving the same outcome)
3--Go to full sovereign independence of Scotland (Northern Ireland, Wales)
4--Revoke devolved lawmaking powers from Scotland (Northern Ireland, Wales)

The system as it exists creates incentives. MPs who respond to those incentives are not particularly "scumbags" for doing so. And it is not apparent that Westminster MPs from Scotland who voted for fees only did so because it did not affect their constituents so much, and had it done so they wouldn't have. (Unless they are on record saying this)

1--

In the interim, before this is achieved, rely on the good nature of Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs to absent themselves from voting on issues which affect only England, and reserve the right to call them scumbags if they do not.

 

[Rolfe]

I will conclude that it is reasonable to suppose that Mike G was not invoking Mr Brown's partial sight as a rationale for discrediting the arguments in favour of Scottish independence . . .

No. It appears he was merely being gratuitously offensive.

Rolfe.

 

[Francesca R]

rely on the good nature of Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs to absent themselves from voting on issues which affect only England

It's not necessarily good nature to abstain from voting because there may be a conflict of interest.

 

[MikeG]

No. It appears he was merely being gratuitously offensive.

Rolfe.

Don't forget that Rolfe has me on Ignore, so the only posts of mine she sees are when someone else quotes me. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether Rolfe has enough information via other people's quotes to judge my intent with the use of the phrase "one-eyed". You can also draw your own conclusion as to whether Rolfe would judge fairly anyway, whatever the evidence presented to her.

 

[MikeG]

It's not necessarily good nature to abstain from voting because there may be a conflict of interest.

Of course there might: party loyalty. That doesn't make it any better.

 

[malicus]

Of course there might: party loyalty. That doesn't make it any better.

MikeG, I agree with you on this - the UK whip system is bloody ridiculous. Effectively not allowing MPs to vote on behalf of their constituents wishes. Grossly unfair on many.

 

[Rolfe]

I also agree in principle with much of the rationale for the comments of Mike's that I've seen. It's basically the hoary old West Lothian Question.

You can argue that round the houses as a point of principle, but the fact remains that the SNP MPs do not vote on matters that pertain wholly to England (or Wales or NI) and have no relevance to Scotland. The SNP MPs abstained on the vote Mike is so incensed about, for precisely the reasons he is incensed with the Labour MPs.

In addition, the final, complete and utter solution to the problem of the West Lothian Question is independence. No more MPs from Scotland means no more English-only legislation being influenced by the votes of any Scottish MPs. What's not to like?

But for some reason the completely escapes me, Mike vents the bulk of his spleen on supporters of the SNP and Scottish independence. I literally can't understand that unless it is pure racism. As in, the people who support the SNP and independence are Scottish, same as those Labour MPs I despise, therefore I will abuse and insult them.

It's not pretty.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

One of the things the No campain keeps coming out with is "vote No because the NHS". It never makes much sense. The NHS in Scotland has always been a separate outfit, even before devolution, right back to the very beginning. It was set up in part by expanding and building on the old Highlands and Islands scheme.

So the idea that "we" set up a monolithic UK-wide health service together is simply untrue.

Nowadays, the NHS in England and in Scotland are further apart than ever. What is happening in England scares me. If we vote No, it will happen to us, maybe just five years later.

Here's a video of a presentation by a consultant surgeon on why she's voting Yes to save the NHS in Scotland as a public health service.


And yet the Vote No campaign is allowed to get away with dishonest statements about the NHS being something that binds us together and the maintenance of the NHS (presumably in the form portrayed in the opening ceremony of the London Olympics rather than what actually exists) being a reason for a No vote.

If our media were even close to telling the truth about the main issues in the independence debate, Yes would be sitting on about 70% of the vote right now.

Rolfe.

 

[MikeG]

........But for some reason the completely escapes me, Mike vents the bulk of his spleen on supporters of the SNP and Scottish independence. I literally can't understand that unless it is pure racism.......

I have explained this many times. On the last page in fact:

I just loath the way the argument is being put in this thread, with endless unsupported assertion and much hyperbole and invective. You can ask for evidence until you are blue in the face in this thread, and you'll get linked to a pro-independence blog if you're lucky. This is why I appear to be on the case of some of the pro-independence bloggers posters in this thread, despite supporting, on balance, their cause.

So, not racism (the second Scot Nat who has accused me of that....something I find nauseating, offensive and ridiculous), but a straight-forward loathing of the way the case for independence is being made in this thread. If Rolfe and Architect, and others, would ever be fair minded or evidence-based in their arguments, quit the unsupported assertions and whining, then I probably wouldn't even bother doing any more than keep a watching brief on the thread.

Asserting that the BBC was running the No campaign, or that Standard Life had A/ threatened to pull out of Scotland if Scotland backed devolution in the previous referendum and B/ had had their business model blown out of the water by the 2014 Budget is just typical of Rolfe's unsupported assertions. When asked for evidence, she got all defensive, and ended up putting me on Ignore. That's the level of debate in this thread, and that is why I appear to "venting my spleen on.......supporters of independence".

So, I support their cause, just, but all the good arguments in this thread are being made by those opposing independence. The Yes people just treat it as a blog.

 

[Francesca R]

Of course there might: party loyalty. That doesn't make it any better.

They may have voted what they think is in the best interest of England even if MSPs did not agree in respect of Scotland.

 

[Francesca R]

[ . . . ] the UK whip system is bloody ridiculous. Effectively not allowing MPs to vote on behalf of their constituents wishes. Grossly unfair on many.

It transfers an amount of power from legislators to the cabinet. This is not necessarily a bad thing as it can be a counterweight to the practice of local demands having an inappropriately excessive influence on national policy. (Discussed once here)

 

[Francesca R]

In addition, the final, complete and utter solution to the problem of the West Lothian Question is independence.

It's one of at least four solutions I listed previously. It's not correct to remark that the removal of its existence unabiguously points to or strengthens the case for independence.

 

[Rolfe]

It's neither here nor there. However, I don't understand why someone so obviously monstrously aggrieved by the existence of the WLQ is venting so much spleen and bile at the very group of people who support an outcome that would end the anomaly at a stroke.

Rolfe.

 

[MikeG]

It's neither here nor there. However, I don't understand why someone so obviously monstrously aggrieved by the existence of the WLQ is venting so much spleen and bile at the very group of people who support an outcome that would end the anomaly at a stroke.

Rolfe.

Rolfe wouldn't understand this because she doesn't see my posts explaining. The other reason for "venting so much spleen and bile" on the question is because when I raised it, I was hounded for pages about its non-existence. My example, £8000 of my own daughter's debt as a direct result of it, was pilloried, and as you can see from Architect's posts of the last couple of days, it continues to be pilloried.......despite the facts.

 

[Francesca R]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-there-will-be-a-currency-union/
If the UK refused a currency union, Scotland would have no reason whatsoever to take on any of the UK’s debt, and the UK would have to face the same crippling debt mountain that’s causing the horrific austerity now, but with its economy hacked off at the ankles. If the current nightmare came from a brief single-digit recession, you don’t have to be an economist to imagine the apocalyptic effect of a permanent 10% one.

It's just possible that if independent Scotland started life on day one as "the nation that repudiated all its sovereign debt outright", then it may have rather more trouble accessing the capital market than, say, Argentina in the last thirteen years and Greece from 2010-14. (This is one of the points made in the Citi report IIRC. It is not a credible threat for Scotland to make.)

In addition a one off removal of 10% (isn't it more like 8?) of economic output does not create a permanent "10% recession", but a one-off contraction in a single period (actually overnight) that is matched by a contraction in population, costs, liabilities. In the next period the effect is gone.

So this site rather impeaches itself on economics-cred without one having to look far.

 

[Rolfe]

It's just possible that if independent Scotland started life on day one as "the nation that repudiated all its sovereign debt outright", then it may have rather more trouble accessing the capital market than, say, Argentina in the last thirteen years and Greece from 2010-14. (This is one of the points made in the Citi report IIRC. It is not a credible threat for Scotland to make.)

Scotland has no sovereign debt to repudiate. Responsibility for the entirety of the UK's sovereign debt post-independence has already been accepted and guaranteed by England+. Presumably that means the actual debt will neither be repudiated nor defaulted on.

This has a lot to do with England+'s desire to be seen as the continuing state after Scottish independence. It's not the outcome many people in Scotland want, as they see the UK as having been formed by two equal partners, and they want to see that equal partnership reflected in the dissolutino process. However my reading of the tea-leaves suggests that the Scottish government is prepared to sell that pass in the interests of the wider picture.

If England+ is the continuing state, then of course it is liable for all the debt which has been run up in its name. Scotland's name is on none of that. (And in fact Scotland isn't responsible for running it up either, as Scotland has been in surplus every one of the past 30 years.) Westminster has staked its claim to continuing state status by accepting 100% responsibility for the debt.

England+ is hoping to come to an agreement with iScotland for iScotland to accept the responsibility for servicing a due propostion of that debt. The Scottish government has already, up-front and before any negotiations start, expressed its complete willingness to do just that.

That is not repudiating any debt, by any possible way of describing the situation.

What it is, is a private agreement between the two parts of the dividing state, as to how the division should be accomplished. It is of course implicit in the offer to accept responsibility for a proportion of the sovereign debt (in a sub-contractor sense that is - England+ has the actual primary liability) that this is contingent on mutual assets also being shared.

The Scottish government points out, quite reasonably, that if England+ intends to retain ownership of all the mutual assets, it can keep all the debt as well.

This isn't reneging, in any sense. As I pointed out above, the actual creditors will not find themselves short-changed, because England+ has pledged to service 100% of the debt. So the debt as such will not be defaulted or reneged upon by anyone. Unless England+ goes back on its undertaking. But at the subcontractor level, it's not reneging either. Nobody in their right mind can possibly expect Scotland to meekly accept a proportional share of the debt in a private agreement, if there is to be no proportional share of the assets.

And if that is in the end the outcome, there is no particular reason for international creditors to look with disfavour on Scotland, since no debt will have been defaulted on, and all that will have happened is that England+ will have failed to get iScotland to come to a private agreement to share responsibility for some repayments, because of its own intransigence in refusing to apportion assets.

And in that situation, iScotland will have very little need of borrowing anyway, since it will be debt-free and in possession of the assets in its own geographical territory. Quite a tasty prospect, some suggest.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

This is very similar to the mindset that shrieked "Salmond threatens the EU with blocking access to Scottish fishing grounds!!" after Salmond's excellent and wide-ranging speech in Bruges. Salmond pointed out that if Scotland were to be expelled from the EU, then of course EU fishing boats would not have access to Scottish waters. That's not a threat, it's simply a fact. If you throw me out of the club, you don't get to treat my property as if it were your own, any longer.

Scotland is not a beggar coming in supplication. Scotland is a small, rich country seeking to come to an equtable and mutually favourable arrangement on a number of issues. If the only response from the other side is to insist that "what's yours is mine" but at the same time "what's mine's my ain", we're really not going to get very far.

Rolfe.

 

[Francesca R]

But at the subcontractor level, it's not reneging either. And if that is in the end the outcome, there is no particular reason for international creditors to look with disfavour on Scotland

Scotland would have to convince the market (actual and potential creditors) of that. I don't think it is very likely. Actually massively unlikely, which is probably why it won't be used as a serious negotiating stance.

Nobody in their right mind can possibly expect Scotland to meekly accept a proportional share of the debt in a private agreement, if there is to be no proportional share of the assets.

Non-sequitur--that's about oil tax revenues. The currency and an FX union is not part of those assets. The blog I linked to (so did you) regards repudiating debt as a useful bargaining chip for Scotland to get its wish about currency union. Nothing to do with territorial assets.

iScotland will have very little need of borrowing anyway, since it will be debt-free and in possession of the assets in its own geographical territory.

Of course Scotland will need to borrow. It's not going to be the only OECD nation that doesn't, ever.

 

[Rolfe]

In addition a one off removal of 10% (isn't it more like 8?) of economic output does not create a permanent "10% recession", but a one-off contraction in a single period (actually overnight) that is matched by a contraction in population, costs, liabilities. In the next period the effect is gone.

Scotland has about 8.4% of the population of the UK but produces almost 10% of the GDP. (I think it's about 9.7% actually.)

Indeed, Englsnd+ will lose 8.4% of the population and slightly more of the recurring costs, because the effect of losing over 30% of the geographical territory has an effect here.

However, it if chooses to retain all the sovereign debt, that is recurring. It isn't absorbed in the first year. That's kind of the point of the article.

Rolfe.