Will Scotland get any more than what is currently on the table

[MikeG]

I am assuming you mean with no more cash on the table. That would be interesting but I suspect that might come back to bite Cameron in ways we can't imagine. And it would leave the very interesting point of where in English waters do you want to put Trident........

I said fiscal autonomy. Not independence. Fiscal autonomy wouldn't alter the arrangements for defence.

 

[MikeG]

The Tories will continue fiscal contraction because that is in the manifesto they won with. The SNP has no more or less legitimacy than other opposition parties to challenge that. The "anti-austerity coalition" would not be big enough even if Sinn Fein joined it. The term "anti austerity" is mis-used of course. The SNPs fiscal plans for the UK--such as could be gleaned from their manifesto--were quite similar to Labour's but a bit looser.

It would certainly be in Cameron's interest to give the Scottish Parliament as much freedom as possible to balance its own books, (ex public borrowing and money printing). If Scotland was free to tax banker bonuses, scrap bedroom tax, raise top rate income tax to 50% (while it probably gets abolished elsewhere), raise minimum wage, fully subsidise undergraduate tuition, social care, prescriptions etc . . . That would most definitely be a controlled experiment worth doing.

PS remember that the Tories have "everything to gain" in Scotland. It makes zero sense to write off somewhere with no electoral downside and only upside. They have a huge interest in the SNP ultimately hanging themselves.

Precisely.

 

[MCel58]

I said fiscal autonomy. Not independence. Fiscal autonomy wouldn't alter the arrangements for defence.

But it would surely alter who is paying for it or would the UK government be charged for the services it receives from Scotland like space for Trident.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't think defence spending or anything to do with defence would be devolved.

 

[MikeG]

But it would surely alter who is paying for it

Not in the way you think. The UK national government would be paying for it, and Scotland would no longer be contributing.

or would the UK government be charged for the services it receives from Scotland like space for Trident.

You think a region of the UK would be able to charge rent to the UK government to site defence kit on its own (UK) crown land? Interesting.

 

[ddt]

The EU point is actually not as easy as everyone suggests, the membership of the EU is a UK membership. There is no recognition of the 4 nations and in fact Scotland in EU terms is region 10 of the UK. If Scotland was independent then there could be a question to be answered and rules to be changed. Under present rules, if Scotland was left representing the UK, it would also inherit the liability as net contributor. This is not a negotiating point for Cameron and Sturgeon but for Cameron and council of Ministers.

Of course, in the current situation Scotland is as much a member of the EU as, say, Flanders or Bavaria - not. But the point raised is that the outcome of Cameron's EU referendum may be reason - when, say, England votes 60% to leave the EU while Scotland votes 60% to stay in the EU - to demand a new referendum on Scottish independence, and if successful, as an independent Scotland apply for EU membership. (And I don't see a reason why the EU would say "no" in such a situation.)

That the UK would reduce the part of its territory that is EU member to only Scotland would of course be ludicrous. (There are some overseas parts outside the EU, like the Falklands, and Akrotiri and DHekelia; but not parts of the metropolitan UK).

 

[ddt]

I don't think defence spending or anything to do with defence would be devolved.

That would indeed be ludicrous. The moment there's something like "Scottish defence", there's de facto a Scottish state.

 

[Nessie]

More fiscal powers to Scotland, plus the desire to end austerity, means Scotland will not be contributing as it should to reducing the deficit and paying off the national debt. The rest of the UK will have to do that alone.

Scotland has already been shielded from austerity measures such as student fees and prescription charges. There are no toll roads or bridges in Scotland. The police are better paid than elsewhere in the UK as their wages have not been cut.

Such protections from austerity will continue and increase with the rest of the UK looking on thinking, hold on should we not all be paying for the mistakes of massive borrowing and debt?

 

[Francesca R]

More fiscal powers to Scotland, plus the desire to end austerity, means Scotland will not be contributing as it should to reducing the deficit and paying off the national debt.

Incorrect, fiscal autonomy will not mean have your cake and eat it. The Scottish government will not have borrowing powers nor will it be able to direct the Bank of England to create base money, so the spending would likely have to be funded by Scottish taxpayers. As far as I can tell the Tory party seem to be in favour of this.

There would have to be a fiscal agreement first. That is where either side can get hung up on it, and where old gripes can reassert themselves on both sides and get in the way of anything being done.

 

[MikeG]

More fiscal powers to Scotland, plus the desire to end austerity, means Scotland will not be contributing as it should to reducing the deficit and paying off the national debt. The rest of the UK will have to do that alone.

Scotland has already been shielded from austerity measures such as student fees and prescription charges. There are no toll roads or bridges in Scotland. The police are better paid than elsewhere in the UK as their wages have not been cut.

Such protections from austerity will continue and increase with the rest of the UK looking on thinking, hold on should we not all be paying for the mistakes of massive borrowing and debt?

Except that the wheels would soon fall off Scotland's rosy little socialist paradise when they actually have start funding all this stuff themselves.

As a point of order, the pay of police in England, NI, and Wales hasn't been cut. Scotland may have paid increases when there were none or little in the rest of the UK, but that isn't what you said.

 

[Nessie]

Incorrect, fiscal autonomy will not mean have your cake and eat it. The Scottish government will not have borrowing powers nor will it be able to direct the Bank of England to create base money, so the spending would likely have to be funded by Scottish taxpayers. As far as I can tell the Tory party seem to be in favour of this.

There would have to be a fiscal agreement first. That is where either side can get hung up on it, and where old gripes can reassert themselves on both sides and get in the way of anything being done.

You say that but fact is certain austerity measures I listed are already avoided in Scotland. The SNP have stated there will be an end to austerity in Scotland, so it is reasonable to conclude other austerity cuts will not happen in Scotland. But they will in the rest of the UK.

 

[MikeG]

.....There would have to be a fiscal agreement first. ....

Would there?

My naiivity leads me to think of a situation such as the 3% tax raising/ varying powers they have at the moment but don't use. Couldn't we have a situation where the UK gov says "as of X date, all funding from us will cease, and you will have powers to raise taxes within your boundaries"? It would of course be up to Scotland whether they chose to exercise this option, but not raising any money would be pretty silly.

 

[Nessie]

Except that the wheels would soon fall off Scotland's rosy little socialist paradise when they actually have start funding all this stuff themselves.

Indeed.

As a point of order, the pay of police in England, NI, and Wales hasn't been cut. Scotland may have paid increases when there were none or little in the rest of the UK, but that isn't what you said.

The starting pay has been cut. The lack of any pay increase at all plus the increase in pension contributions amounts to a cut. I may have been clumsy in the way I phrased my point, but it stands that the Scottish police have not had to cough up as much as the rest of the UK towards austerity.

 

[Francesca R]

You say that but fact is certain austerity measures I listed are already avoided in Scotland. The SNP have stated there will be an end to austerity in Scotland, so it is reasonable to conclude other austerity cuts will not happen in Scotland. But they will in the rest of the UK.

The SNP means "spending cuts" when it says austerity. So do most people on the left. That leads them free to hike taxes. (PS tax rises are "austerity" as well)

 

[Nessie]

Would there?

My naiivity leads me to think of a situation such as the 3% tax raising/ varying powers they have at the moment but don't use. Couldn't we have a situation where the UK gov says "as of X date, all funding from us will cease, and you will have powers to raise taxes within your boundaries"? It would of course be up to Scotland whether they chose to exercise this option, but not raising any money would be pretty silly.

That is where it gets interesting. There are some figures that have Scotland as a net contributor to UK PLC even without the oil revenue. If each region could only spend what it raised NI and Wales would get poorer. Scotland richer. England would depend on if it was split into regions. If Greater London was on its own it would be stinking rich. Together it would stay about the same.

 

[Francesca R]

Would there?

Yes, to determine what actually counts as Scottish revenue and spending.

 

[Nessie]

The SNP means "spending cuts" when it says austerity. So do most people on the left. That leads them free to hike taxes. (PS tax rises are "austerity" as well)

I don't follow. Resisting spending cuts is anti-austerity. Increasing taxes is not ending austerity. Unless of course it can be shown none of the extra tax raised goes on spending and all goes to paying off the deficit and then national debt.

 

[Francesca R]

So smaller spending cuts and larger tax rises could theoretically result in Scotland having the same fiscal impulse as the UK overall.

It would make Scotland a relative spending haven and ex Scotland a relative tax haven so one can draw one's own conclusions about the incentives for population and business movement, none of which can be restricted.

 

[MikeG]

.......It would make Scotland a relative spending haven and ex Scotland a relative tax haven so one can draw one's own conclusions about the incentives for population and business movement, none of which can be restricted.

Spot on again........and part of the elephant trap that the Tories could dig for the SNP.. Give them what they want, and watch as they suffer the consequences.

 

[Francesca R]

the outcome of Cameron's EU referendum may be reason - when, say, England votes 60% to leave the EU while Scotland votes 60% to stay in the EU - to demand a new referendum on Scottish independence

I think that would be an indy-ref triggering circumstance yes. Mostly because the voters in Scotland would think so. Almost any other reason would IMO cause at least a slight SNP backlash and another no vote.

But I really don't expect the EU referendum to go close to "out".