Split Thread Scottish Independence

[Rolfe]

Why do you assume that resources discovered whilst you were part of the UK, developed using UK resources and currently held for the benefit of all in the UK, should be allocated to Scotland in the event of seperation?

Surely offshore oil resources, the national debt, superflous royal nobs and other items should be allocated as a proportion of population (should Scotland become independent)?

And don't call me Shirley....

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, yeah. I snipped the part that you couldn't get with federalism. Your response seems to suggest that it is "soft" issues like identity that really matter here rather than "hard" issues like resources and the economy.

Could be. I wouldn't know about that. Just speaking theoretically. But wouldn't advocating for federalism be perceived as less of a threat than outright independence? You might actually get somewhere if federalism was your goal.

The Westminster government has made it perfectly clear that power devolved is power retained. In my opinion settling for less than independence leaves the country vulnerable to re-assimilation whenever ecomnomic or other factors make that expedient.

And the implication that we're not "actually getting somewhere" is a bit wide of the mark. The SNP has already achieved everything it was aiming for when it was first constituted. Visions have just got a bit larger, that's all.

All the significant concessions, especially the Holyrood parliament, have been granted quite explicitly as sops to the Scots to try to head them off demanding even more. If you name your desired price when you begin to barter, you might get something less than that. If on the other hand you begin by naming the absolute minimum you might consider accepting, you're not in a very good bargaining position.

The fact is that the gradualist route to independence is quite strongly favoured in the SNP. Or as Dewar said, devolution is a process, not an event. Independence is much more likely to come by degrees, and a more federal settlement is very likely to be one of these degrees. However, "No man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation; no man has a right to say to his country, Thus far shalt thou go and no further."

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

How are you more economically disadvantaged than any other region of the UK outside the South East?

I'm not sure why that should matter. Comparisons are odious, as they say.

Scotland is one of the few developed countries to have a static or falling population. Parts of it were deliberately depopulated in the 18th and 19th centuries, and this loss has never been recouped.

The effect of the union settlement has been to suck economic activity out of Scotland and to the south-east of England, including the economic activity that comes with a seat of government. Lacking a real centre, the only route for high-flying Scots has been the road south. One consequence of this has been the development of what some call a "dependency culture". The size of the public sector in Scotland is significantly larger, in proportion, than it is in England. (There is a school of thought that believes much of this is deliberate on the part of the Labour party, to retain a traditional Labour voting base. I have no idea if this is true or not.)

Many of the economic and political decisions made by Westminster are against Scotland's best interests, with the bartering away of our fishing industry in the EU being one example. Fishing is extremely important to the Scottish economy but much less so in England. Going further back, Scotland lost its steel industry under circumstances which simply wouldn't have happened within the EU if the country had been an independent member. Scotland is also the only developed nation to have discovered oil and become poorer.

As Fiona says, Scotland is not a region of England, it is a country, one of the home nations, and quite literally on an equal footing with England in theory according to the Treaty of Union. That treaty is quite capable of being repealed. Thus it's not really relevant to compare Scotland to an English region. If Northumberland wants to start an independence movement that's its business, but whether it does or doesn't really has no bearing on whether or not Scotland would be advantaged by independence.

Rolfe.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

The only powers that Scotland has within the UK are those that are devolved to it from the central government.

As far as the body in Holyrood is concerned, that is correct: it is the creation of the Scotland Act.

However, you may want to have a look at this:
http://en.allexperts.com/e/m/ma/maccormick_v._lord_advocate.htm

But lest this case should go further, I shall briefly express my opinion. "The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. It derives its origin from Coke and Blackstone, and was widely popularised during the nineteenth century by Bagehot and Dicey, the latter having stated the doctrine in its classic form in his Law of the Constitution. Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done. Further, the Treaty and the associated legislation, by which the Parliament of Great Britain was brought into being as the successor of the separate Parliaments of Scotland and England, contain some clauses which expressly reserve to the Parliament of Great Britain powers of subsequent modification, and other clauses which either contain no such power or emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declarations that the provision shall be fundamental and unalterable in all time coming, or declarations of a like effect. I have never been able to understand how it is possible to reconcile with elementary canons of construction the adoption by the English constitutional theorists of the same attitude to these markedly different types of provisions.

My reading is: in Scots law, Treaty trumps Act, and Parliament has no power to do away with the " fundamental and unalterable" bits. To that extent, the doctrine of UK Parliamentary omnipotence is, north of the border at any rate, just misconceived.

Not that such thoughts are likely to make any difference in practice: if Scotland goes independent, there'll be a messy little divorce.

For my part, I don't care very much. I shouldn't mind being a citizen of an independent Scotland, but I have an uneasy feeling that I shouldn't care for the independent Scotland I might get. But that's a story for another day.

 

[Rolfe]

Do you say that because you fear the dominance of the North Lanarkshire Labour party? I ask because that seems to be the fear of some people. My own reading is that that institution has a very limited shelf life in any case, and see the current events surrounding Stephen Purcell for one example of why. But more pertinently, My hope and expectation for independence is that we rid ourselves of the influence of these pernicious parasites forever, and rediscover the entrepreneurship and innovation that was the Scottish hallmark for many years before and in the earlier stages of the union.

Rolfe.

 

[D'rok]

As far as the body in Holyrood is concerned, that is correct: it is the creation of the Scotland Act.

However, you may want to have a look at this:
http://en.allexperts.com/e/m/ma/maccormick_v._lord_advocate.htm

That's interesting. Thanks! There's clearly a lot of nuance beyond the textbook descriptions of the rule of law in the UK. The joys of bijuralism, I guess.

My reading is: in Scots law, Treaty trumps Act, and Parliament has no power to do away with the " fundamental and unalterable" bits. To that extent, the doctrine of UK Parliamentary omnipotence is, north of the border at any rate, just misconceived.

Not that such thoughts are likely to make any difference in practice: if Scotland goes independent, there'll be a messy little divorce.

For my part, I don't care very much. I shouldn't mind being a citizen of an independent Scotland, but I have an uneasy feeling that I shouldn't care for the independent Scotland I might get. But that's a story for another day.

If independence gains serious traction, then I guess the old Chinese curse applies - may you live in interesting times.

 

[Rolfe]

Rewinding a bit, I was musing on the great desire for minimum turnout and such ploys, apparently to be sure that voters really mean it. There's another aspect that hasn't been considered. Differential funding.

It's a bit obvious at the moment. I've run out of one of the leaflets I was circulating, and can't get any more. There are no posters, and no car stickers. There are rumours of a few posters next week, especially if I can get myself to Dumfries to collect them. Maybe. I'm thinking of running off a few on my own computer - I've done that before.

However, I see no representatives of the other parties out and about. There are a couple of LibDem posters in a field, that's all. Lots of stuff is coming through the letter-box, but it's the postman who's delivering it. Yes, every party gets one free communication delivered that way, and we're saving ours for next week, but I've had about three from the Conservatives already, including one facsimile of a hand-written personal letter from the candidate, in its own personally-addressed envelope. Another activist in the village tells me the Conservatives have employed a firm to go round in a van and put up posters (haven't seen that myself yet).

I don't know the overall SNP budget for this, but I think it will be lucky if its gets into seven figures. It's always been like that. In 1992, the reason the SNP campaign faded in the last week was that there was no more money - the total budget was only £100,000. In comparison, the three main Unionist parties have many millions to play with. Indeed, they need more, because they're fighting more constituencies, but it's way out of proportion.

It's even more pronounced at Holyrood elections, and at by-elections, when Labour (for example) can bus in student activists from all over Britain, and fund the campaign from a pretty big UK war chest. The differential spending at the Glasgow East by-election was way skewed.

We still won that by-election.

We won the European elections, on a shoestring. We won the last Holyrood election (just), with far fewer resources than the other parties.

There is no newspaper in Scotland that supports the SNP, or that supports independence. The BBC, by its charter and establishment, overtly supports the union. The other three main political parties, all much better funded, all strongly support the union.

And yet we're not doing so badly.

I don't know how much money and posters and leaflets and campaigning draws in votes, but experience suggests it's quite significant. I don't know how much media exposure and media support sways voters, but again, experience suggests it's quite significant. You need money, lots of it, and good media coverage, to hold your own in present-day politics.

If there was a level playing field in an independence referendum, with both sides being equally funded and receiving equal treatment at the hands of the media, I wonder how it would pan out?

Rolfe.

 

[Giz]

And don't call me Shirley....

Rolfe.

Begs the question that Scotland would, and should, get the lions share of off shore resources.

 

[Giz]

Just to complicate the issue, when the Holyrood parliament met for the first time, Winnie Ewing made a point of stating that the Scottish parliament, adjourned in 1707, was hereby reconvened.

Rolfe.

That is poetic, and if I had been in his shoes I might have made a similar statement, but is it law?

 

[D'rok]

The Westminster government has made it perfectly clear that power devolved is power retained. In my opinion settling for less than independence leaves the country vulnerable to re-assimilation whenever ecomnomic or other factors make that expedient.

That still sounds like a false dilemma to me. If you succeed in setting up a new constitutional order based on federal division power rather than devolution, then re-assimilation is off the table, short of invasion and conquest. And I doubt the likelihood of that.

And the implication that we're not "actually getting somewhere" is a bit wide of the mark. The SNP has already achieved everything it was aiming for when it was first constituted. Visions have just got a bit larger, that's all.

Yeah, I came across as dismissive. Didn't mean to do that. Sorry about that.

All the significant concessions, especially the Holyrood parliament, have been granted quite explicitly as sops to the Scots to try to head them off demanding even more. If you name your desired price when you begin to barter, you might get something less than that. If on the other hand you begin by naming the absolute minimum you might consider accepting, you're not in a very good bargaining position.

But if you start from an unreasonable position (at least as perceived by the "other side") then entrenchment happens and it can be more difficult to achieve progress.

The fact is that the gradualist route to independence is quite strongly favoured in the SNP. Or as Dewar said, devolution is a process, not an event. Independence is much more likely to come by degrees, and a more federal settlement is very likely to be one of these degrees. However, "No man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation; no man has a right to say to his country, Thus far shalt thou go and no further."

Rolfe.

A man can't talk to his country. Nor do countries do things like marching. When I hear poetic reifications like that, I tend to side with martu, although not quite so stridently. Nationalism has a very strong component of irrationality to it.

 

[geni]

I don't know the overall SNP budget for this, but I think it will be lucky if its gets into seven figures. It's always been like that. In 1992, the reason the SNP campaign faded in the last week was that there was no more money - the total budget was only £100,000. In comparison, the three main Unionist parties have many millions to play with. Indeed, they need more, because they're fighting more constituencies, but it's way out of proportion.

Going by pre-election figures the lib dems probably have about 6K per seat they are running in while the torries are a little under 30K. The SNP would need a budget of a little over 350K to outspend the lib dems.

It's even more pronounced at Holyrood elections, and at by-elections, when Labour (for example) can bus in student activists from all over Britain, and fund the campaign from a pretty big UK war chest. The differential spending at the Glasgow East by-election was way skewed.

Labour are significantly in debt. If they actualy win the election this will be a problem.

 

[Rolfe]

That is poetic, and if I had been in his shoes I might have made a similar statement, but is it law?

Er....

ETA: It was never challenged or questioned.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Going by pre-election figures the lib dems probably have about 6K per seat they are running in while the torries are a little under 30K. The SNP would need a budget of a little over 350K to outspend the lib dems.

Labour are significantly in debt. If they actualy win the election this will be a problem.

That last is certainly true. It's a factor that's been looming, but it hasn't really bitten yet as far as I've seen. They were all over the place at Glasgow East. On the other hand, I haven't seen hide nor hair of them round here these past weeks. One postal communication and that's it. And yet on paper Labour sould be the main challenger.

The LibDems in Scotland have always been well resourced. Unlike in England, their vote is very concentrated in a small number of constituencies, and they pour a lot of resources into these throughout the year. The local candidate's daddy is Lord Steel, and she's not going to go short of the odd leaflet.

And the Tories are just loaded.

Things are swinging round in some ways, for sure, but historically the SNP have been outspent by miles, and still done quite well. And also in spite of all the Scottish newspapers being Labour or Conservative supporting (mostly the former) and the BBC being strongly unionist.

Rolfe.

 

[Fiona]

As to the question of nationalism: I have said before that I have no interest in it, per se. I will support the SNP because for 30 years the government at westminster has not represented the views of the majority of the scottish people. It is true that it has not represented the views of some parts of england as well. But that does not help because those people appear to accept an english identity and so they do not perceive that as a problem: many Scots do. One cannot dismiss that sense of identity as romanticism: it is just a fact. For a long time I was prepared to accept that there would be times when the elected government was formed by people entirely opposed to my own position: that is politics and democracy and perfectly acceptable. But when the government of whatever stripe does not reflect any substantial strand of opinion there is no democracy. And that is what I think has happened.

Many here would disagree: they would argue that the labour party represents a majority of scots and they would point to the strong vote for that party in many parts of the country. That is a reasonable argument and it may be true. But for me it is not true for I do not think the labour party has existed in reality, probably since Kinnock but certainly since Blair. Continued support of it runs deep because of "cradle labourites": but in my circle many of them have come to agree that labour is tory by any other name: and they are strongly disillusioned.

For me, and for many of my friends (some of whom were actists in the labour party in the past) the decision to support the nationalists is really hard: we were all internationalists in the socialist tradition. When I first made my decision to change I met a number of curious arguments from that quarter: not least "we cannot abandon the poor english to tory hegemony" (I paraphrase but that is the thrust): I do not find that persuasive, though I would have done before "new labour", perhaps.

That is one reason why the european union is so important to the SNP programme. They are aware, as they must be, that those of us with a socialist perspective are not going to be persuaded by appeals to nationalism, as it is normally construed, and as it has been portrayed in this thread, in places.

I remain an internationalist: how could I not?
I agree that national boundaries are arbitrary: I believe that it would economic sense if the north of england were offered the choice to join scotland and took it. But they won't because they see themselves as english, and if that were offered they would refuse it. That is the reality. And it is no good pretending that sense of identity is not in play.

The history of Scotland after 1707 demonstrates that these things run in parallel. If the policies and economics are beneficial then the will to separation will not be strong: but the sense of identity is not extinguished by that. That is a fantasy which rests on the current wisdom that economics is the only thing that counts: it is enormously important but it does not stand alone. And how those and other strands translate into policitcal action is far from simple.

For me, I want more socialism in a mixed economy for what seem to me to be good reasons. It is about the kind of society I wish to live in, and it is not identical with economic outcomes, though it is closely intertwined with them. I will not get it while we are part of the united kingdom. I used to hope it was possible because we did achieve great things in the united state in the middle of the last century. I thought the current ascendancy of what seems to me to be disastrous ideology was part of the ebb and flow. I no longer believe this. I think that this ideology will fail as it must: and that the benefits of a mixed economy will be recognised in time. Sadly I fear that will now only happen too late: and a war or something similar in terms of its effect on the people will be necessary to repair the damage done. I want no part of that and I do not believe any longer that we can avoid it given that the main parties are all tory now.

If Scotland goes independent it may be that the choice I am currently denied will remain out of reach. I do not think so. Whether that is true or not it is the only chance I have of building a society more like scandinavia or even france than like america. And that is what I want. I believe it is what a lot of scots want. We will not get it without a strong socialist alternative, and that is not currently a possibility within the uk. I have no quarrel with an english polity which makes that decision: but there is a democratic deficit which is not trivial and that is what informs my decision.

 

[funk de fino]

Seems to me that the door to Scottish independance is unlocked though not yet open. Regardless, some think it's best if that door be knocked down with a battering ram soon as possible regardless of the damage done.

Not me personally. I rthink we are moving too quick and at the wrong time.

That a decision that affects the whole of the UK should involve the whole of the UK be that by referendum seems the fair soloution, though it raises a great deal of questions. Two big ones that occur to me straight away;
Should residents of Scotland vote overwhelmingly in favour of independance and the rest of the UK vote overwhelmingly against it, should Scotland then remain a part of the union?

It's got nothing to do with the rest of the UK. It's about self determination.

Should Scotland vote against independance and the rest of the UK vote for it, should Scotland be cast out?

See above

I suspect should a national referendum be held the rest of the UK wouldn't vote on the grounds that Scottish residents should be allowed to determine their own fate and the decision would be taken by the Scottish anyway, but I'm unconvinced that means that the rest of the UK should not be allowed to register their preference if they wish.

We dont have to convince you I'm afraid.

 

[funk de fino]

Why do you assume that resources discovered whilst you were part of the UK, developed using UK resources and currently held for the benefit of all in the UK, should be allocated to Scotland in the event of seperation?

Surely offshore oil resources, the national debt, superflous royal nobs and other items should be allocated as a proportion of population (should Scotland become independent)?

Offshore resources are part of territorial waters. We have no nationalised oil industry like Norway. The resources were developed by private companies after paying money to the UK govt for exploration slots and licenses.

 

[funk de fino]

As ever since neither of you are prepared to simply have a non-combative discussion about this issue I'll leave it at that.

Why bother?

 

[Rolfe]

Begs the question that Scotland would, and should, get the lions share of off shore resources.

Doesn't beg any questions that I can see. Answers quite a few. It might be instructive for you to read the document, and to bear in mind it was classified as secret as soon as it was produced, and wouldn't have been released under the 30-year rule either.

With this in their back pocket, the Labour party then exerted itself to tell the Scots the oil was essentially worthless, that it would soon run out, and that an independent Scotland would be a bankrupt failed state. Comparisons with Biafra and Bangladesh were made at the time.

Here's a few choice quotes.

Can one be certain that the oil is without doubt a Scottish asset or, even if it is, that these substantial revenues and balance of payments advantages would indeed accrue to an independent Scotland? Clearly these questions raise complicated issues in international law [....] To argue the second would be directly counter to the line that the UK Government has taken with the EEC, that the resources of the Continental Shelf are as much a national asset as are those on land, like coal mines, and that there is therefore no question of the Europeanisation of North Sea oil. Disputes on these matters might well occasion much bitterness between the two countries, but it is hard to see any conclusion other than to allow Scotland to have that part of the Continental Shelf which would have been hers if she had been independent all along.

There might be some argument about where the boundary between English and Scottish waters would lie. At present this is considered to be along the line of latitude which lies just north of Berwick on Tweed, and it might perhaps be held that it should run NE/SW as an extension of the Border. This could have the effect of transferring the small oilfields in the south, Auk and Argyll, to the English sector, but would not affect the main finds.

It must be concluded therefore that large revenues and balance of payments gains would indeed accrue to a Scottish Government in the event of independence provided that steps were taken either by carried interest or by taxation to secure the Government ‘take’. Undoubtedly this would banish any anxieties the Government might have had about its budgetary position or its balance of payments. The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian kroner. Just as deposed monarchs and African leaders have in the past used the Swiss franc as a haven of security, so now would the Scottish pound be seen as a good hedge against inflation and devaluation and the Scottish banks could expect to find themselves inundated with a speculative inflow of foreign funds. [....]

Conclusion
This paper has shown that the advent of North Sea oil has completely overturned the traditional economic arguments used against Scottish nationalism. An independent Scotland could now expect to have massive surpluses both on its budget and on its balance of payments and with the proper husbanding of resources this situation could last for a very long time into the future.

When this was finally unearthed by means of FoI requests, the only response of those responsible for concealing the report and lying about the issues discussed was that it should have been obvious to anyone in the 1970s that an independent Scotland would be a rich country, so everyone should have realised they were being lied to.

In fact the figures given in that 1974 report were extremely conservative and the actual yields and revenues substantially in excess of the estimates - despite the government having pretty much sold the oil extraction licenses for a song, compared to what it could have realised, which is also discussed in the report.

With this history of deceit and lies, is there any reason for Scotlad to trust Westminster to deal fairly in the future?

Rolfe.

 

[LukeB]

We dont have to convince you I'm afraid.

Not me personally. But thank you for proving my point, rather then show any intrest in engaging the rest of the UK you're quite content to unilaterally declare that the majority of your fellow citizens don't matter and have no say in the future of our country.
We're willing to listen but you have decreed we're not worthy of being talked to, just stick your fingers in your ears and ignore us. It's a fairly childish attitude, that you think founding a newly independant Scotland on such an attitude would be a good first step is pretty pathetic and/or depressing.

 

[Rolfe]

I await the future when you're seen as not much better than the BNP though I doubt I'll see it.

Yes, I doubt you'll see it too, because it won't happen. The basic philosophies of the two parties are diametrically opposed.

Rolfe.