UKC

So, they're coming up to say hi!

It's nice of them to think to tell us a little bit about what their visions of the future might be. A little late, perhaps, with just nine days to go and hundreds of thousands of us having already voted, but, hey, they're busy people.

Let's see, three parties, and three different offers. What might be in store? ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25626977 )


- The Conservatives: Full Income Tax powers. We'll be able to raise and lower income tax in Scotland, apparently.

The Tories won't want to screw us over, as they can't afford to lose the support of the Scottish voters. So we can expect good things from them!

OK, OK, sorry. I'll start again.

The Tories are competent, canny negotiators, and are unlikely to be lying outright. We can expect something in the style of a diabolical pact, where they're true to the letter of their word but damn us with the detail, or with what they don't say. It may, or may not, be signed in the blood of a sacrificial Liberal Democrat. For a clearer idea, see the masterful way they've handled their once-hopeful coalition partners, and what has become of them.

Likely scenarios include following on by reducing Scotland's funding from Westminster - letting us choose between cuts or raising income tax to maintain what we had - and/or stopping Scottish MPs voting on matters devolved to Scotland, then cutting spending in areas Scottish MPs can no longer influence, reducing the corresponding funding received by us through the Barnett Formula.


- Labour: Some Income Tax powers, and maybe the ability to tinker around the edges of welfare policy.

They probably mean it. However, they aren't in government. They might get in in 2015, or might not.

How will voters outside Scotland feel about them promising more special treatment for us Scots? (I'm asking. I don't know, but I have a suspicion...)


- Lib Dems: A proper Federal UK, with significant tax raising and borrowing powers. Sounds quite good, actually.

So, as long as the Lib Dems can win the next Westminster election, I'm pretty happy with this one. And if they can't, well, at least we know they're good at getting their promises delivered through cooperative coalition politics!


- UKIP aren't part of this unholy trinity, but I suppose we should consider them too, in case they become relevant.

They haven't offered anything, as far as I can see. But it seems they might try to overturn a Yes vote: http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/ukips-new-mep-we-wil...

Lovely.


So, those are my current thoughts. There's a chance we might find out more tomorrow.


What do I have wrong? What have I missed?

Morning!

I hear on the radio that our three visitors won't be appearing in public together...

So, do any Better Together types fancy pointing out why I'm wrong above, and a No vote is a vote for more power for Scotland after all?

Do any UK voters outwith Scotland want to comment on how popular it would be to grant more powers for Scotland within the UK?

In reply to skog:

As a UK voter, I can't see how further significant powers can be devolved without answering the West Lothian question. Genuinely if that is answered I think the rest of the UK would be fine with more powers going to Scotland. Basically there needs to be a proper discussion of what is best pooled (the currency, defence, foreign affairs and the setting of some business taxes in my view) and what can be devolved.

This should however not be rushed as has been suggested by Gordon Brown on Monday as getting it right once and for all is more important than a quick fix. It is also very difficult to do rationally at the moment when emotions are running high. I also think that it is worth bearing in mind that having just brought the UK to the brink the Scots might not be the most popular people amongst voters in the rest of the UK.

I have no doubt however that Labour will do all in their power to avoid answering the West Lothian question which is why in terms of financial clout, their offer of new powers amounts to less than proposed by the Lib Dems and the Tories.

In reply to skog:

I think you are overly cynical - tax powers will come. However, I don't like the way things are being rushed as it will almost certainly result in things being screwed up. Total cluster-f*ck all round with whatever result leading to turmoil and resentment. THis is what nationalism does.

In reply to skog:


It's really odd the way you call them "Westminster parties"... they all have representatives from all over the country (the Tories nearly excepted). Why do you have this idea that once a MP is elected he changes and becomes a "Westminster MP".

PS. There is only one MP for Westminster, and he is, as you would have expected, a Conservative.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

What would you have me call them? I need a way of distinguishing them from the Scottish parties, in the Scottish parliament.

(I can see that this might look a bit odd from an English perspective, due to the lack of an English parliament.)

In reply to rossh:

Thanks.

The only possible good outcome I can see following a No vote is if we end up with greater regional powers across the UK, but I can't see how this can happen under the Conservatives.

In reply to MG:


As a sometimes-Lib Dem voter, I really don't think my assessment of the likely Tory approach is overly cynical!

The Lib Dem plans are pretty much irrelevant, unfortunately.

The Labour ones require them getting into government. This, at a time when the Conservatives would be claiming the credit for defeating the Scottish independence movement, and offering a popular referendum on EU membership.

This looks very shaky to me.

In reply to skog:

With this sudden give-away of powers i feel sorry for those that want to vote no because they like the status quo

I'm also unsure how constitutional it is for the rUK

In reply to skog:


Something that corresponds to the reality - describing Labour as a Westminster party is ridiculous.

In reply to skog:

Its all pretty pathetic and reveals further how divorced politicians are from reality.

On another level, the I can't see that this triumvirate is going to do anything other than add fuel to the YES lobby

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


We still have to be able to distinguish between the Labour party in the parliament at Westminster, and Scottish Labour in the parliament based at Holyrood. And then there's the Labour party in the other parliaments...

I could call them 'the UK parties' if it'd make you happier.

Do you have any thoughts on how the UK parties might handle the matter of further powers of Scotland following a No vote, or did you just want to talk about nomenclature?

In reply to skog:

UK MPs or MPs and Scottish MPs?

You don't call the Scottish MPs the Holyrood MPs do you.

In reply to skog:


That's more like it.


They've made statements about it. The problem is the whole roll towards independence started with Blair's devolution promises.

In reply to JoshOvki:

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=%22the+holyrood+parties%22

In reply to skog:

Holyrood parties != Holyrood MPs

In reply to JoshOvki:

Indeed, this is true. Why is it relevant?

Also, https://www.google.co.uk/#q=%22Holyrood+MPs%22

In reply to skog:



[...omitted...]


For a start what you have missed is the publication of the various devolution commission reports, by various parties, published between March and May of this year, setting out these proposals. So not really "last minute".

Then what you appear to have missed is that the various parties have taken into consideration that what powers are given to Scotland will be toan extent dependent on the UK political party that gets into power, becuase that is kind of how a democracy works.
Obviously you can set that against the White Paper on Scotland, which doesn't really appear to consider that what might happen post independence is also heavily dependent on which party gets into power.
The only thing that I can see that they all agree on is getting rid of Trident. Which is ironic, as I suspect that retaining Trident is likely to be their biggest bargaining chip when they try to shoehorn their way into a currency union with rUK in the case of independence.

Finally what you appear to have missed is that it appears entirely reasonable to you to pooh-pooh all the proposals by the UK parties on the basis that "you don't believe them", whilst you appear to cling to the White Paper recommendations that are littered with "we believe", "we propose" etc etc. If you were to view them with a more equal cynicism it would at least display a more balanced/reasoned view.

In reply to off-duty:


Um, that's precisely what I have -not- missed, and kind of the point of my post!


I do?

For the record - I view the White Paper as a statement of intent and hopes, attempting to show some of the changes that might be possible. It's published by the pro-independence side of the campaign, and so obviously attempts to show that in the best possible light.

There's no way everything in it will come to be, and there can't be many people imagine it would.

At least it exists, though. Where's Better Together's white paper?

In reply to skog:


It was obviously well hidden behind your allegations that it was all last minute, followed by your dissmisal of all proposals as untrustworthy.
At least they accept the reality that a democracy means that any proposals are election-dependent.




If one group is attempting to rip up the status quo, then unfortunately it is up to them to make their case that it will be an improvement, as well as specifying what the costs and consequences of the changes will be.
This is what the white paper was supposed to do, but instead as you yourself say it is a "statement of intent, hopes.., and what might be possible" with "no way everything in it will come to be".
So a really useful document then?

The Better Together are in the more difficult position of then being forced to look at these proposals and then explain why they disagree with them. Which is what they appear to have been doing with numerous facts sheets and analyses available from them.
In addition the various UK parties have produced porposals around devo-max type options that have also been published.

In reply to off-duty:


Nope, that isn't what I said. I said the one that's most likely to happen is untrustworthy, and the others are unlikely. Please don't put words in my mouth!


Exactly! That hasn't really been how it has been being presented here; maybe they'll clear that up properly today.



Given the discussion and analysis it has generated from both sides, yes, it has been very useful.

You didn't really think everything could be fully decided and arranged in advance, did you? Most people in Scotland certainly aren't that daft.

In reply to skog:


Hmm. Open to interpretation. clearly no trust for the Tories, then we have labour "They probably mean it" - hardly suggestive of trust. Lib dems "at least we know they're good at getting their promises delivered through cooperative coalition politics!" - I assumed this was sarcasm.


I didn't realise it needed to be spelled out. In the Uk we have a democracy. After an election one party, or a coalition will govern. As a result it is impossible to say exactly what powers the UK will give to Scotland. Instead, as per any other manifesto promise, a party explains what it will try to achieve and is elected or otherwise on the basis of it.

Simpler to understand now ?



Glad to see you appear to accept that it is down to the SNP to make their case, rather than the Better Together to publish a white paper.

I certainly hope that the voters in Scotland aren't daft.

In reply to off-duty:

I think a lot of people are still assuming that it's all about economics when actually for a lot of people its about self-determination and autonomy.

What it certainly feels like to me is like a broken relationship. One party thinks everything's great and there are no real issues, but the other is upset and annoyed with the situation.

The way it comes across is that England gets to make the big decisions about who we have friendships with (we really like the USA but have been spending less time hanging out with the EU), where we go on holiday (which seems to have been a lot of time in the middle-east recently), and how to spend the couple's salary.

Scotland feels that England is letting it make some decisions for itself, like what type of healthcare we get to choose and how we look after ourselves directly ... but only with the allowance which we're given by England.

Scotland's been thinking to itself, "maybe I'd be better off single. Sure I'd have to sort out my own money and I might not be quite as well off. I might not be able to go on holiday abroad quite as much. Perhaps I'd like to decide who my friends are myself too - I think I really do like those guys in the EU."

So now Scotland's thinking about moving out on its own.

England tries to explain to Scotland why it's a bad idea "but look you won't be able to afford all those things you can at the moment."

"But I also won't have to pay for those gadgets you keep in Faslane either so that'll save me money won't it? I'll be able to make my own decisions about how I spend my money rather than giving it all to you for you just to give me some back."

Do you think that a couple should stay together if one party feels they're being hard done by and the other doesn't understand them any more? Even if it's economically going to be hard on the party which is looking to leave?

Ask yourself - why is there a move to hold a referendum for exiting the EU? Surely the economic reasons for staying in the EU far outweigh those for leaving? Surely you're better together?

In reply to skog:

Love the way that the tories are untrustworthy but labour are going to keep their promises.

In reply to off-duty:


Very little, on this matter. What's their party's full name, again?


It's limited, but I do have some trust in what they say. I have grave doubts about their ability to deliver.


I trust they mean what they say. I don't trust them to have any opportunity to deliver.


Yup, that seems right. Can I trust you'll now post this in response to anyone who says that a No vote will lead to more devolved powers for Scotland?


Look at the polls. Lots already feel the Yes campaign has made its case. As one of them, I'm quite happy for the other side, which has based its campaign mostly on fear of uncertainty, to fail to clearly lay out its plans for the future!

In reply to climbwhenready:


Careful, someone might rebuke you for such shocking lack of trust!

In reply to zebidee:

I think the "couple" analogy is actually really unhelpful. Anthromorphising countries brings in a whole bunch of emotional baggage about power dynamics in one-to-one human relationships that really distort the complexity of negotiations between countries.

In reply to off-duty:

Fair enough ... but my final question still stands despite that.

Ask yourself - why is there a move to hold a referendum for exiting the EU? Surely the economic reasons for staying in the EU far outweigh those for leaving?

The tories have committed to a referendum in the next parliament.

Many (all?) of the arguments for staying in the Union can equally be applied to staying in the EU.

In reply to zebidee:

I agree, the EU is a good thing and many of the same arguments apply.

The proposed referendum is partly political (to appease rapidly anti-EU MPs and UKIP inclined voters) and partly because there has never really been a referendum of the subject in its current form, so it is democratic As I understand it the Tory party policy is to remain in the EU but to see it reformed. Much the same as with the UK. I don't see a contradiction, although I do see Farage and Salmond as similar characters selling simplistic, populist nonsense.

In reply to zebidee:





I think we should stay in the EU, though as with the Scottish independence debate that isn't to say that we shouldn't renegotiate our exact relationship.

In reply to MG:


It's a good job they've shown themselves to be really competent at campaigning to keep a union together, isn't it? :-/

In reply to skog:

If, as seems probable, the tories agreed to a referendum on Scotland in a fairly haphazard way on the assumption that the result would be clearly against a split up lets hope they are not doing the same on British membership of the EU. British voters may turn out to be just a susceptible to simplistic nationalist demagogy as Scots seem to be

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Though it goes against the spirit of UKClimbing, I'm going to agree with you on this!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I don't think the term "due diligence" could be fairly used of the way this referendum was set up.

I'd have thought any sensible negotiations would have referred the results of the plebiscite to a commission set some stringent but reasonable time limits to come up with options not originated by political parties.

Too much mud slinging from parties to this mess

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Do you think the N of England should send a fleet of Love Buses up to Scottish towns and cities to save the Union?

In reply to wercat:

It's an old trick but it might just work!

In reply to skog:

It is Team Scotland now! Sorry no voters, you are no longer Scottish according to the SNP.

In reply to skog:



It's not actually - it's the SNP view, which may be quite different from the Greens etc - and also depends on a future SNP victory - so a similar type of document to the various ones set out by the pro union parties.

In reply to skog:
I think many of us view the latest promises on further devolution as meaningless and insincere. Just have a look at the comments made by Hague at PMQ's today. The powers which have been mentioned do not allow our parliament to deal with corporation tax, nuclear weapons or a wide range of other essential levers. More importantly in some ways, our devolved parliament does not currently have guaranteed sovereignty and could be voted our of existence by Westminster. Miliband and Cameron certainly fear the impact of independence on their own parties and careers. And on the international influence of the rest of the UK. I don't believe for a second that they can or will make a difference to the dire levels of life expectancy, poverty and lack of opportunity in areas like the East End of Glasgow.

Why would we settle for crumbs from the table given grudgingly when we could have all the powers we require to create a strong and independent country. All we need is the same kind of confidence shown by the people of countries like Ireland and India. I still have not heard one positive reason to stay in a broken union. Just an endless list of reasons to be afraid of change. I am much more afraid on being stuck in a union with a stuttering UK economy, a one way ticket out of Europe, tied to America and it's nasty commercially driven wars and watching the gap between rich and poor grow and grow. We have the chance to change the narrative and I hope we take it. And if we don't grasp it now it is just a matter of time.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

I phrased that badly - I meant only that it attempts to show independence in the best possible light because it's published by people who want to do that.

off duty suggested that I 'appear to cling to the White Paper recommendations that are littered with "we believe", "we propose" etc etc.'

I've no idea where he got that notion, and he's quite wrong - I'm fully aware, as is every flesh and blood person I've spoken to about it, that it's one view of what we might be able to achieve after independence, and not an unbiased assessment or the only possibility.


The point of my original post was simply that we are not guaranteed more powers following a No vote as some people have asserted, and that any powers we do get are likely to come with significant strings attached.

It was a hot topic of the day, thanks to talk of Brown's plan http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29115556


Brown has given us the timetable now - the UK government will set out the proposals for us by the end of October. I'm sure the people of Scotland will be happy to take them into consideration at that point.

In the meantime, as far as I'm aware, there isn't really any prospect of a Yes vote failing to deliver all of those powers and many more.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I would say +1 but I am not sure you would understand Bruce

In reply to alastairmac:
I don't believe for a second that they can or will make a difference to the dire levels of life expectancy, poverty and lack of opportunity in areas like the East End of Glasgow.

To pick up on just one point. The problem in Glasgow is not some easily solvable issue, as it appears to be portrayed by some Independence campaigners - "just add oil money".
It has been intensively studied and whole variety of attempts have been made to correct, among other things, the excessive rates of early mortality. Some improvements have been made over the last 10 or so years (ie before and during Scottish devolution), but it appears to be an extremely complex mix of poverty, crime, poor health, poverty of ambition, issues with societal structure and pet theories from a variety of sociologists, medics, criminologists etc.

To suggest that independence will provide a cure is dangerously ill-informed. Unless the plan is to pay for every household to move them out of Glasgow.