Scottish Independence... What are your thoughts?

[squern]

Last post from me on this thread today...









Oh, and lastly a question.

Is anyone actually interested in my random ramblings on Tales from North Britain, or should I let the thread pass away peacefully?

Yes, please, continue to ramble.

Apart from the interest, and the fondness many of us feel for Scotland, I think Scotland's future development is of interest to all of us.

The Scots' stance on independence has rattled some cages, and will have many and long-term effects throughout the UK. Westminster MPs have been disturbed from their complacency, and forced to act by the Scottish resolve. That bodes well for all of us.

[westlondoncarparts]

This thread has to continue. The Referendum was just the warm up to politics getting interesting. The poll referred to is going to step things up a gear or two.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-29820483

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/...held-tomorrow/

If the Westminster Parliament 2015 General Election results come in anything like the forecasts reported by the BBC, the role of the Scottish Nationalist contingent of MPs in London could be very interesting.

In the current Westminster Parliament, the Liberal Democrats started off with 57 MPs. Even the most optimistic of their supporters would be hard pressed to believe that they will not have a significant net loss of seats at the next election. If the BBC predictions become reality, the SNP will win many more seats in the next election than the Liberal Democrats.

The loss of Labour MPs in Scotland would make it harder for Labour to win the next election outright. There is likely to be a greater loss of voters from the Conservative party to UKIP than from Labour which would make it harder for the Conservative party to win the election outright. There must be a reasonable chance therefore that the next election will result in a hung Parliament again. Subject to what happens with UKIP at the election, one possible outcome could be a coalition Government again but with the SNP as coalition partners rather than the Liberal Democrats. As I have said before in this thread, whether you like him or not, Alex Salmond is an extremely clever man and never to be underestimated. It would be a supreme irony if having not achieved a win in the Scottish Referendum and having cleared the way to stand for the Westminster Parliament at the next election with his Edinburgh resignation, he became Deputy Prime Minister in a new coalition UK Government.

Also as I have said before, I am 100% certain that the Referendum was merely the start of the real business of getting Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the UK right rather than the end of a political one off event and that the real meaningful work and change lies ahead. Alex Salmond in London as Deputy PM and Nicola Sturgeon in Edinburgh as First Minister would be a most interesting combination.

[HobbyHabitat]

just a post referendum thought, why (as uncle alex told us many times) if Scotland is the 14th richest country in the world get more money than wales in the barnet formula. also., if they are that well off, why did auntie Nicola keep on about Scotland having more children living in poverty than England?. firstly, what does she judge as poverty?, not having an I phone or tablet?. and to finish, I think scotland would have been worrying if it had been a yes vote, latest news on the oil front is that there is a worldwide glut and prices will stay low for a while......way below the $100+ value that aunty and uncle were quoting as being needed to pay for their plans, but this is again probably all just scaremongering.........have a good Halloween everyone.

[PetBazaar]

The14th richest comes from an OECD study on GDP with Scottish figures from a recent GERS report mixed in to give a placing for Scotland. It's been pretty much accepted as reasonably accurate by all concerned. The Barnett formula isn't needs based, it's based purely on population (as a percentage of the UK population) with an additional weighting for the area of spending (health, transport, etc) and applies only to territorially identifiable funding hence why we get more than Wales. There is no political will at the moment to make it needs based and I doubt it will happen any time soon.

Even the richest countries have poverty. The difference is that they also have control over their taxing and spending as well as their benefits systems.

Oil despite the headlines on both sides is a benefit rather than a necessity. Scottish per capita GDP with a geographic share of oil is around £26,000. The UK (with oil) is around £22,000. So we're rather wealthy in comparison. If you take oil out of the equation entirely, we both sit at around £20,000 with the UK about £200 better off, but we're very much in the same ball park. Obviously spending wouldn't be as generous but it's not a disaster.

[peterpunto08]

Yes, please, continue to ramble.

Apart from the interest, and the fondness many of us feel for Scotland, I think Scotland's future development is of interest to all of us.

The Scots' stance on independence has rattled some cages, and will have many and long-term effects throughout the UK. Westminster MPs have been disturbed from their complacency, and forced to act by the Scottish resolve. That bodes well for all of us.

I agree with this post completely

Don't stop the thread, PetBazaar!

Informative, educational, and entertaining......have you considered a taking a job with the BBC ??
On 2nd thoughts, not a good idea considering the standard of their output !

(BBC is to news what TOS is to auction platforms)

[squern]

No, you're absolutely right. The NHS is under our control, in as much as we can spend however much, or little as we want within the constraints of the annual block grant. However, as part of the system of block grant and Barnett formula if the UK cuts NHS spending in England and Wales then the budget allocated to NHS Scotland (and HSCNI, I think) drops too. Hence the whole "only Indy can protect the NHS budget" argument in the run up to the referendum

The tax rate adjustment is a little more complex, as it's one of those powers that, on paper, looks like a good idea, but in reality doesn't really work. There's also a complication.

Ultimately the goal of any budgets must first and foremost be to balance the books and as we all know, in the budget every year, the Chancellor giveth and the Chancellor taketh away. The problem with the devolved tax powers is that although we have the power to change the standard tax rate we don't have the power to change any other (meaningfull) taxes in order to balance the books. So if the rate is reduced, we can't raise anything else in order to compensate. In addition raising tax comes with it's own very obvious electoral suicide issues so is unlikely to ever happen

However, here's the complication. We can't vary the tax anyway. What isn't commonly known about the tax varying power is that it would have been administered by, at the time, Inland Revenue (now HMRC) and the systems were put in place to deal with it. However, sometime between 2000 and 2003, Inland revenue announced that the system was to be mothballed, presumably after the Lib/Lab coalitions decided not to vary taxes. It's now no longer possible to use the system without IT upgrades which would have to be paid for from the Scottish budget. Given that the system is due to change by 2016 as part of the provisions of the Scotland Act 2012, it seems unlikely that anything will happen before then.

So, in short, you have powers that you can't realistically use because of the way the deal was constructed.
Very believable, considering those slippery customers in Westminster.

But doesn't that mean that Uncle Alex was not quite as canny as he had us believe?

[PetBazaar]

Yes and no. It was all above board when first set up. But during the first and second terms of the Scottish Executive, as it was then known, they informed inland revenue that the tax varying powers wouldn't be used. As a result, it's not entirely surprising that the systems were mothballed.

Bear in mind though that this all happened before Alex Salmond became involved. The first two terms saw a Lib/Lab coalition. It took until 2007 for the SNP to gain power with a minority government. Although in fairness to the others, they also informed HMRC that the power was unlikely to be used.

[tonyreddevil]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-29592742


Scottish Devolution Plans Published

[PetBazaar]

Tales From North Britain (Cont.)

Hands up who's been following the woes of the Labour Party Scottish Branch Office? Well, here's their problem in three easy to follow comments...

2007
Wendy Alexander (after losing to the SNP)

To get there [Holyrood] we must win back the trust of the Scottish people. And to win that trust we must listen to them and show that we have listened to them by reforming our party.

2011
Johann Lamont (after losing to SNP again)

Scottish Labour had to get back to basics, recognise the scale of the defeat, and reorganise the party. There is a very clear message. The message we didn’t listen to in the last 10 years.

2014
Jim Murphy (predicted to be about to lose again)

The Scottish people want change – they couldn’t be clearer... ...But when they look at us – they think we’ve not listened... ...We didn’t listen to them. That has to change.


So. Listen and change. How hard can it be?

[suesjools]

Tales From North Britain (Cont.)

Hands up who's been following the woes of the Labour Party Scottish Branch Office? Well, here's their problem in three easy to follow comments...

2007
Wendy Alexander (after losing to the SNP)

To get there [Holyrood] we must win back the trust of the Scottish people. And to win that trust we must listen to them and show that we have listened to them by reforming our party.

2011
Johann Lamont (after losing to SNP again)

Scottish Labour had to get back to basics, recognise the scale of the defeat, and reorganise the party. There is a very clear message. The message we didn’t listen to in the last 10 years.

2014
Jim Murphy (predicted to be about to lose again)

The Scottish people want change – they couldn’t be clearer... ...But when they look at us – they think we’ve not listened... ...We didn’t listen to them. That has to change.


So. Listen and change. How hard can it be?

LOL! Listen and change, for politicians two of the most unfamiliar words in the whole language. Maybe someone needs to invest in a dictionary...

Best wishes for many sales to all,