Exactly. The pro-independence folks seem to want to cut all ties with the oppressive, jackbooted thugs in Westminster, except for everything British that they like. Which seems to be… just about everything of consequence.
Who has been talking about “jack-booted thugs”?
Control over taxation, employment law, welfare, fisheries, energy, foreign policy …
Most of which is covered under EU law, right? Or would they *not *want to join?
What *real *control would Scotland actually gain?
That doesn’t sound right. The Scottish could secede, adopt their own currency (call it the kilt for the purposes of discussion) and take on 10% of the British debt, denominated in Sterling. If Scotland’s currency stays strong, debt repayment won’t be a problem. And they have oil revenue, so such a scenario is conceptually manageable. A sovereign wealth fund would be involved.
It also puts a pronounced strain on Scottish political institutions. If the Scottish elite are unified, they might pull it off. Taiwan and South Korea have had pretty serious economic policies propped by military necessity. Whether fiscal responsibility is sufficient motivation is less clear. At any rate, that’s part of the reason why I’d want a background rate of ~70% support for independence. That or a very detailed action plan.
There’s a risk of financial crisis and Scottish depression. International currency speculators could attack the kilt, so the country would have to accept risks of occasionally sharply higher interest rates. Sort of like Hong Kong. The British authorities would probably act as backstop against Sterling debt default, but not kilt debt default which would be more relevant to Scottish well being.
Except for foreign policy, a lot of that seems negotiable in a devolution context. The US example springs to mind.* And with a population of less than 6 million, Scotland foreign policy clout will be nearly de minimus. And “Energy” sounds like a simple but misguided wealth grab, frankly.
*Devolution has its own risks. The US federal system is oversold IMHO, partly for nationalistic reasons and partly for ideological convenience. IME state governments are less competent on average than the federal government. There are exceptions.
I think he’s referring to traditional notions of Scots nationalism, but besides that, the SNP proposal does seem to smack of ‘we want things to be just like now but still different’, i.e. concerned about the form and not the fact.
A number of which have been suggested may come under devo-max. Not on the table here, but independence isn’t strictly necessarily.
Also, as already noted, employment law, fisheries, energy and certain aspects of foreign policy are EU affairs.
The Scots will argue, quite reasonably, that that’s unthinkable. Their portion of the debt would effectively be a blank cheque, depending on the exchange rate.
Speaking generally, I’m amazed at how many people assume that I’ve already made up my mind - and because of my English accent assume I’m pro-Union.
This is a sentiment which is often expressed. I am unclear if people really believe it or not, but it seems to me that it is seriously misguided. In my opinion, there is no path to a successful implementation of Scottish independence which does not include Scotland taking its share of the national debt. And, conceding pretty much whatever else the rUK chooses in other negotiations. What the Yes camp has avoided discussing, but which will become clear over the coming months as the No campaign gradually drip feeds more issues into the debate, is that following a Yes vote the Scottish side’s negotiating position will be absolutely rubbish.
The bottom line is that without a legal basis for independence in the form of an Act of the UK parliament, the prospects for Scotland are catastrophic. Conceding everything England demands in the independence negotiations will be better than that.
Let’s consider the implications of a unilateral declaration of independence. The Scottish parliament declares itself independent. The UK parliament then simply suspends the Scottish parliament, and reminds international oil companies that they still have to pay UK mineral royalties, that any Scottish financial services company that wants to do business outside Scotland still has to pay UK taxes on profits and its staff’s income taxes, that any food and drink company (including whisky and salmon) that wants to do business outside Scotland ditto. The navy stays in Faslane, the army stays in Edinburgh castle, and the police are given their orders from the Scottish Office (which most will obey). MSPs are rounded up and put into prison. Membership of the EU would be out of the question. No legal Scottish state means no one to ask for membership, a UK veto, and plenty of cover for a Spanish veto too. (The Belgians, Italians and Germans will also have no interest in encouraging breakaway regions to think they would get any international support in such a situation.) Scottish society would not be resilient - it’s not as if the referendum will get an overwhelming Yes vote to start with.
So, UDI isn’t a runner. We are then free to negotiate as long as we like for legal independence. One year, five years, twenty years, but the rUK won’t accept us walking away from our share of the national debt, or any other terms which it can’t sell as ‘fair’ to the English electorate. The Scottish economy and Scottish society would not look pretty after a few years of legal limbo, without an independent Scottish government and without any effective Scottish representation at Westminster.
This last point has also not received a lot of discussion in the media. Following a Yes vote, as the negotiators settle down to business, a Westminster general election campaign will start (coincidentally). The new parliament will inevitably have new orders of business which restricts Scottish MPs scope to influence the government - in fact, there must be a good chance that they won’t bother running the election in Scotland, since independence is in progress. The English parties running in the English election will no doubt have much to say about their policy towards the independence negotiations. It would be naive to assume that they will compete on the basis of who can be most generous to the Scots.
So, the Scottish negotiators have no leverage whatsoever. The rUK side will set out its terms, which will be fair enough, and the Scottish negotiators will accept them. After all, the negotiators will all be nationalists who are actually delighted to accept the terms and get on with the business of independence. These are people who welcome independence at any cost - they would happily sacrifice lives if they had to, so just accepting some tough financial terms will not bother them even momentarily. (No unionist will accept a place on the Scottish negotiating team, even if they are asked, since they would just get the blame for the terms which will be accepted).
So, what terms might appear to be fair to the rUK leaders and electorate? A few guesses from me:
- HM Treasury decides on a fair share of the UK debt and allocates it to Scotland. Denominated in sterling, probably to be paid off fairly quickly, say over 20 years. The rUK to have a first call on North Sea revenues to cover these debts. (There doesn’t seem to be any point in spooking the markets by allocating existing UK bonds to Scotland and withdrawing the rUK guarantee).
- Scotland to use the pound outside a formal currency union. That is, no rUK taxpayer support, no seat at the Bank of England, no lender of last resort facilities. Amicable arrangements to facilitate Scottish use of the pound outside a union, to maximise both sides’ economic benefit. (Of course, it is unclear how many financial institutions will remain Scottish domiciled by independence day).
- continuation of the British Isles common travel area, with rUK control over Scottish immigration policy (or, Scotland controls its own immigration, with border posts at Berwick and Carlisle. Our call.)
- rUK students treated consistently with EU students at Scottish universities (if Scotland manages to join the EU with rUK support)
- a 200 year lease for the Royal Navy at Faslane, to allow the nuclear deterrent to be moved to England over a period of decades rather than months
- Scotland to contribute to rUK consular services overseas, to compensate for the huge percentage of Scottish residents who will retain sole or joint rUK citizenship
- and so on for the few hundred other issues which will need addressing.
Mr Salmond is not being completely honest with you. He says that following independence the rUK would have to negotiate on Scotland’s terms. In practice, he knows that he /we will just happily accept whatever England offers, as quickly as possible.
Honestly, I don’t know why anyone buys what he says. Or more to the point, why anyone would vote “yes” when it’s still completely unclear what they will be voting for. Every question is answered with “we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it”, or “don’t worry, it’ll be fine; whatever you want to happen is what will happen”. This is, of course, to be expected as there can’t be serious negotiations until the referendum is held and a “yes” vote secured. I know it has been said before, but devo max makes a lot more sense as a starting point. Many must want to vote “yes” but feel unable to do so because Salmond’s promises make a Lib Dem manifesto look like a dead cert. A “yes” vote gets the Scots independence surprise and a “no” vote gets them nothing. What a mess.
I wonder how much interest Labour would get with more devolution in their manifesto.
It should be noted that a “no” vote doesn’t mean that nothing will change. The Scotland Act 2012 will come into full force in 2016. This gives the Scottish parliament more control over taxation, and a limited ability to issue bonds. Here’s a semi-decent summary:
Very interesting, especially the bit about new Scottish income tax. There was a discussion above about why Scotland haven’t increased their taxes; does Scotland even have that power yet?
The parliament has always had the power to vary the basic rate of income tax by +/- 3 percentage points, but this hasn’t been used, and hasn’t even been mentioned in budget statements etc. In 2016, the basic rate of UK income tax payable by Scottish-based taxpayers will reduce by 10 percentage points, with the Scottish government setting the rate for a seperate income tax to cover the shortfall. (I think 
) That’ll make it a bit more up front I guess, and put it into play politically.
Oh, I see. Can they increase the top rate of tax too? Increasing the basic rate would go down extremely badly right now - I can understand why they haven’t done it.
No, it’s just the (currently) 20% rate.
Just to quote myself from a bare month ago, but the debate has now begun. It’s now a topic of some vigour in my local 
(That’s my criterion for wide debate and I’m sticking to it)
The other thing to note about the British Union is the use of Legislative Consent Motions, which entail a devolved parliament ‘signing up’ to legislation being considered at Westminster and permitting that legislation, when given Royal Assent, to have direct legal force in their jurisdictions, thereby saving the time and effort of repeating the process locally and effectively accepting that Westminster remains competent to legislate for you.
While the number used under the SNP government has dropped slightly, the mechanism is still used routinely and suggests that things aren’t that different between England and Scotland. A list of all the uses for primary legislation can be seen here.
So the Scots could choose independence on uncertain terms conducted by Westminster on the one side and dissembling Scottish nationalists on the other. Or Scotland could develop new democratic institutions step by step and be an example to the world. Many countries have difficulties with the unitary democratic nationstate, occasionally resulting in civil war but more often in frustration. Making devolution work - without preconceived ideas about whether it should be max, min, or midi - would be an honest accomplishment.
As for Scottish Nationalism, they might take a page from the Federal Reserve. The US central bank emphasizes that it’s not independent of the federal government but rather independent within the federal government. Similarly Scotland could become an independent nation, within Britain. I don’t think that would necessarily be just a verbal gimmick. But I’d consider all this to be a work in progress.
Incidentally, I agree that taxes should not be raised during the worst downturn since WWII. I was setting aside issues of timing.
Is this song getting a lot of play in Scotland now?
Salmond has hinted this morning that his “Plan B” on the currency is to use Sterling outside of a formal currency union, akin to Namibia and Panama’s use of the dollar.
I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what would happen.
It’s a shame the campaign didn’t explicitly state from the beginning:
“Our preferred optionis a currency union, if talks to this end fail we will retain Sterling outside of a currency union until the economic and political situation necessitates another course of action whether that be a Scottish Pound or the Euro.”
Bring back the Merk!