Scotland today, Catalonia tomorrow? It makes sense that TPTB in Europe would want to stamp the whole thing out.
There’s an interesting suggestion in The Guardian today that an independent Scotland might create a lurch to the right in both the rUK and Scotland, as both countries will compete to be the most “pro-business”.
I’ve also seen a few accusations that the SNP has had the opportunity to begin a lot of left-wing projects (for want of a better term) that you’d expect to see from a government truly committed to the sort of social justice many believe Scotland (and the SNP) is in favour of. As I understand it, they’ve never raised taxes, despite having had the power to do so for some time.
Another article reports that Gordon Brown is accusing the SNP of dishonesty regarding the Scottish NHS, claiming it’s under attack from Tories and “[refusing] to admit that the future of the NHS [is] entirely in the hands of the Scottish parliament”. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the Scottish Government actually plans to cut NHS spending.
Thoughts? Are these pictures accurate?
That’s my favorite quotation in a long time. Thanks.
Sounds like a bit of Nationalist scaremongering.
Stories that suggests that the NHS budget is under threat or at risk of creeping privatisation under the Tories is very much a UK Labour party message. The SNP have simply appropriated it and proclaimed independence is the only answer. Given Gordon Brown was the architect of the massive UK increase in funding the NHS had under the Blair/Brown years, he is understandably livid at this suggestion.
NHS in Scotland is already devolved, the Scottish Parliament has control over the budget which is allocated according to the Bartlett formula.
Every political party in the UK knows that the emotional attachment of the electorate to the NHS is akin to a secular religion. A sensitivity that often confounds attempts to reform it, improve it and make it better.
This really is turning into a fight between Labour and the SNP and Labour are fighting back hard.
Stentorian speech by George Galloway the political maverick on the left. A radical who has little time for party politics. He has gotten up the nose of most party bosses and is usually in the middle of argument about principle. He was last in the news after being beaten in the street by a thug who objected to his long standing support for the Palestinians. He is a political bruiser and he is clearly in his element.
He is not fond of Nationalists. This speech where he argues the case for the UK is full of passion and emotional energy.
This is the sort of voice the Scots want to hear: robust, direct, principled and passionate. Labour politicians are now in Scotland in force rallying their support at the grass roots. They need more of this.
The atmosphere in Scotland must be electric.
I’ve never been part of anything remotely like this before. The closest comparisons are the 1997 General Election (where cheers were heard up and down the street in the early hours when Michael Portillo lost his seat) and the devo referendum in 1997. The latter had a different atmosphere though, less confrontational as the majority in favour was cross-party and pretty solid.
Exciting times.
That’s my favorite quotation in a long time. Thanks.
[/QUOTE]
Takes a socialist to understand the link between money and politics! 
One of the things that happened was the the PQ were very successful as a government in changing the face of Quebec. It used to be that the anglos were in control, and that francophones faced discrimination in their own province. Some of the PQ measures, like the famous language law, Bill 101, and beefing up the francophone school system, have arguably produced a generation of francophone Québécois who are much more confident and have not faced discrimination; who have grown up in a wired world where knowing English is a clear advantage. The young are not supporting the PQ.
One noted Québécois political scientist suggested, about 25 years ago, that the PQ would be the party of one generation, and that if they did not achieve sovereignty by the 90’s or early 2000’s, demographics would be against them.
That prediction is now apparently coming true: in the election last spring, the PQ came in third in seats, and registered their lowest share of the popular vote since its early days in the 1970’s. The polls indicate that the average PQ supporter is 50 years old or older, and getting older each year.
I don’t think any of that is likely to translate to Scotland.
I must admit, I’m a little envious. And if this kind of political awareness is maintained past the referendum (and if Scotland votes “no”) then, unless we can catch up in the rest of the country, that might be the real difference, not just left and right leanings.
Maybe in 10 or 20 years, Scotland will be politically dominant in the UK.
Never been to Ireland but I’m pretty sure they have banks
That’s interesting. What’s it got to do with this thread?
Fun to see Salmond contradicting himself, saying that the move to London of RBS was not going to affect the economy, then saying the BBC and its sources were at fault in leaking economically sensitive information… Then denying Robinson the right to answer that he offered at the start of his rant.
He’s full of shit.
I would say Scotland has always punched well above its weight in UK politics having produced many political leaders. Same applies to the business and industry, Scots are well represented at the highest levels. Also in the military and the public services. Talented Scots are everywhere. That is why the UK has held together for so long.
Which is why I think they would be mad to give it up.
But, it is their decision and if that is what they vote for they will surely get it. Though the terms of the divorce will not be between two equals, it will reflect the fact that the UK is ten times bigger in terms of population and the negotiations will present the Scots with far greater challenges that then rest of the UK.
What will be an independent Scotland’s foreign policy? Engage and try to influence the UK, its bigger neighbour to act in Scotland’s interests? It will take a great many years to get back to the position they already had and threw away.
However, the spectacle of all those school kids listening to political debates and voting in probably the most important election of their lives is quite inspiring. The level of engagement across the country is remarkable, and it is so personal with different members of the same families very split in their opinions. Politics is rarely like this.
That audience was all 16 and 17 year olds (if it’s the debate that was on tonight you mean). About 8000 of them, from every secondary school in the country, and they made me really fucking damn proud of them.
A negative aspect of the US federal system is that states bid against each other to attract factories which offer hope of good jobs, and even facilities known for offering bad jobs, such as Amazon warehouses.
Question: Do England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland already compete with each other in this manner?
If not, I’d expect that Scottish independence would cause it to start. Are any of the companies threatening to leave Scotland, if Yes wins, perhaps hoping to be paid to stay?
As right-wing Americans (and even some in the middle) say, freedom isn’t free. On the other hand, so long as they stay away from a currency union, Scots should still have a Western European standard of living. Today, the average Scot has higher real disposable income than the average consumer in the Scandinavian countries and in the Republic of Ireland. This gives some room to fall without getting into what could fairly be called second-world status.
A small but important nitpick; no, they came in second in both votes and seats.
A deal which Salmond can’t get “in any case” is not the best possible deal, because it’s not a possible deal at all. To be the best possible deal, it has to be attainable in some circumstance.
You’re quite right, of course, that in any post-referendum negotiations Westminster will be looking to protect the position of rUK, rather than to advance the interests of iScotland. But there is no scenario in which Westminster would be looking to advance the interests of iScotland. In post-referendum talks, however, Westminster has no incentive to insert terms in the deal designed to handicap iScotland, whereas pre-referendum they have a strong incentive to do so. Of the two scenarios, talking post-referendum puts Salmond in the better negotiating position, so naturally (and rightly) that is the course he prefers. He will be banking on the fact that, to a large extent, protecting the position of rUK implies taking steps to minimise the disruption and dislocation that results from Scottish independence - so supporting a common currency, supporting early entry for Scotland into the EU, supporting a Common Travel Area, etc, etc.
Cameron could possibly have tried to run the line that democracy requires a fully-finished independence deal to be put to the people, and therefore the negotiations should be completed pre-referendum. But this presented two risks; first, by talking about the nitty-gritty of independence, and entering into binding commitments regarding it, he makes the notion of sovereign independence for Scotland more real, more credible, more plausible, more concrete. He will have hoped, I think, that a proportion of the electorate would have regarded the independence project as just romantic utopianism; he undermines that by taking independence deadly seriously. (That hope didn’t really bear fruit, I think, but a couple of years ago I think it is a hope he will have cherished.) Secondly, the more he played hardball in any pre-referendum negotiations, the more he left himself open to being painted as engaging in spoiling tactics; refusing to come to reasonable terms, or delaying or extending the process, in order to delay or avoid the referendum that he only ever pretended to agree to.
So, in the end, it suited both Salmond and Cameron to run this on the basis that a detailed independence agreement wouldn’t be hammered out unless and until Scotland had chosen independence in a referendum.
EU countries already compete with one another in this way - thought the competition is mainly for investors offering good jobs, not sh*tty ones. Scotland and England are already exposed to this; just not from one another. I’m not sure that the playing field will be radically altered by the separation of the UK into rUK and iScotland.
It’s possible that some companies will hope to leverage off independence to get iScotland and rUK to bid one another up. But the financial services companies that have been making announcements over the last couple of days? I doubt it.
Bear in mind that since the GFC the Scottish banking sector has been in (UK) government ownership to a signficant extent, and for the rest has been owned by London-based institutions. Scottish banks may be headquartered in Scotland, but they are already owned and controlled from abroad. It will in some ways be unfortunate if the headquarters of RBOS, say, moves to England, but the branch network, and therefore the loans and the deposits in Scotland, will not be affected by this, and the Scottish Government is certainly not rushing to acquire RBOS from the UK government.
Worth pointing out, perhaps, that Hadrian’s Wall does not mark the boundary between Scotland and England. The entirety of Hadrian’s Wall is in England, in some parts quite a number of miles south of the Scottish border.
Yabbut it’s a convenient landmark for discussions of the British-Scots border. Similarly, not every bank and financial services firm is on Wall Street.