Yet more results from the YouGov poll have now been released - the reason for the time-lag is that there was more than one client. The finding that leaps out at me the most is this one...
If there is a hung Parliament and the SNP hold the balance of power, do you think they should or should not request each of the following in exchange for supporting a Westminster government?
Greatly expanded devolution to Scotland, including all powers except defence and foreign policy?
Should ask for this : 61%
Should not ask for this : 29%
For the avoidance of doubt, the above results come from all respondents, regardless of how they plan to vote in May. No fewer than 89% of people currently planning to vote SNP (ie. the people that Labour are theoretically trying to win back) want Nicola Sturgeon to demand full Devo Max, and only 6% don't.
To state the bleedin' obvious, Devo Max or "all powers except defence and foreign policy" implies Full Fiscal Autonomy. In fact it implies a hell of a lot more as well, but Full Fiscal Autonomy is an indispensable part of the package. This is something that people overwhelmingly want. So how have Labour managed to convince themselves that opposing it tooth and nail is such a brilliant tactic? Has Blair McDougall's computer malfunctioned again? It's bad enough that they seem to have forgotten that it's Yes voters they need to win back rather than No voters. But they're probably also managing to repel a fair number of No voters, a substantial chunk of whom want Devo Max as well.
In my naivety I had thought that Labour's strategy would be rational. I was genuinely worried that they might attempt more Vow-style bribery, and that some people might fall for it again. I thought the approach would be to tempt Yes voters with a little of what they fancy, rather than screaming at them that they're idiots for wanting it.
I'm really sorry about this - I know they say you should never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake. But there comes a point where the level of stupidity is so offensive to basic human decency that you just have to speak out.
James I feel your pain but I'm inclined to let Murphy, McTernan, and McDougall get on with making a complete arse of it. :)
ReplyDeleteIt's not as if they have anything left apart from dimwitted economic scaremongering so it would indeed be best to let them get on with it.
DeleteFor some bizarre reason the incompetent Balls and little Ed appear to have forgotten how this kind of panic scaremongering played out for them when they tried it just before the 2011 election. :-)
Absolutely bang on the money.
ReplyDeleteSeeding the debates with unionists, booing at FFA. Only serves to illustrate the deliberate attempt by the MSM, to misrepresent the feelings of the nation.
No, no, no. Don't interrupt them, do not help even in a positive/negative way. If you must help make sure the rope is attached to a stout branch and that the powder is dry in the firing pan. Sheesh, don't tell them that the abyss is but a step away.
ReplyDeleteGo and lie down in a darkened room 'till this passes.
You say James that you thought they might try bribery.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's still early days, and I have no doubt that the great clunking fist of Gordon Brown will be deployed once again in a last gasp effort.
But as they say, 'fool me once...'
The Unionist are using the term FFA hoping that low info voters will not understand that it is the promised Home Rule if we voted No.
ReplyDeleteWe Yes minded folk should call it Home Rule, not FFA.
Yes, good point - I notice that the phrase Devo-Max is now forbidden !!
DeleteDevo-Max is understood well enough though. Maximum Devolution.
Many No voters also want that.
Home Rule means independence to many.
Home Rule is a vague enough term that that's arguable. The unionists were of course always very careful to enthuse vaguely about the fabulous powers that were in store.
DeleteOnwards : No, I think Home Rule is a better term to use than Devo Max (although both are OK). I don't think it means independence to most people, but it has the advantage of being more evocative and natural-sounding.
DeleteThis really makes Willie Rennie's argument on the debate look really stupid. "How dare you argue for something people overwhelmingly support Nicola!"
ReplyDeleteLabour are saying what Maggie Thatcher used to say: "Scotland, you want autonomy (the Prize) but in fact you cannot afford it (the Price)".
ReplyDeleteRegardless of how many people support it, full fiscal autonomy would have given us less resources in 12 of the last 16 years according to GERS. In the last available year the difference would have been roughly £4.3 billion - i.e. on top of everything else that's been cut we'd have had to either cut another £4.3 billion of spending or raise taxes by the same level. That was before the oil price drop (hence the higher figure quoted by the IFS).
ReplyDeleteThese are basic facts and figures. At present we're completely ignoring them and advocating something that's entirely against our best interests. Labour are calling the SNP out on it because it's politically convenient, but they also happen to be entirely in the right on this issue.
Sorry, who is "we"? Go on, amaze us, you're claiming to be a "concerned SNP supporter", aren't you?!
DeleteMoving on...
We, the country, Scotland...
DeleteSeriously, can you offer a single economic argument for full fiscal autonomy being in our interest?
So when you say that "we" are advocating Home Rule, what you mean is that the people of Scotland are advocating it? I'm glad we've cleared that up. Yes, I agree, the people do overwhelmingly want Home Rule, as the polling evidence demonstrates. The only remaining question is - in a democracy, when we vote for Home Rule, do we get what we vote for? We'll soon find out...
DeleteI said an economic argument, not a democratic one. It's a simple request: if you think full fiscal autonomy is in our economic interest then what are you basing that on? I've cited the economic figures illustrating why I think it isn't in our interest, what's your counter-argument?
DeleteWould you listen to yourself, man?! Yes, heaven forbid that we should bring democracy into this...
DeleteI get the deflection, James - I understand you want to talk about literally anything other than the economic fundamentals of FFA (I've seen it hundreds of times before) - what I'm asking you is whether you actually have any substance to back up your opinion. You seem to think FFA is a good thing for Scotland - what is the economic basis for that opinion?
DeleteIt's a simple question. If you feel strongly about the issue you should be able to answer it fairly easily. Why can't you?
Well if Scotland is the basket case you seem to think it is then Who's fault is that?
DeletePaul: Scotland isn't a basket case. I've just addressed that point in detail in response to Alan Fleming's comment below. If you disagree with that then you can respond in turn and say why.
DeleteActually, I'm noticing rather a lot of deflection here - from you. Let's get this clear once and for all - are you a democrat? If Scotland votes for Home Rule on May 7th, should we get Home Rule? Or should the know-it-all elite that you represent block the democratic will, as Miliband was threatening today?
DeleteJames: Personally I would support a referendum on full fiscal autonomy. That's the most democratic way of making the decision.
DeleteBut that's irrelevant to whether it's actually in our economic interest or not. You seem to believe it is, so why can't you outline a simple explanation of why you think that's the case? I don't for one minute believe everyone on the yes/pro-independence side is economically illiterate - there must be someone here who can make a genuine case for it.
The economic rationale for it is that you would know what you're working with if you had FFA. The GERS figures are estimates, not tablets of stone carved with an ultimate truth. If Diageo are told their accountancy must include a Scottish division which takes account of their part of the whisky industry (as it can only be made in Scotland) for example then that would change the figures for Scottish tax revenue. Hull would no longer be the point of origin for exports of whisky...
DeleteNo one can state with any certainty what Scottish government expenditure and revenues would be with FFA because it's never had to be separated previously.
Without FFA Scotland cannot solve it's government spending issues simply due to the fact that no one knows the extent of them are.
Of course, if there are issues they'd need resolved. Since Westminster has utterly failed to do that, perhaps us taking control over our own economy would be better. That's the argument unionists fail to recognise from those who support FFA and/or independence, we think we can do much better than this.
The economic rationale for it is that you would know what you're working with if you had FFA. The GERS figures are estimates, not tablets of stone carved with an ultimate truth. If Diageo are told their accountancy must include a Scottish division which takes account of their part of the whisky industry (as it can only be made in Scotland) for example then that would change the figures for Scottish tax revenue. Hull would no longer be the point of origin for exports of whisky...
DeleteNo one can state with any certainty what Scottish government expenditure and revenues would be with FFA because it's never had to be separated previously.
Without FFA Scotland cannot solve it's government spending issues simply due to the fact that no one knows the extent of them are.
Of course, if there are issues they'd need resolved. Since Westminster has utterly failed to do that, perhaps us taking control over our own economy would be better. That's the argument unionists fail to recognise from those who support FFA and/or independence, we think we can do much better than this.
wee: This is a variation on the "nobody really knows" argument. Of course any assessment of FFA is going to be an estimate - any assessment of any future policy is going to be an estimate on some level - but that doesn't mean we have no idea how it would affect our economy. The "gap" in the last GERS report was around £4.3 billion. There has to be measurement error on a collossal scale to get us to the point at which FFA would actually have been an improvement in that period and that was before the oil price drop.
DeleteThe GERS figures are the best estimates we have (by a distance - there's nothing else that comes close) and I find it impossible to look at those figures and come up with a reason to expect FFA to be in our interest going forward. I'm not saying that because I dislike the idea of us managing our own finances. It's not independence and if it made sense economically I'd wholeheartedly support it. But the figures simply don't back it up and I don't see why we're intent on (almost certainly) reducing our public spending year on year simply to prove a point.
Even if we were to take all the fiscal 'black hole' stuff at face value (and I don't think we should for some of the reasons argued above) We need to recognise that this problem only exists within the constraints of the current paradigm. With devo max we could reconsider how best to generate revenue and that might not necessarily be through income tax, corporation tax etc. Land value revenue would be one good option and would be within the remit of Holyrood (see link).
Deletehttp://www.andywightman.com/archives/4050
In GERS which has serious questions to be answered over its credibility. Here are a couple of points, Scotland is overcharged (it's a per population charge) for items such as Defence; £3.6BN, when real spend is around £1.5BN (will also be lower once/if Trident is removed). £3.06BN on interest payments (again population share) when a large chunk of this debt is for financing South Eastern projects such as crossrail and war! The Scottish parliament held a vote on Iraq fyi and voted against it. Scotland has contributed more per head in tax for the last 30, therefore the debt payment would either be nothing, or a lot less. Obviously this depends on negotiations. Changes to Both of these items alone brings the deficit far below that of the UKs, at current income!
Delete"Scotland has contributed more per head in tax for the last 30, therefore the debt payment would either be nothing"
DeleteThis is a soundbite you hear constantly from the SNP. It's completely misleading. What they do is they quote the revenue figures without quoting spending - giving the impression that because our revenue is higher than the UK average we must be "subsidising" the rest of the UK.
To illustrate why that's wrong, consider the last year of figures we have. We generated around 8.6% of UK revenue with a geographic share of oil (and 8.1% without). The UK average (i.e. per head) would have been about 8.2%. So the SNP are perfectly capable of using those figures to claim that we "generated more revenue per head than the rest of the UK". What they don't tell you of course is that we spent 9.2% of UK spending. You can't calculate our fiscal position without both revenue and spending - and if our spending had been proportionate to our revenue it would effectively have been a cut of £4.3 billion on what we actually spent (i.e. on top of every other cut).
It's completely misleading and I've just explained why, but you'll see people all over the internet quoting this line about "generating more revenue in the last 30 years" as if it's proof we're subsidising rUK.
As for the "it's not our debt" argument, that's both wrong (it is our debt as much as anyone else's) and irrelevant given there is zero chance we're going to actually negotiate some kind of deal within the UK in which we get full fiscal autonomy and completely write off any liability for the national debt at the same time.
"To illustrate why that's wrong, consider the last year of figures we have."
DeleteSo your 'argument' boils down to one single year of figures being MORE representative than 30 years worth?
ROFL
Christ almighty, no wonder Labour are heading for the mother of all hammerings.
To further that, here is fullfact's take from before the referendum;
Deletehttps://fullfact.org/scotland/how_much_money_tax_would_scotland_have_spend_uk_scottish_independence-33426
Pick the coloured graph of your choice.
There really is some wonderful concern trolling going on and now that the democratic argument is well and truly lost it is only the economic argument that remains and even that is less clear cut when you factor in historical precedence beyond the last year.
I'm also not sure why there is such concern over Scotland spending more. In that sense it is in the exact same situation as the UK. Both run deficits and the difference afforded by Devo Max would be in how those deficits are dealt with seeing as Scotland, even if its population seems to choose a different route (for example, by voting for the SNP), will still be beholden to the UK economic plan.
@Soutron
Delete"We need to recognise that this problem only exists within the constraints of the current paradigm."
Exactly, The original poster is making the assumption that more powers would have had NO effect on Scotland's economy, when the whole point is to grow the economy faster via targetted incentives etc
And that the Scottish over-funding for UK services wouldn't have been re-negotiated at the same time.
No-one can have exact figures, because it's impossible to say just how effective growth policies would have been. But it doesn't take a genius to work out that being able to compete more effectively with London and the South would have a huge impact over time.
The head of Ryanair estimated that slashing APF could double tourism within 5 years through far more direct flights. That's a huge knock-on boost to the economy right there.
There is also a case for a new funding formula to replace Barnett - which is getting phased out anyway.
One solution is to retain a common UK connection via a fiscal transfer system based on needs. That could work alongside Scotland having more competitive powers at Holyrood. Many issues could be up for negotiation in the future.
Just like Northern Ireland is in line for corporation tax powers because of its special situation, the same arguments can apply to Scotland, with its northern position giving it a competitive disadvantage compared to Southern firms.
FFA is not going to happen. It just can't really - to complex, asymmetric etc. It's why independence is inevitable. It's a ticking demographic time bomb. Only the over 65 post war baby boomer British identifiers holding things together for another 5 years or so at best.
DeleteHell, independence will have big ups and downs, crashes, recoveries, good times and bad. That's what it means.
But at least we'll pick our own governments like other people in normal countries do. Folks in Denmark don't constantly fret about whether they should hand over control to Germany, even in the midst of a big down-turn...
Tick tock as they say. Sept 2014 was just a little too soon.
May 7th is looking like a lot of fun in the meantime.
Anonymous, I assume you didn't read the link re. LVR. You asked for an argument to illustrate that FFA would be a viable option. I suggested one. Can I conclude that you're actually opposed to devo max on principle rather than just concerned by the sums?
Delete" it's a sound bite from the SNP" Have you actually looked at the figures yourself and made up your own mind? Moreover, I'll take you back to my original point, Scotland is over charged for certain services. The supposed deficit drops dramatically when they are realistically charged.
DeleteAs for your debt argument, don't be such a defeatist. Have a bit of pride and believe that we are entitled to what we have given. If not, get off this blog and stop wasting our time. Start suggesting solutions, instead of repeating the problems.
Having a manageable deficit is entirely different to having an out of control deficit. Scotland would have a manageable deficit, like most countries.
DeleteThe Scots are willing and ready to take a financial hit in the short term for the benefits of FFA in the long term. We are neither short-sighted or stupid but pragmatic and politically erudite. It is not the Scots who are delusional but the establishment who fail to grasp this concept.
Deletehttp://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/project-fear-relaunched-to-justify-backtracking-on-vow/
DeleteAnonymous.......which one of the eejits from the Better Together forum are you?
Anonymous.......are you Del Rashid from the BT campaign?????
DeleteThere's a very simple argument. When someone else is making a pigs ear of managing your finances it's time to manage them yourself. If after 300 years of union the UK hasn't managed to get a country like Scotland to function properly, according to you, then I'm all for looking after our own wealth creation. We can start with losing weapons of mass destruction and continue by avoiding foreign wars if we need to save money.
ReplyDelete"If after 300 years of union the UK hasn't managed to get a country like Scotland to function properly, according to you"
DeleteI see this particular line posted a lot by SNP supporters - the idea being that the fact our fiscal position doesn't support full fiscal autonomy (which even diehard SNP supporters must realise - you can't all have your head stuck in the sand) means somehow we're an economic basket case.
That's not the case at all. Scotland isn't an economic basket case. Our taxation revenue is perfectly reasonable given the characteristics of our economy. The reason why our fiscal position would be damaged by full fiscal autonomy is because the UK's overall distribution of spending is broadly fair. For instance, a part of the UK with a rural population will usually incur larger levels of public spending relative to the revenue it generates - because small highly populated areas generate more tax and require less spending relatively speaking to maintain public services.
It's perfectly right that Scotland should get a higher level of public spending than the rest of the UK when you take on board factors like that. But that's impossible if we have full fiscal autonomy.
"Scotland isn't an economic basket case."
DeleteWhy is our life expectancy lower than the rest of western Europe, then?
Much as agreeing with James makes me nervous, he does have a point. While Scotland as a whole tends to die early, I come from Aberdeenshire (A very wealthy area in UK terms) and our life expectancy is higher than even the UK average, let alone Scotland.
DeleteLook lets make it easy for you Mr Anon. This is a story about austerity and cuts. Osborne has pledged 40 billion more in Austerity if his party wins. Balls has pledged the same should labour win outright. Both want around 7 to 10 billion from Scotland. that's without FFA - that's Murphy's spending black hole right there. An SNP keeping labour honest means that they are not going to get all that money - not without a fight and if the SNP somehow got FFA, Westminster would get SFA. A lot of chickens are going to come home to roost at that point. They won't be able to use Scotland anymore to offset the price of austerity and Scotland the subsidy junkie line falls apart.
DeleteThats why labour and the tories do not want this for Scotland. Not because it would cost Scotland, but it would cost them too much. Thats I why i know that Westminster won't go for it, so frankly the SNP would have to shut up and tolerate it or leave labour to stew. I also believe that the rUK would act against Scotland's interests out of spite. You see Mr Anon, Labours reaction is all to predictably irrational.
The mistake for labour here, is not that the y have admitted this - which would be damaging, but that they have chosen to attack Scotland, not the SNP and portray it as relying on English subsidy. They have chosen to do this by targeting pensioners. I cannot think of anything more recklessly dangerous than labour playing this card at this time. On one hand, this is the reason they lost all that support in the first place - secondly they portraying Scots as subsidised left wingers in a UK that is increasingly backwards looking and right wing in its attitudes.
For arguments sake, lets say it was true. How does this benefit labour? By reducing Scotland to a laughing stock and forcing it to admit its feeble state - does labour think people would start voting for it again? Or would that shamed electorate turn on labour and make sure it could never profit from it?
Scotland is not a basket case - but this whisper campaign is doing a lot of damage to Scotland's reputation. i would have preferred a velvet divorce from the UK but it seems that Westminster is determined that the union should die ugly.
I see tha you say you've given me a full reply. Your response is that " our taxation revenue is perfectly reasonable given the characteristics of our economy". I'm not sure how that answers my point which is that we have no real control over our economy. Your answer is merely that we should be happy with handouts and implies that we couldn't do as well(?) as we are doing under a UK government. You have no idea of the truth of that assumption because that is all it is, I prefer to try to do it better because all I see is the UK economy being driven to maintain our status in the world rather than to benefit the population.
DeleteAlan: What I've given a "full reply" to is the misunderstanding that we're an economic basket case simply because full fiscal autonomy doesn't make sense from a fiscal perspective. I've explained precisely why that isn't the case. If you want to argue the point then feel free, but you haven't said anything here that disputes what I actually said.
DeleteI've said nothing about "being happy with handouts" or any other emotive bit of rhetoric. My position on this issue is entirely driven by the figures and I've explained how I get to that calculation and why I don't support full fiscal autonomy. If you don't want to acknowledge the figures or want to go down the "anything's possible, who can say it won't work out, let's just take a punt and see" line then fine. That's your opinion. I find it about as convincing as a paper padlock, but there's really nothing anyone can say against an argument like that as it's essentially an article of faith.
"This is a story about austerity and cuts. Osborne has pledged 40 billion more in Austerity if his party wins. Balls has pledged the same should labour win outright. Both want around 7 to 10 billion from Scotland. that's without FFA - that's Murphy's spending black hole right there."
DeleteThis is also a common line - pretending that the magnitude of Tory cuts will be just as large as what we'd have to cut under FFA.
It's wrong for several reasons. First, the magnitude of the cuts you're describing doesn't match up. The figure that gets cited by the SNP is a cut of £30 billion across the whole of the UK in the next parliament. The £7.6 billion cut is a cut from our budget every year. This isn't a temporary cut for the duration of one year or a parliament, it's a permanent reduction in our available budget. The actual size of it would vary year on year (£7.6 billion is the estimate for 2015-16) but it would be a permanent change in how our public spending is funded, not a one off cut by a Tory government intent on trying to run a surplus for their own ideological reasons.
Second, the situation is even worse than that because the entire purpose in the "£30 billion of cuts" is to get rid of the deficit. The IFS projection is saying that we'd have to cut our spending by £7.6 billion in one year just to stay at the same level of deficit as we have now. To actually get rid of the deficit would require even higher cuts. It's essentially a £7.6 billion reduction before we even think about doing anything else to solve the deficit.
As for the political implications I don't particularly know or care much about whether it helps Labour or not. I'm not a member of any political party, what I care about is the state of Scotland's economy - where I presume we all live. I don't see any reason to support something that's almost certain to make us all poorer and I'm struggling to understand - beyond the "nobody really knows" qualifier - what there actually is to recommend FFA.
No, the IFS report, if accurate (and there are enough questions and deliberately introduced errors to know that GERS is biased against Scotland) would mean a BORROWING REQUIREMENT of £7.6bn.
DeleteOf course there are trivial cuts to make.
First cut I would make is £3bn to pay for London's debt.
Second cut I would make is £1.5bn from Defense constribution
Third cut I would make is £2bn from the contribution to "UK Wide" spending that seems to end up entirely spent in London.
IFS report is based off westminster policies, they do not work for scotland as they are not designed to work for scotland. Its fairly simple, take hs2 for instance. Designed to grow the south and access to areas at the detriment of the same rural areas anon says get extra money! Pull the other one. FFA will never happen as it would put scotland in competition with london, which will never happen.
DeleteWhether Anonymous or not, a BritNat is still a BritNat
ReplyDeleteCalling people names isn't an argument. I'll ask the same question I asked James. Can you provide an economic argument for full fiscal autonomy?
DeleteIf you provided a name, Mr Bravely Anonymous Poster, perhaps people wouldn't call you names.
DeleteI'm not interested in deflection about usernames or anything else. I'm asking a simple economic question. You seem to support full fiscal autonomy, what is the economic argument for it?
DeleteI'm very content to endorse the very full answers that others have given you above. Now do drop the haughty demands, there's a good chap. Doesn't suit you.
DeleteIn GERS which has serious questions to be answered over its credibility. Here are a couple of points, Scotland is overcharged (it's a per population charge) for items such as Defence; £3.6BN, when real spend is around £1.5BN (will also be lower once/if Trident is removed). £3.06BN on interest payments (again population share) when a large chunk of this debt is for financing South Eastern projects such as crossrail and war! The Scottish parliament held a vote on Iraq fyi and voted against it. Scotland has contributed more per head in tax for the last 30, therefore the debt payment would either be nothing, or a lot less. Obviously this depends on negotiations. Changes to Both of these items alone brings the deficit far below that of the UKs, at current income!
DeleteDevils in the details as they say. Full fiscal autonomy would mean for Scotland that every last penny raised in Scotland, stays in Scotland. The UK would disagree and argue that Scotland should keep paying for more than just defense. Its highly unlikely that they'll agree to losing a cash cow like Scotland. No, they need Scotland to balance the books. They need it to pish money up the wall for projects like HS2 and TTIP. At this stage I don't trust the UK to be rational here. I would fully expect them to try and damage the Scottish economy, just like they did with Osbornes "sermon on the pound" back in 2014. But with no FFA there will be cuts to Barnett in the region of 7 to 10 billion depending on which flavor of Tory gets in. Suddenly they are facing the prospect of being denied access to that cash. So sadly yes, labours attitude to this is all to predictable.
ReplyDeleteThe argument about about Fiscal autonomy is not so much about economics as democratic accountability.
ReplyDeleteContinually having government economic policy imposed on us by England's electorate whose spending and taxation policies do not meet Scottish aspirations is the reason we are where we are.
The arguments about whether we will be £500 per person better off or worse is irrelevant because at the end of the day if the elected representatives of the country (Scotland) don't have control over tax and spend then they might as well not be there.
Only by denying that Scotland is a country/nation can the current position be justified and when it becomes impossible for Westminster to claim it legitimately rules Scotland through it's proxy Labour party representatives will we start to do address this problem.
The current Tory administration in Westminster didn't spend millions during the referendum trying to ensure Scotland returned a single Tory MP to London but because of the economic implications for England without access to Scottish resources.
Only when we have complete control of our income will the true position on the economy be known but the actions of Westminster speak louder than their words and we can be confident that the position is more favourable to us than they are trying to make out.
It is clear that unless we elect a large number of SNP MPs to force through the changes required,we are going to get nada from London.
Is this why Labour are trashing FFA,they DONT want a Federal Union
ReplyDeleteWhy don't SNP offer. Federal Union referendum 2016?
I'm a No voter, but I think FFA is a good idea. Personally as a finance type I think the whole 'borrow your way out of debt' shtick is populist snake-oil akin to climate change denial, i.e. kick the can down the road and let our kids pay for it. But there are two ways it plays out.
ReplyDelete1. The SNP are right and it fixes the economy. People like me have to eat humble pie, but things are better, and it gives some credibility to the claim that Holywood would do a better job under independence. That's the kind of thing i'd be happy to be wrong about.
2. It's completely FUBAR, but at least we kill the subject off, except for the more hardcore cult members who will probably blame MI5 or something.
So it looks like a win win to me. A one way trip to independence doesn't float my boat, but why not give them the chance to prove their case with FFA? The people want it, and who knows, they might be right.
I'm struggling to see how the second option is a "win": we destroy our own economy and ruin countless people's lives in the process but at least the SNP will take a pasting at the next election?
DeleteThat's not a win for me and I'm baffled why anybody would think it is.
"Personally as a finance type I think the whole 'borrow your way out of debt' shtick is populist snake-oil akin to climate change denial", i.e. kick the can down the road and let our kids pay for it. But there are two ways it plays out."
DeleteStrange, because it sounds far more like dimwitted straw man bullshit to me. All that was missing was a Thatcherite "there is no alternative" tagged onto the end.
It might astonish you to realise that disagreeing with tory/red tory economic policy is not only perfectly reasonable, but it's also usually only in the most stupid of the right wing tabloids like the Sun and Daily Mail that doing so is met with moronic straw man 'examples' to try and justify their right-wing economic groupthink.
I would rather see a proper federal UK than have Scotland be independent - PR, an English parliament, an elected UK senate instead of the HoL and so on. No more British nationalism but instead four distinct nations working together and having distinct and unique identities. FFA is a good step on the way to this and I think Labour are beyond foolish to attack such a popular policy as though this was IndyRef2 Electric Boogaloo.
DeleteSorry about the groupthink there Porky, I'll try and emulate your famously balanced, nuanced critical analysis of political positions going forward.
DeleteAt least try to up your game with something a little more "balanced and nuanced" than sub Daily Mail pish that is nothing more than imbecilic straw man stupidity. Take it to Stormfront Lite/political betting where they are more than dumb enough to fall for it.
DeleteYou try crap like that on here you'll always just look like an ignorant right-wing twat when you get called out for it.
"The people want it, and who knows, they might be right."
DeleteAnd that's exactly why Westminster won't allow it to happen and for the same reason Independence will happen in the next 5 to 10 years.
Cheers Mickster, appreciate the feedback.
DeleteI know some folk think you are just some overly sweary, obsessive, quasi-religeous keyboard warrior who pumps out thousands of words a day blindly singing the praises of a single party without any shred of self awareness whatsoever, but they just don't see the real you.
Fight on, brother!
@rab - I agree on the second point. We are split pretty much 50/50 at the moment, so its going to happen eventually. You guys only need to win once, wheras Westminster has to win every time. I'm pretty confident you'll see independence sooner rather than later.
You can of course always go fuck yourself troll. You inevitably end up wailing and shrieking like a clueless twat every single time you come on here trying to troll with your your hilariously dumb right-wing Daily Mail idiocy. :-)
DeleteGo back to Stormfront Lite son, a prissy little twit like yourself has nae business on a serious political site where adults exchange views.
I do have some difficulty with the question as to how we would deal with today's (apparent) deficit if FFA was in place now.
ReplyDeleteThe difficulty is that is isn't in place now, and even if it was agreed by the main parties in Westminster after the election it wouldn't be put in place for years, especially considering the likely parallel arrangements that would need to be put in place across the UK to make the system balance properly.
Effectively it requires a federal approach to the UK to be implemented - how long will that take. So we don't know what in detail a FFA arrangement would really look like, we don't know what level of charges would be negotiated between all the nations/region, we don't know what transitional arrangements would be needed and for how long, we don't really know what the condition of any of the economies would be at the time of implementation and we certainly don't know what the price of oil might be nor the size of the O&G sector within Scotland's economy would be at the time of implementation.
To me it seems a nonsense question... but one that's par for the course for an election campaign.
It's a good target, if we press for it we might end up with more than we currently have power-wise and it keeps pressure on the Vow delivery, but isn't it reasonable to think that whatever level of devolution eventually transpires it will in the end be implemented with due care and attention by all concerned, because it is absolutely in no one's interest to break the economies of any part of the UK.
from WOS.......FFA, then, is a totally phantom threat. Scottish Labour, unable to land a single blow on the real Nats, has been reduced to jousting with ghosts. The SNP’s defence – “We want this bad thing, but luckily you’re never going to give us it so it doesn’t really matter” – is a bit rubbish, but has the significant advantage of being completely true.
DeleteIts other main plus point is of course that the line Scottish Labour are pushing – “We and the Tories guarantee to absolutely prevent this thing from ever happening, but oh boy, if it ever DID you’d regret it” – is even weaker. If FFA is all Jim Murphy and his ailing troops have got in the next four weeks, they’ve really got SFA
FFA cannot be ascertained, good or bad, until the treasury is opened up as cooking is their speciality. Oil population share is all we would get under FFA so it is a pointless argument at this stage IMO.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteStrangely Unionists want to argue about it though. I thought the UKGE was about electing the MP's the voters of Scotland think will best represent them. All the horse trading will come after the result.
DeleteIn all honesty the Unionist trolling leaves me cold. They invariably spout porkies that cease having any meaning to me. Heard it during the Referendum and personally can't stand it any more. Almost half of the population of Scotland agree with me. It isn't educational in the least. Desist.
James Kelly,
DeleteCan you not remove the anon option from your posting site?
You seem to have picked up quite a few Unionist Trolls recently and their incoherent and random ramblings are getting annoying as they are difficult to respond to as they are not identifiable.
It is unfortunate but I suppose it is a sign that you are one of the best and most trusted websites in Scotland.
You'd think devo max was on the cards from the MSM and posts on here.
ReplyDeleteIt's not. We know the score - indy or status quo, maybe with a touch of tinkering to the latter such as control over road signs.
I agree, devo max isn't actually on the cards. We've already seen where the establishment draws the line on devolution. They'd possibly sooner see an indy Scotland than have to deal with the ramifications of Scottish FFA on rUK.
DeleteIf the SNP attempt to secure home rule and are denied by labour/lab con alliance in Westminster, independence is pushed back up the agenda. The will of the Scottish people denied despite giving the SNP a clear mandate to go for home rule after the GE. Indyref 2 some time towards the end of the next Holyrood term? Plenty of time for the over 65 no vote to decrease while the existing yes vote is strengthened and expanded.
I think the unionist parties are trying hard to dampen down expectations after May 7th. They can see what's coming!
ReplyDeleteCynical shoot me if I am wrong. It would be a geographic share of oil under FFA not demographic. I think that's the point of it.
ReplyDeleteNobody is right and nobody is wrong because it is an unknown unknown so it is a pointless argument at this stage which is why Labour is harping on about it. Empty vessels.
DeleteIt's a British tactic James mate. it doesn't come from Murphy or McDougall. Did you hear Ed Miliband today? See the daily rags or BBC news at 10. Everyone is on message. The state is using the labour party to do some of its work. What % of Scotland's punters want Scotland to pay 3.2 billion for Brit foreign policy and British military, escapades and all? We get full fiscal autonomy we get independence so they need to stop FFA.
ReplyDeleteI will not enter a debate with someone who hides behind anon! Man up son.
ReplyDeletehttps://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/10/how-tactically-minded-scots-may-affect-election/
ReplyDeletePoll guru Peter Kellner expecting tactical voting to save 10 unionist MPs (despite yeterday's poll).
He is expecting Charles Kennedy and Douglas Alexander (amongst others) to hold.
Peter Kellner, husband of Labour Peer, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, well known impartial commentator on SNP matters.
DeleteAye right - Charles Kennedy and tactical voting.
After their Frenchgate debacle no Lib-dem seats are safe in Scotland.
OT
ReplyDeleteSmithson and his merry band of chortling bigots are dreaming of tactical voting scenarios in which the ghastly nats can be trounced.
The tactics suggested make no sense at all. SNP have taken most of their vote from Slab and Libdem. Labour voters have to hold the line or their party are utterly drubbed.
Tory voters are seeing the first faint uptick in their fortunes in Scotland since the glory days of Mickey Forsyth, Nikki Fairbairn and Malcolm Rifkind - why would they vote for Slab who have defined themselves against them?
The Libdems Are on life support now, anything other than a vote for their own candidate is another nail in their coffin.
In other words tactical voting is not going to happen no matter what percentage of libdem voters in Slab/Scon/ Snp marginals or whatever do.
An exercise in whistling in the dark.
John Curtice is not convinced either.
Deletehttp://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/04/could-tactical-voting-scupper-the-snp/
It's the usual out of touch westminster bubble nonsense as all that particular polling question does is raise hypotheticals in the face of no evidence at all that there will be voting patterns like that from the somewhat less 'imagination based' headline VI figures.
ReplyDeleteFact is we know already the type of tactical voting that has actually historically happened in scotland and it sure as fuck isn't against the SNP. It's against the tories and in 2011 also against the yellow tories.
The SNP have such a huge lead in the polls it's not as if anyone in Mundell or wee Danny Alexander's seat needs to scrutinise constituency polling or weigh up completely contradictory statements about who is best placed to win in certain seats. If the voter wants rid of tories, yellow tories or indeed any Labour candidate then they can vote for the SNP safe in the knowledge that with the SNP polling at almost 50% their vote will not be wasted.
There's already been some hilarious attempts by some in Labour, the tories and the lib dems to try and get tactical voting against the SNP going. Every time they tried it's ended in incompetence and/or acrimony among the three parties as they all insist they are the ones best placed to win. Yeah, that IS a surprise. LOL :-D
Some of us have very identifiable names and would be in trouble at work for posting anything anti-labour online.
ReplyDeleteAlso I seem to remember that lovely nazi scum war criminal ACL BLair telling people in 1997 that the Tories (BOOOOO! HISS BOO!) were secretly planning to scrap the state pension.
Labour have form in terrifying old people. Just like they have forms that get magically filled in requesting postal votes from old people.
FFA FFS GTF!
Even if the £7,600,000,000 was real it can be halved in seconds. £1,000,000 less towards the MOD and £2,500,000,000 in whisky profit taxes correctly credited to Scotland and not the City of London. Job done.
Latest Scottish poll of polls:
ReplyDeletehttp://corecursion.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/latest-scottish-poll-of-polls-for-uk_10.html
James, those arguing against FFA (on economic grounds) are not wrong. People's democrastic right to vote for it is another matter.
ReplyDeleteRev. Stu over at Wings - whose freedom-for-Scotland credentials are impeccable I'd say - makes the same argument. He points out that FFA will give us the worst of both worlds: Scotland is an inherently more expensive country to run, on a per capita basis, than England, while FFA will stop us making the big savings on big budget items that can compensate for that disadvantage. As it is, under FFA, Scotland still has to pick up its share of £ billions on Trident, on wars in Irag, Libya and Afghanistan…
Only complete independence allows us to use all our resources for the greater good of Scotland.
Well the Isle of Man has FFA. Someone better send Ed Miliband quickly as it's in danger of collapse. Ah wait..I forgot, it isn't burdened by our enormous energy resources...silly me....
ReplyDeletePersonally, while I can be critical of the SNP at times, I feel the SNP leadership are so much more committed to Scotland and understand it so much better than their unionist counterparts, and i also feel they are frankly more intelligent as well, so that I strongly suspect that whatever shortfall FFA would entail (and of course fiscal projections are often wrong, so the shortfall might not be as big as is being suggested) an SNP government of an FFA Scotland would probably manage to make up any shortfall very rapidly through better economic management. To take one concrete example: I can totally see Salmond going round the world and attracting serious amounts of foreign investment in Scotland, potentially far outweighing any short-term FFA gap. The broader point here is that Scotland's economic wellbeing is not just about looking at official figures and projections, but about who you think has the intelligence and imagination, the innovative capacity, to develop the Scottish economy. Personally I think that's the SNP, not Balls, Osborne etc.
ReplyDeleteAnd finally, under FFA it would be up to the Scottish government of the day to decide what to cut and what to spend money on. The differences in those policy decisions in Holyrood and Westminster could easily outweigh an FFA gap.
Ultimately, the same point applies to FFA as to indy. Supposing it happened to be true that - going by projected figures - an indy Scotland would possibly be financially worse off for a couple of years. I would accept that as a price worth paying for indy, and I take the same view of FFA, albeit I would much prefer indy.
Never underestimate the creative, innovative potential of an FFA Scots government to grow the economy.
I do find this sort of thing pretty worrying, to be honest: the idea that you have such faith in a political party you would take something that immediately makes us poorer simply because it gives them more power. You've put it in more reasonable terms but that's essentially what you're saying.
DeleteThe £7.6 billion figure is a drop of 11.5% on our public spending in the last year we have figures for. That's not just a cut, it's catastrophic. For comparison, the proposed Tory cuts to the UK budget that are (rightly) being portrayed as a disaster amount to roughly 4.2% of UK spending and that's intended to get rid of the deficit and run a surplus over a period of years - our 11.5% immediate cut would just be to get to the same point we are now, we'd then have to cut even more if we wanted to actually get rid of the deficit.
The SNP might do a better job of running the economy (they might also do a worse job for all we know) but it's difficult to imagine anyone who could turn that situation into a positive.
"to be honest"
DeleteAre you sure you're being honest, or are you not in fact making a partisan point and dressing it up as "concern"? If you're not going to drop the anonymity, tell us a bit about yourself and your own political agenda.
James: You win a political debate by supporting your views with evidence and logic. Attacking the person you happen to be debating with isn't an argument. If you disagree with anything I've said then you can explain why and we can have a conversation about it. I'm not going to have a pointless argument about who I am simply because you'd rather play the man than the ball.
DeleteEr, no. There is a reason why you don't want to tell us about yourself, but you don't want to be honest even about that, hence the deflection strategy of "stop personally attacking me, you bad man". I have not personally attacked you, I have demanded personal answers from you. A man who has spent this entire thread haughtily demanding answers from others is in no great position to decide to clam up when the awkward questions start flowing in othe opposite direction.
DeleteI make no bones about it - I am deeply suspicious of you and the little game you are playing, and your failure to answer is scarcely diminishing those suspicions. As you guys in the elite always say "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear by answering".
James: I'm fully aware that you want to turn the argument on to something you're more comfortable with (who I am, bashing whatever party I support, smearing whatever political agenda I do or don't have). I get that. It's how a lot of people in your position try and argue a point: you ignore the substance and turn it into something personal to try and cover for the fact you don't feel comfortable arguing about the issue at stake.
DeleteThat's fine as far as it goes (not everyone can argue the substance of something like full fiscal autonomy and you have to give the impression of disagreeing so you do the best you can) but I point blank refuse to engage you in that. That's the beauty of posting anonymously - we have to argue substance, not personalities.
Now that's the last thing I'm going to say about who I am. Do you have a coherent argument against what I said above about full fiscal autonomy?
Anon, your "point", such as it is, has been comprehensively dealt with by others on this thread. I'm not particularly interested in it, and it would be entirely redundant of me to add to the very thorough and detailed rebuttals that readers have been supplied with.
DeleteYou're refusing point blank to answer my reasonable questions because you have something to hide and it would be extremely damaging to your arguments if your agenda was revealed.
We get that, Anon.
We got that right from the start.
from WOS.......FFA is a totally phantom threat. Scottish Labour, unable to land a single blow on the real Nats, has been reduced to jousting with ghosts. The SNP’s defence – “We want this bad thing, but luckily you’re never going to give us it so it doesn’t really matter” – is a bit rubbish, but has the significant advantage of being completely true.
DeleteIts other main plus point is of course that the line Scottish Labour are pushing – “We and the Tories guarantee to absolutely prevent this thing from ever happening, but oh boy, if it ever DID you’d regret it” – is even weaker. If FFA is all Jim Murphy and his ailing troops have got in the next four weeks, they’ve really got SFA
James: Clearly it's an exercise in futility trying to get you to actually defend your opinions on full fiscal autonomy, but I do think this comment exchange is quite illuminating about where the standard of debate seems to be on your side.
DeleteI've intentionally tried to be respectful here and avoid giving you any ammunition for ad hominem deflection. I've been on here once or twice before and I know full well that's how you try to argue a point - you drag it down into a slagging match because you lack the capacity to back up your views with evidence. It's generally what most children do when confronted with someone they disagree with, but I thought I would treat you like an adult and do my best to coax a reasonable argument out of you.
Even bending over backwards to avoid going down that line, though, you still ended up gibbering on about "agendas" within the space of a few comments. I really can't deal with that level of irrationality, but if anyone else has a reasonable response to what I've posted I'll be glad to continue the discussion.
And for the sake of clarification, I define a reasonable response as one that deals with what someone *says*, not with who they *are*.
Anon (or as I think of you, Simon) : Seriously? You have so little shame that you still haven't packed it in? As others have pointed out, it is within my power as the owner of this blog to prevent you posting anonymously, or indeed to delete your posts altogether - instead of trying my patience further, you should be bloody grateful that I haven't done the latter, as the average unionist blogger would most certainly have done (see Adam Tomkins, Duncan Hothersall, Labour Hame, etc, etc, etc).
DeleteAnd no, you haven't behaved respectfully. You've been dripping with arrogance, entitlement and condescension since you first appeared on this thread. Your points have been dealt with - now go away. I don't generally moderate trolls, but that doesn't mean they're welcome.
Now the argument is "it's my blog, go away or I'll ban you".
DeleteHonestly... if this is the standard of debate on the pro-independence side then god help us.
Nope, not good enough. If you want to make that argument stick, please direct us to evidence that you have challenged Hothersall, Tomkins and all the other unionist bloggers when they have deleted comments for no other reason than that they disagreed with them. Alternatively, you could just say thankyou that I have treated your ill-mannered, boorish behaviour with more indulgence than any unionist blogger would have mustered in identical circumstances.
DeleteI'm waiting.
You couldn't make this up - this man who prides himself on his "respectful", "adult" debating style has just described me as "mentally ill" on the next thread.
DeleteApropos of nothing, but...
ReplyDeleteHighest level of SNP(+PC) in the unweighted base ever in today's UK yougov. 50% of the unweighted Scottish sample. Really shot up here with the method change.
Down-weighting of these still fairly high. You need to account for what happens to the Scottish sample as a whole, but up to 10% downweight / *0.9 for SNP respondents on average.
The Scotsman have wrote this and have quoted poll guru Prof Curtice.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/snp-faces-irrelevance-as-lib-lab-deal-looms-1-3743115
Basically, latest UK-wide polling suggests that Labour and Libdems will get a majority meaning Labour will not need the SNP.
Gosh, the Scotsman are super-excitable, aren't they? If the SNP don't hold the balance, it's much more likely to be because the Tories do better.
Delete