[Stewart]

I'd like to make tuition fees free, renationalise the rail industry, remove the private sector from the NHS and education by completely reforming both etc. I don't have a spare trillion quid though so I'm not suggesting it's possible.

You'd like to do these things yet nuclear weapons, illegal wars and aircraft carriers that have no planes are more of a priority?

[Fultonius]

I know this is heavily simplified but it highlights an important point. Getting rid of trident is estimated to save £1.5bn. Free higher education cost £600m (which is already happy funded on the current account) the NHS funding gap is £500m. Scotland will clearly run a defecit for a few years depending on the currency arrangements. We can afford it.

[Stu Littlefair]

Fultonius and Stewart - I think you've made my point quite eloquently. Only looking at the upsides of independence.

Stewart, you should read this link on the NHS in scotland. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/salmonds-nhs-claims-have-been-shredded-ifs

Despite having less need to cut spending than the rest of the UK, spending on the NHS in Scotland fell by 1%, when it rose in the rest of the UK. This decision was entirely yours. Plus, if you vote no you will have the same power to run the NHS how you like, a promise to retain the Barnett formula, and more powers to raise extra money via income tax. The benefit to the NHS of independence is basically nil.

Fultonius - can you afford it though? The UK was coining it in oil revenues until recently, when the oil price drops meant that in the last two years corporation tax revenues have declined by 60% from £8.8 billion in 2011-12 to £3.6 billion in 2013-14 and petroleum revenue tax by 45% from £2.0 billion to £1.1 billion in 2013-14. Neither of us know what will happen in the future, but as an independent nation Scotland will not be protected from these swings in the way it is now. An independent Scotland may have the political will to do the things you want (but see the NHS article above), but it's far from certain it will have the means.

[stone]

Is that not saying that a currency union can only work when there is full fiscal, banking and political union? Basically saying that countries in a currency union need to be tied at the hip just as closely as Scotland and England are now?

What about looking at examples that do work - Germany and the Netherlands. Both countries have the same currency, are not fiscally integrated and you could argue that Germany holds the position of central bank (since it's the largest shareholder). A lot of trade happens between the two countries and, wait for it, both economies are doing well, unemployment is similar.

I'm still massively baffled by the currency issue. The more I read the less clear it gets. When you have a panel of 6 "world leading economics experts" all disagreeing with each other, who do you believe??  http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/e635505a-328f-11e4-a5a2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3CpPW56UO

To me the SNP currency union plan is much like if my family were to decide to have a joint bank account with our next-door neighbours. We are all no doubt splendid people and we get along fine. Nevertheless I don’t think such an idea would work out harmoniously. I think it would be rash to breezily assert that we would be able to just get an accountant in to iron out any problems.
If our neighbours and us were to become some sort of commune and all eat together, use each other’s stuff etc then it might make sense. But as separate households it totally doesn’t.

Your example of Germany and Netherlands needs to be seen in the context of them being in the same currency union as Greece. Money spent by Greece can and does end up being spent on buying German and Dutch government bonds and paying German and Dutch taxes. The euro set up leads to the weakest hemoraging more and more to the strongest. Its a destructive feedback loop.
If it were just a currency union of Germany and Netherlands then sooner or later a small difference between them would start to slide into an amplifying problem.

As you say lots of very grand economists love currency union. But Wynne Godley did predict exactly how the euro crisis would pan out as soon as the euro concept was proposed decades ago and IMO he has been proved right and the same principle would apply to the SNP plan.

[Stewart]

Fultonius and Stewart - I think you've made my point quite eloquently. Only looking at the upsides of independence.

Stewart, you should read this link on the NHS in scotland. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/salmonds-nhs-claims-have-been-shredded-ifs

Despite having less need to cut spending than the rest of the UK, spending on the NHS in Scotland fell by 1%, when it rose in the rest of the UK. This decision was entirely yours. Plus, if you vote no you will have the same power to run the NHS how you like, a promise to retain the Barnett formula, and more powers to raise extra money via income tax. The benefit to the NHS of independence is basically nil.

Stu, are you saying we shouldn't highlight what we think are positive aspects of independence because doing so only makes your point so eloquently that we are only 'looking at the upsides of independence'? To paraphrase Brian, what chance does that give me? Alright, I am the Messiah!

I've seen the statesman article, it's based on an IFS report that has been widely criticised (here for example http://tinyurl.com/mga73n9).

c) It is a weakness in the IFS paper that they did not express the expenditure figures on a per capita basis. This led some commentators to conclude that, since overall spending on health in Scotland had been dropping, whereas it had been increasing in England, the real threat to the Scottish NHS was Scottish government priorities. In fact, since expenditure per head in Scotland is still 6.4% higher than that in England, it is perfectly reasonable, particularly in a time of austerity, that their priorities might be different.

I'm not going to continue to debate the specific issues further on here. All i will say is that there are idiots on both sides of the debate and while the MSM will focus on the cringey freedom-from-the-english-tyranny type braveheart mindset that does, unfortunately, exist among some, the majority of yes voters are well informed, critical of Alex Salmond and aspire to a system of government that is more accountable, honest and socially inclusive. Most pople don't even want to be better off financially as a result of the vote, they do want better public services and a fairer society than what westminster seems to settle for. The economics are going to be a fuck to sort out but I think it's worth the risk. If i lived a few miles South I would be hoping the Scottish referendum triggered some kind of constitutional change in England too. Anyway..don't worry we still love you and will come and visit every second Saturday (as long as the weather is nice) x

[Plattsy]

A view from someone who was a yes but is now a no.

http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/

[Stu Littlefair]

Stu, are you saying we shouldn't highlight what we think are positive aspects of independence because doing so only makes your point so eloquently that we are only 'looking at the upsides of independence'?

... the majority of yes voters are well informed, critical of Alex Salmond and aspire to a system of government that is more accountable, honest and socially inclusive.

part a - no. I'm saying that when people repeatedly post what they think are the positive aspects of independence and (to my eyes) they appear fanciful, it makes me think they're not looking at the prospect soberly. Instead, they're letting their fantasy of what independence would be like affect their vote.

which leads me to part b - If the majority of yes voters are so critical of Alex Salmond and so confident that independence will bring in an accountably, socially inclusive government then why is the SNP the majority party in Holyrood? What's so socially inclusive of the SNP's reduction in NHS funding, their refusal to back a 50p additional tax rate and a commitment to a 3p reduction in corporation tax (and Trump's golf course, etc, etc?).

I'd argue that you can't blame every decision the devolved parliament has made on westminster, and an independent Scotland is more than likely to end up with a government like the one you've already got. Is that so different from the status quo, that it makes giving up the security of the union a good bet?

[Sloper]

Stuart, do you really think the 50% tax rate >£150k is an exemplar of a party with a policy agenda to be 'socially inclusive'?

Why is cutting corporation tax not 'socially inclusive'?

The funding / management of the NHS is in many ways just a dog whistle / lightening rod for other issues and is substantially a moot point.

[Stu Littlefair]

I think it's the kind of thing people have in mind when they say they want a socially inclusive government, which in this context means "left of the Tories/New Labour". I wouldn't claim to know the answers to the questions as you pose them.

The funding of the NHS is far from a moot point as its a common reason given by yes voters for their position. This is despite the fact that it's largely a separate issue.

Most people don't seem to get that - for example the quote Stewart posted - in which the bait and switch from "does Scotland need to be independent to save the NHS" to "does it make sense to spend less on the NHS" is obvious, but clearly not to all

[Stewart]

Stu, i was in the middle of a fairly lengthy response to your previous post but after seeing your last reply to sloper I'm just going to drop it.

[miso soup]

http://reasonablyraging.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/fuck-scottishness-im-voting-yes.html

I do know who this guy is and respect his opinion.  In a nutshell: "I'll be voting yes not because it guarantees social justice but because it is the only offer on the table of doing anything whatsoever about it."

[Stu Littlefair]

Stewart - that's a shame, particularly as now I'm curious about what you would have written!

Miso - that's the kind of argument I'd hope to see more of. Of course a counter argument might be that turnout for the referendum is so high many people won't have bothered voting at any general election. It's a shame they couldn't have tried that first.

[tomtom]

The problem with the 'currency' argument is that its dealing with the hypothetical...

Its not a situation that has occurred in recent times in Western Europe - or indeed in the UK... This means there are a considerable amount of known unknowns (the different models - how markets might react) and of course the good old unknown unknowns... So the safest path is to keep things as they are...  BoE and Osbourne have indicated that there will be considerable issues with currency and suggested some of the models proposed will not work. But, how much of this is bluff and how much is real? This we won't find out until/if it happens. The remaining UK is not going to cut off its nose to spite its face - it isnt going to turn around and just ditch Scotland - that is not in anyones interest...

Campaign wise this is an interesting point. The Yes-ers are in a quandry - as if they suggest a route - this leaves them open to be shot down on this issue. If they ignore it they are seen as being complacent.. so they have to strike a middle ground - with a very fluffy/vague plan and lots of rhetoric about it will be alright etc.. We are all in the position of not knowing what will or might happen...

I was thinking on the drive over this afternoon - what if Scotland had devolved (financially and currency wise) from the UK 10-15 years ago.. It may have formed a far more solid banking/investment structure than the semi/full Ponzi style that operated in the UK and not suffered so heavily from the crash (and beared the £13+k per person it will cost for the bailout..). Of course it may have done an Iceland (as many suggested it should 10 years ago..) and ended up being a complete fiscal mess... We don't know.. in the same way we don't know what will happen in the future for the UK or for Scotland.

Easiest option is to err on caution...

I'd give it a bash

On another note - I was listening to Gordon Brown holding forth reassuring the Scottish faithful about how the Labour party would never desert the NHS (that it founded)... which I thought - great Gordon, thats fine, but theres f*ck all you can do about it at the moment because you're not in power... No-one from the BBC to pick up that point eh Nick...

Anyway, enough ramblings from the shallow idealist

[petejh]

^ agree.

Stu / Jasper - risk, uncertainty and the financial costs inherent in separation forms a big part of your argument. So what's your take on the risk and uncertainty inherent in the proposals which have been put forward - with just 2 days left - to make significant changes in policy on how the UK treats Scotland? Bearing in mind we're talking about new powers that haven't been agreed on by anyone in parliament - nor even debated - and which stand a high chance of being blocked. Significant constitutional change offered at the last minute without any consultation - really?! I get your points about the dangers of idealism and the risks involved, but it works both ways and perhaps apply your logic looking the other way at what's being proposed by team status quo.
Is this move reflective of a well-thought-out policy -  which you say is lacking in the independence movement - or do you think, as it seems to me, that it's a haphazard approach and a hastily cobbled together measure which could have profound implications for the rest of the UK?

[tomtom]

Is this move reflective of a well-thought-out policy -  which you say is lacking in the independence movement - or do you think, as it seems to me, that it's a haphazard approach and a hastily cobbled together measure which could have profound implications for the rest of the UK?

It does rather sound like a last gasp measure to try and sway the vote
(we'd heard nothing about this until the first - and only? - poll gave Yes a lead...)...

From media reports: before the last IndyRef way back when - the Govt promised extra powers/levels of devolution to Scotland... which then took 18 years to arrive... I suspect people will remember that promise and treat the above with similar suspicion..

[Stu Littlefair]

Is this move reflective of a well-thought-out policy -  which you say is lacking in the independence movement - or do you think, as it seems to me, that it's a haphazard approach and a hastily cobbled together measure which could have profound implications for the rest of the UK?

Fuck no. It's some back of a fag packet list of concessions that the politicians in Westminster thought they wouldn't have to make, combined with some stuff the scots would have got under a no vote anyway.

However, it does offer some of the advantages of independence with fewer of the risks, so may appeal to the undecideds. I guess the big risk is the party leaders making promises their MPs won't keep...

[Fultonius]

When the inevitable no vote comes in,  those 3 are going to take squirming and backtracking to whole new levels. BTW, this thread has opened my eyes a bit the NHS. My position was maybe not so well thought through.

[Sloper]

Is this move reflective of a well-thought-out policy -  which you say is lacking in the independence movement - or do you think, as it seems to me, that it's a haphazard approach and a hastily cobbled together measure which could have profound implications for the rest of the UK?

Fuck no. It's some back of a fag packet list of concessions that the politicians in Westminster thought they wouldn't have to make, combined with some stuff the scots would have got under a no vote anyway.

However, it does offer some of the advantages of independence with fewer of the risks, so may appeal to the undecideds. I guess the big risk is the party leaders making promises their MPs won't keep...

There's very politicians I would trust, and of those few, most are leaving the house and the remainder are dead.

[Falling Down]

This thread is great BTW, I've learned more than via the big media outlets.. Whichever way it goes its another example of the quality of UKB residents

[Stu Littlefair]

BTW, this thread has opened my eyes a bit the NHS. My position was maybe not so well thought through.

Good to hear that - this thread did the same for my opinions on the currency issue too.

[Falling Down]

A view from someone who was a yes but is now a no.

http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/

This is a very good piece and deserves to be read widely.

[tomtom]

Interesting commentary from (the usually semi obnoxious IMHO) Monbiot from the Grauniad. He raises some very good points about the media coverage of IndyRef... Starting with why no national papers are Pro - despite the obvious amount of public support...

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/media-shafted-people-scotland-journalists

[Stu Littlefair]

The BBC is obviously rattled by accusations of bias - dimbleby is giving Salmond a tremendously easy ride on TV right now.

[petejh]

That's a good piece by Monbot TT. The actions of the media in the last two weeks have been disturbing, like monbot says even (#irony) the guardian have been skewing the message in favour of the union - vested interests, subtle persuasion by people wielding power or simply following the media herd, who knows?

This resonates with me and some of what I've heard on here and elsewhere:
One of the roles of the Guardian, which has no proprietor, is to represent the unrepresented – and it often does so to great effect. On Scottish independence I believe we have fallen short. Our leader on Saturday used the frames constructed by the rest of the press, inflating a couple of incidents into a “habit” by yes campaigners of “attacking the messenger and ignoring the message”, judging the long-term future of the nation by current SNP policy, confusing self-determination with nationalism.

[tomtom]

Aye. He's flagging up some important things.. Some home truths.. I suspect there's much hand wringing in the Grauniad editorial office. I was quite surprised to see then come down on one side with an editorial - thought they'd just leave it.