So basically he asked the Scots not to throw him out of work by being beastly to the English. Instead he is offering them the chance to be beastly to the rich.

Hmm. Could work. Except that most Scots seem to be perfectly happy with racism against the English. And those Scots who are politically a little more sophisticated are probably well aware that higher taxes means higher taxes on people like them. So they are happy to go along with the Nat’s demonisation of the English (c.f. Lenin’s Socialism of Fools).

So it probably won’t work.

But I am here to tell you that we need to make Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, a fairer, more just, place to live.

Yeah, well if to actually campaign to make Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland a fairer, more just place to live then perhaps the Scots would not feel so eager to leave the crumbling UK?

Perhaps if you spent as much time tackling the greed at the top of society instead of re-enforcing the divisions at the bottom of society, perhaps we would feel that we were living in a more just and fairer society?

This is exactly what is wrong with Milliband and the Labour Party. They are all too keen to sit by as people are ruthlessly divided and vilified, but when a side issue comes along, they get all obsessed and involved in something that isn’t really his fight.

The Labour Party has a leadership in Scotland whose job it is to defend the Scottish case in the Union. Keep your nose out of a battle that you have rightly devolved and concentrate on making the Labour Party electable. Do that and Scotland will swing in behind the Labour Party anyway.

Stay on the sidelines of politics reading the recent findings of focus groups while holding a stoic silence? Yeah, you will piss of voters on both sides of the border.

@1 “…most Scots seem to be perfectly happy with racism against the English.”

Well done you! What a clever boy… Now off you go and play with your toys.

(But seriously – “most Scots” are “racist”? Really? And seriously again – grow up.)

PS I’ve never heard any member of the SNP demonise “the English”. I have, however, heard them demonise the residents of Downing Street. I regard them as different – perhaps you don’t. Or are you applying some synecdoche here? (i.e. Downing Street = English)

so much for subtlety,

I quite like most English people I have met, or even shared a web space with. I do not, however, like Westminster policies that apply UK wide but only benefit the square mile. As Ian Rankin said in relation to Cameron’s ‘veto’ :

The United Kingdom consists of 90,060 square miles. David Cameron has fought tooth and nail for 1 of them.

If we cannot criticise our political class without you squealing racism then the game is over. Have you ever read the Daily Mail comment threads on Scottish issues? Now that is racism….

2. Jim

Yeah, well if to actually campaign to make Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland a fairer, more just place to live then perhaps the Scots would not feel so eager to leave the crumbling UK?

I think that is what he was claiming. It is false of course. Because if history teaches us anything, and it doesn’t, blaming a racial or ethnic minority will always find a bigger echo than blaming the rich. The Socialism of Fools is vastly more popular and effective than the Socialism of intellectuals. The Scottish upper and middle classes have every interest to make sure people’s anger is directed at the English and not at them. Works every time.

Perhaps if you spent as much time tackling the greed at the top of society instead of re-enforcing the divisions at the bottom of society, perhaps we would feel that we were living in a more just and fairer society?

Well no. That is unlikely to work. As we have long since lost any basis for agreeing on what is fair or just.

dave

(But seriously – “most Scots” are “racist”? Really? And seriously again – grow up.)

That is not what I said.

dave

PS I’ve never heard any member of the SNP demonise “the English”.

Then you must have been living in a cave. I think it would be hard to argue that the impetus for Scottish independence has been things like Braveheart. It is not as if the Scots gave a damn until recently. This is not 1745. The Scots have no real grounds for complaint. They are not merely equal but favoured members of the Union. It is almost entirely a media campaign – aimed at raising hatred of the English. If that charming little rant against the English in, for instance, Trainspotting, was aimed at Pakistanis the authors would be arrested. But because it was the English no one minds.

I have, however, heard them demonise the residents of Downing Street. I regard them as different – perhaps you don’t. Or are you applying some synecdoche here? (i.e. Downing Street = English)

Well no, after all the inhabitants of Downing street lately have been Scots.

douglas clark

I quite like most English people I have met, or even shared a web space with. I do not, however, like Westminster policies that apply UK wide but only benefit the square mile.

Which is odd because Britain has been run by the Labour Party for much of the last decade and a half. Scottish members of the Labour Party. But that did not change the Scottish appeal of the SNP. It has nothing to do with the Square Mile. You might like most English people you know. Someone once said that the problems with the Germans was to make them understand the problem with Jews was with all of them, including the nice ones they knew personally. Which is a total violation of Godwin’s law I know, but it is still relevant.

As Ian Rankin said in relation to Cameron’s ‘veto’ :

The United Kingdom consists of 90,060 square miles. David Cameron has fought tooth and nail for 1 of them.

To save …. two Scottish banks. Odd that isn’t it?

If we cannot criticise our political class without you squealing racism then the game is over. Have you ever read the Daily Mail comment threads on Scottish issues? Now that is racism….

By all means, criticise the British political class. That would be sensible. But that is not what the Scottish nationalists do. They have no problem with a large chunk of that political class being Scottish. Or rather they need to re-define that class as “really” English, and otherwise insufficiently Scottish. And then they need to go on to smear all English people. You do not criticise a political class by attacking an entire ethnic group. Nor would you support secession.

By all means, the English response to Scottish nationalism is often as racist. As if that makes one little bit of difference. I think we have grown out of saying “But Mum, he is doing it too”.

@1 SMFS

“So basically he asked the Scots not to throw him out of work by being beastly to the English. Instead he is offering them the chance to be beastly to the rich.”

The Scots are’t really in a position to throw him out of work; I think he seems to be doing a fairly decent job of being unelectable without our help. It is likely that the number of Scottish MP’s at Westminster will fall, but that has more to do with the abject failures of Scottish Labour, compounded by their recent miserable performance in the referendum debate. Of course if independence or devo-max happen it will of course result in either zero Scottish MP’s or a reduced number to answer the west lothian question.

Whether Scottish MP’s make that much difference is debatable, altho it’s a card often plated by ignorant and disgruntled little Englanders. The evidence doesn’t support the contention that Celtic Labour MP’s have imposed Labour governments /majorities on England, rather that Scotland and Wales have regularly ended up with Tory governments they didn’t vote for.

As for being “beastly” to the rich (who are you… Bertie Wooster?!…lol), it’s more a question in the minds of most Scots of promoting a fairer more social democratic model. The fact this is so out of step with a lot of “English” society is a major reason for the growing support for further devolution and independence.

“Hmm. Could work. Except that most Scots seem to be perfectly happy with racism against the English. And those Scots who are politically a little more sophisticated are probably well aware that higher taxes means higher taxes on people like them. So they are happy to go along with the Nat’s demonisation of the English (c.f. Lenin’s Socialism of Fools). So it probably won’t work.”

As others have pointed out there are plenty of tub thumping bigots on both side of the debate, but drawing crude generalisations on the basis of their behavious doesn’t get us very far; those who do give them importance they don’t deserve end up looking like weird mono-maniacs along the lines of our benighted friend Bob B who infests this site.

The reason Ed Moribund’s calls won’t work is rather that he has little to offer the Scottish people in the way of actual policies, nor indeed has he even managed to sketch out a position different from that of the Coalition. The Scottish Labour party is thus heading the same way as the Tories and LD’s north of the border; they are increasingly seen as unrepresentative, and not promoting the kind of society and values that Scots want. You may disagree with them, but in the end the Union will collapse because people on both sides of the border don’t care enough about it to save it.

Thus the Labour party and LD’s both in the UK and Scotland more narrowly should be supporting devo-max which is probably what “most” Scots want; instead they find themselves sharing a platform with the Tories, which risks bouncing those undecided or pro devo-max supporters in Scotland into the arms of the SNP.

It is 2.5 years until the referendum, and obviously a lot can change. The signs so far are not good for the Unionist parties however. To say their approach so far has been inept is probably too kind. Even if the result of a 2014 referendum is “no”, the issue isn’t going to go away, it will simply be dererred for a while, particularly if the Tories win the next GE.

Anti English racism in Scotland? Yeah, I hear plenty of that from time to time and I often hear racism aimed at other people. I have never heard anyone from the SNP’s leadership use racism to promote the case for independence, because that is no reason to promote anything. Those people who are as anti English as that are not all that political, to be honest. Then again, I am not surprised to find that some of England’s most petty minded people have had problems in Scotland. No one who has ever read Bob B outpourings will be surprised that he has suffered abuse from the odd bigot.

I genuinely find it funny when some strutting little Englander tells us that he has been all over Europe and everyone, the Krauts, Frogs, Spics and the Wops are ‘anti English’. Yeah, mate, whenever you go, nasty racists hate you because of your ‘Nationality’.

Most Scots, I know, have a good relationship with the ‘English’. Over the years, I have many English, workmates, suppliers and clients who I happily deal with on a weekly or daily basis, but I have never needed to call them ‘English bastards’ or whatever, because surprise, surprise, I know how to deal with people. Even if I have dealt with some nasty people over the years, I have never needed to hark back to a stereotype or allowed that experience to form a prejudice, because the next guy I deal with is a top bloke who knows his trade upside down and back to front.

It is a skill I have been learning since I was five years old.

If the SNP had started an Anti-English shtick, what support they would gain from the morons, they would lose from the rest of us.

I have no interest in the politics of hate or the politics of scapegoating, if I was, why would I have to vote SNP. If I hated people so much, surely I would just vote Labour.

For most of us pro impendence Scots, we are not motivated by a want to be separated from England or the English, we are simply motivated by aspirations to make our own decisions that affect our own lives.

I have far more in common with a working class Londoner than many people in Scotland, but I have no desire to run his life for him, nor should he have undue influence on mine.

The English have chosen a path to walk and Milliband is striding down that path, front and centre, carrying the banner. Good luck to you and yours, but don’t tell me we need to walk this path together, don’t tell me we need to work together to tackle poverty, then fly South to tell Londoners we need to drive the poor into squatter camps.

So Much for Subtlety,

I have little or no time for the present generation of Westminster politicians. Of course there are honourable exceptions but they are few in this government nor the last nor the one before that.

I guess I am lucky that I can vote for a party that is against nuclear power, takes climate change seriously and balances the books so that kids can get a tertiary education, give us free prescriptions and tries within the scope of the current devolution settlement to be social democratic.

The last time I looked both RBS and HBOS were listed on the London Stock Exchange. Regulated by the FSA. I am no more keen on having to bail them out than you are, but normal practice is for liabilities to be based on geographical spread. The ‘scottish’ elements of these two institutions certainly wasn’t 100%.

I blame Brown for what happened as it was mainly during his chancellorship. Although the Tories dodged the bullet in as much as they too would have also gone for a lax regulatory framework. That said many nations throughout the world are picking up the pieces from the sub-prime nonsense.

People say they are astonished that Gordon Brown has only turned up as an MP since his election loss. I am astonished he has the brass neck to turn up at all.

I really don’t get your point about the Jews. My gripe is with the Westminster village, I’d expect, pro rata, that just as many Scotsmen are obnoxious as Englishmen. However, I do not think that these are the sort of people we should be listening to or encouraging as our means of debate.

To the best of my knowledge, the SNP don’t listen to nor encourage any extremists. If they did, I’d leave the party.

Time will tell whether Scotland and England can split without acrimony. BTW quite a lot of people who were born in England, and now live in Scotland, are members of the SNP. This is about civic nationalism, not ethnic nationalism.

“While he won’t draw a direct contrast, the phrase “not here to tell Scots” may be interpreted as criticising Osborne’s approach to preventing a break-up of the Union.”

Hmmnn… I wonder. The approach of both the Scottish and UK Labour party to the referendum issue has gone down like a lead balloon in Scotland. If Ed isn’t overtly criticising Osborne’s approach, he damn well should be!

By aligning themselves with the Tories and the LD’s on this issue, even if they can’t actually bring themselves to share the same platform, Labour in Scotland risk becoming identified with the forces of reaction, and being treated in much the same manner as the other two parties.

Failing to promote increased powers (whether devo-max or just more than the status-quo), and more importantly to be at the centre of the civic movement to bring about such a change is a high risk strategy. It risks driving undecided voters, or those who whilst lukewarm to independence cannot tolerate the status quo, into the arms of the SNP.

Even if the SNP lose the planned 2014 vote, few Scots will trust the Labour party to deliver on the “jam tomorrow” promise of some more devolution, sometime…just trust us. Even if Labour are in power in Westminster after the next GE,there is no guarantee they will be able or willing to deliver devo-max or increased powers for Holyrood.

Turkeys rarely vote for Christmas, and Scottish Labour MP’s and MSP’s are no different. The former won’t like the diminution of their chances at Westminster, and the latter won’t like the influx of former Westminster apparatchiks who suddenly discover an appetite for jobs back at Holyrood when the gravy train in London stops.

By dancing to the Tories tune, Labour have already severely damaged their credibility in Scotland. It isn’t enough to slightly distance yourself from the Tories on this issue, any more than it is enough to offer an economic policy which differs from the Coalition only in degree rather than content!

7. Galen10

The Scots are’t really in a position to throw him out of work; I think he seems to be doing a fairly decent job of being unelectable without our help.

That is true, but it is also hard to deny that the current Labour Party would struggle to get re-elected without the Celtic Fringe.

The evidence doesn’t support the contention that Celtic Labour MP’s have imposed Labour governments /majorities on England, rather that Scotland and Wales have regularly ended up with Tory governments they didn’t vote for.

Actually all the figures I have seen suggest that Labour is unelectable in just England. It is only rarely won with a majority of English votes.

As for being “beastly” to the rich (who are you… Bertie Wooster?!…lol), it’s more a question in the minds of most Scots of promoting a fairer more social democratic model. The fact this is so out of step with a lot of “English” society is a major reason for the growing support for further devolution and independence.

Whatever the Scots are doing, they are not supporting a fairer social model. They may think they are, but they are not. The government already takes 40 pence in the pound or more. That is about as much social justice as a society can take. The Scots, with their horrendous unemployment figures and unfair share of British tax revenue, are demanding more. Good luck to them. Their plans are based on oil. Which is not about fairness either, but an act of God that places a lot of hydrocarbons the Scots have done nothing to earn within their territorial waters. At some point they will have to wake up to reality. This is the one big advantage of Scottish independence – they can’t go on blaming the English forever.

As others have pointed out there are plenty of tub thumping bigots on both side of the debate

No they isn’t. There are some sad people who scribble for the Daily Mail’s anonymous comments page. And then there’s what is rapidly becoming the biggest political party in Scotland. The two are not comparable.

You may disagree with them, but in the end the Union will collapse because people on both sides of the border don’t care enough about it to save it.

Or more likely it will collapse because Salmond picks just the right time, and asks just the right misleading question, downplaying what he really intends, so that he can get 50%+1 at that precise moment.

Even if the result of a 2014 referendum is “no”, the issue isn’t going to go away, it will simply be dererred for a while, particularly if the Tories win the next GE.

Sure. The Scots will be asked and asked and asked again until they vote the right way. A lot like the EU really.

Jim

Anti English racism in Scotland? Yeah, I hear plenty of that from time to time and I often hear racism aimed at other people. I have never heard anyone from the SNP’s leadership use racism to promote the case for independence, because that is no reason to promote anything.

Well we are talking about you Jim. Hardly proof of anything. Besides, dog whistle. You wouldn’t hear it.

Those people who are as anti English as that are not all that political, to be honest. Then again, I am not surprised to find that some of England’s most petty minded people have had problems in Scotland.

The entire case for Scottish independence is based on anti-English feeling. There is no sane case for it. It is not 1745 any more.

It is a skill I have been learning since I was five years old.

Listening to one of LC’s foam-flecked ranters tell us all how he isn’t prejudices is always good for a laugh. Thanks Jim.

douglas clark

I guess I am lucky that I can vote for a party that is against nuclear power, takes climate change seriously and balances the books so that kids can get a tertiary education, give us free prescriptions and tries within the scope of the current devolution settlement to be social democratic.

Lucky in what sense? Renewable energy may well turn out to be the Darien project of a newly independent Scotland. And Scotland can only balance the books because they are subsidised by England. Once the Union goes, Scotland will be screwed. Assuming that they can join the EU.

The last time I looked both RBS and HBOS were listed on the London Stock Exchange. Regulated by the FSA.

Meaningless. Chinese companies are listed on the LSE. And regulated by the useless FSA.

To the best of my knowledge, the SNP don’t listen to nor encourage any extremists. If they did, I’d leave the party.

So they do a better job or PR than, say, the BNP. Big deal.

Time will tell whether Scotland and England can split without acrimony. BTW quite a lot of people who were born in England, and now live in Scotland, are members of the SNP. This is about civic nationalism, not ethnic nationalism.

If it was about civic nationalism there would be no case for independence. It is ethnic nationalism pure and simple.

So Much for Sublety,

1. Renewable energy is hardly the Darien Scheme. What do you propose for your green and pleasant land? Nuclear? Oh! And you are talking rubbish about a subsidy.

2. Fine, pehaps getting a proper regulatory authority should also be in the SNP manifesto?

3. Not what I am saying at all. I am saying that I’ve never heard it from anyone in the SNP hierarchy. That’s a tad different from the BNP. Y’know why? Because we have set our stall out against that sort of nonsense.

4. Your ethnic nationalism point is a straightforward slur. Frankly it is that sort of offensive nonsense that pulls this discussion into the gutter,

You are not as well informend as you like to think you are.

6. So Much For Subtlety

Mr Subtlety you really need to stop believing the rubbish that one reads in the London media. Nobody in Scotland gives a shit about a Mel Gibson movie riddled with historical inaccuracies. The relevance of the anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn is another media invention.

” It is almost entirely a media campaign…”

You do know that almost the entire Scottish media are unionist? Salmond is at about 50% in the polls with hardly any media support. Some individual columnists may support the SNP but most of them are hostile. I say that as someone who is not a nationalist and do not support independence. However, that is just the current reality. I do support further devolution and an end to the handing out of pocket system of the block grant. Some on the left often say that the media influence decides elections. Yet the SNP disprove that by being popular without media support.

The London bubble just do not get it and that is why they invent all these supposed factors behind the push for independence or the devolution of more powers. They just find it inconceivable that anyone could possibly not want to be run by London. At least Miliband is attempting to make a positive case for the union beyond the usual scaremongering and misinformation. Up to now most of those making a positive case tended to be on the right. He really ought to have a word with his dismal Scottish Labour colleagues who have offered nothing but negativity. Scaremongering by Labour considering Keir Hardie suported home rule is a losing strategy. Moreover, the Liberals have supported federalism for over a century and they are as guilty as Labour of negativity. If they want to win they will only do it through arguing a positive case.

What the hell are you on about 1745? The vast majority of Scotland hated the Jacobites. Lowland Scots at the time thought the Gaelic Highlanders were sub-human. There were more lowland Scots troops fighting on the government side at the battle of Culloden than there were English troops in the government forces. Most of Scotland celebrated when the Jacobites were defeated.

the handing out of pocket money system of the block grant.

12. douglas clark

1. Renewable energy is hardly the Darien Scheme. What do you propose for your green and pleasant land? Nuclear? Oh! And you are talking rubbish about a subsidy.

Not yet it isn’t. And with luck Scotland won’t go through with it. But if the SNP sticks to its promises and does, Scotland will be ruined. Nuclear is sensible by way of comparison.

Of course I am not wrong about the subsidy.

2. Fine, pehaps getting a proper regulatory authority should also be in the SNP manifesto?

Good idea.

4. Your ethnic nationalism point is a straightforward slur. Frankly it is that sort of offensive nonsense that pulls this discussion into the gutter,

It is not a slur. It is a simple straight forward description of the reality. If this was about civic nationalism, as the Scots are not remotely discriminated against or have any legitimate civic complaint against the rest of the Union, there would be no Scottish National movement. It is simply hatred of the English. As can be seen by the most popular examples of it. Trainspotting being an excellent example.

Richard W

Mr Subtlety you really need to stop believing the rubbish that one reads in the London media. Nobody in Scotland gives a shit about a Mel Gibson movie riddled with historical inaccuracies. The relevance of the anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn is another media invention.

I am inclined to differ.

You do know that almost the entire Scottish media are unionist? Salmond is at about 50% in the polls with hardly any media support.

Almost the entire Scottish media. With the exception of Scotland’s biggest selling newspaper, the Sun. Murdoch backed the SNP:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13128712

“Historically, many nationalists were perplexed that a party which enjoyed the support of a substantial proportion of Scots was not backed by any mainstream newspapers.

“That started to change in 2007 when a number of titles – including the Sunday Herald and the once slavishly Conservative Scottish Sunday Express – offered varying degrees of support to the SNP’s Holyrood campaign.”

Not with any media support. But it is not the newspapers so much as popular culture such as films.

The London bubble just do not get it and that is why they invent all these supposed factors behind the push for independence or the devolution of more powers. They just find it inconceivable that anyone could possibly not want to be run by London.

Well I would love not to be run by London. But not at the price of being run by the SNP. But each to their own.

What the hell are you on about 1745? The vast majority of Scotland hated the Jacobites. Lowland Scots at the time thought the Gaelic Highlanders were sub-human. There were more lowland Scots troops fighting on the government side at the battle of Culloden than there were English troops in the government forces. Most of Scotland celebrated when the Jacobites were defeated.

There is hardly a single colonial campaign where more locals did not fight for the colonial powers than for the independence movement. I am perfectly aware that Scotland was divided on the issue. Although I object to the phrase sub-human. That is not the point. 1745 led to real injustice and real grievances in Scotland. That time is long past. No one suffers from that any more. If Scots object now, it is not because they are an oppressed colonial population. We have a PM of Scottish descent. Having replaced a Scot. Who replaced a quasi-Scot. Governing on behalf of a Queen who is half Scottish herself. The Scots are not like Black South Africans.

@11 SMFS

“Whatever the Scots are doing, they are not supporting a fairer social model. They may think they are, but they are not. The government already takes 40 pence in the pound or more. That is about as much social justice as a society can take. The Scots, with their horrendous unemployment figures and unfair share of British tax revenue, are demanding more. Good luck to them.”

That’s rather the point; you may disagree with the proposed way Scots want to run their society, but the fact is plenty of other countries (notably those which usually come off best in all the indices of happiness and societal well being) are in places like scandinavia with high relatively higher taxes. An independent Scotland will certainly face challenges, but it will be able to come up with its own solutions thanks very much.

The unfairness in the tax system is the other way. Scotland pays more than its fair share even without oil revenue. It is in fact Scotland (and the poorer regions of England) which subsidise the bleated South East of England where so much of government spending is concentrated. The “subsidy junky” meme so beloved of Unionist bigots has been comprehensively rubbished already; sadly it doesn’t stop the ill informed trotting it out at every opportunity. Repetition doesn’t make it any more convincing.

“Their plans are based on oil. Which is not about fairness either, but an act of God that places a lot of hydrocarbons the Scots have done nothing to earn within their territorial waters. At some point they will have to wake up to reality. This is the one big advantage of Scottish independence – they can’t go on blaming the English forever.”

Not all their plans are based on oil revenues.. although it obviously helps. The trillions of oil revenue already taken out of Scottish waters have essentially kept the British economy afloat for the past 4 decades; where would we all have been without it I wonder? It is interesting that all these Unionists banging on about the feckless, dependent Scots never give them any credit for not listening to the “it’s our oil” line in the 70′s.

As the 1974 McCrone report (which the government suppressed and has only recently been released) noted, an independent Scotland at the time would have been almost embarassingly wealthy. The fact remains, that even if there was no oil, few sensible people doubt Scotland would do very nicely thanks; Unionist scare stories have lost all credibility, as they simply don’t stand up to any scrutiny and have been proven to be factually inaccurate.

I’d suggest it is the English that have more to fear from independence than the Scots; they will finally have to address the problems of their crypto-medieval system, and they won’t be able to blame it all on the nasty Socialists north of the border any more.

SMFS,

Ré expenditure and revenue.

You my care to read this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10389974

which basically says you are wrong.

Strange that capitalists appear to think wind and wave power are worth investing in. In this case, in Scotland:

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/4233-renewables-jobs-boost-for-fife-as-samsung-announce-significant-investment

which basically says you are wrong.

Quite odd how thurled you are to the UK State. That’s a form of nationalism too, dontcha know?

I expect that, once we are independent of each other, we will go our separate ways. But perhaps with a bit more mutual respect than you would like us all to have.

16. Galen10

That’s rather the point; you may disagree with the proposed way Scots want to run their society, but the fact is plenty of other countries (notably those which usually come off best in all the indices of happiness and societal well being) are in places like scandinavia with high relatively higher taxes. An independent Scotland will certainly face challenges, but it will be able to come up with its own solutions thanks very much.

There are, indeed, plenty of other places with higher taxes. And a much more liberal business regime otherwise. Whether Scotland can become one of those is an interesting question. Given it does not have Volvo or Saab. But it does have a lot of failing communities with high welfare dependency. You claim it will be able to come up with its own solutions, well, Scotland wouldn’t be in the Union if that were true would it?

The unfairness in the tax system is the other way. Scotland pays more than its fair share even without oil revenue. It is in fact Scotland (and the poorer regions of England) which subsidise the bleated South East of England where so much of government spending is concentrated. The “subsidy junky” meme so beloved of Unionist bigots has been comprehensively rubbished already; sadly it doesn’t stop the ill informed trotting it out at every opportunity. Repetition doesn’t make it any more convincing.

Sorry but this is not merely nonsense, it is nonsense on stilts. And it won’t be true the more you repeat it. The large earners are in the South East. The largest earners pay most tax. The largest pool of welfare despair are in Scotland and the North. The Scottish get more money per head than the English. These are not open to dispute.

Not all their plans are based on oil revenues.. although it obviously helps. The trillions of oil revenue already taken out of Scottish waters have essentially kept the British economy afloat for the past 4 decades; where would we all have been without it I wonder?

Better off than we are now.

The fact remains, that even if there was no oil, few sensible people doubt Scotland would do very nicely thanks; Unionist scare stories have lost all credibility, as they simply don’t stand up to any scrutiny and have been proven to be factually inaccurate.

Name three.

douglas clark

which basically says you are wrong.

No it doesn’t. It says with some disputed accounting and massive transfers from the South, the Scottish government has a lot more money than it is spending. So what?

Strange that capitalists appear to think wind and wave power are worth investing in. In this case, in Scotland:

If you paid Samsung large sums of money to raise monkeys in Aberdeenshire, they would. It doesn’t mean there is a market for monkeys.

which basically says you are wrong.

It doesn’t even do that. It says, or seems to say, that if Korean companies are paid large bribes they will locate factories in Fife. Assuming that the Scottish government guarantees to buy their products no matter how uneconomic.

Quite odd how thurled you are to the UK State. That’s a form of nationalism too, dontcha know?

Well not really, but if it is, it is civic nationalism. Not ethnic.

I expect that, once we are independent of each other, we will go our separate ways. But perhaps with a bit more mutual respect than you would like us all to have.

I am sure we will. As I said, independence would be a good thing for Scots. Their economy will probably implode, but even if it doesn’t, they will have to do something about their massive welfare problem.

SMFS,

Sorry, you are just completely wrong about everything you say.

There are no ‘massive transfers of money from the South’. That is, in any honest accounting, is a complete untruth. You can squeel, you can quack, but it just ain’t so.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

If you paid Samsung large sums of money to raise monkeys in Aberdeenshire, they would. It doesn’t mean there is a market for monkeys.

Again you miss the point. Samsung, and a lot of other companies think you haven’t a clue. That’s why they invest in renewables. It just so happens that our horrid climate is quite good for offshore wind. It is a commercial decision to invest in Scotland, no doubt they are investing elsewhere too.

Quite odd how thurled you are to the UK State. That’s a form of nationalism too, dontcha know?

Well not really, but if it is, it is civic nationalism. Not ethnic.

And you say my nationalism is ethnic and yours is civic? Bloody hell.

You are having a laugh.

It is Alice through the Looking Glass talking to you.

You know what really hacks me off about you SNFS?

It is that the truth about Scottish financial independence was a secret for the length of the 30 year rule. That document told a totally different story from the one that you and your ilk promulgate.

It was called the McCrone report and it said, inter alia:

The report concluded that North sea oil revenue would have given an independent Scotland one of the strongest currencies in Europe and a large tax surplus. It went on to say that officials advised government ministers on how to take “the wind out of the SNP sails”. The incoming Labour administration classified the document as secret over fears it could give a further boost to the SNP’s policy of Scottish independence.

That is what you did, You lied.

Galen10 @ 16:

“It is in fact Scotland (and the poorer regions of England) which subsidise the bleated South East of England where so much of government spending is concentrated.”

Really? Because all the statistics I’ve seen suggest that the south-east of England pays more into the exchequer than it receives in the form of government spending, unlike most other regions in the UK.

Also, if government spending is concentrated in the south-east, that’s because government spending tends to be concentrated in the capital city. I’d be surprised if Edinburgh didn’t have a higher per capita spending than the rest of Scotland, for example.

@ SMFS

Best to look at the data and not through the lens of the vested interests of the London media.

Here is the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland which uses the HM Treasury figures.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/352173/0118332.pdf

” In 2009-10, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK
Government, Scottish Government and all other tiers of the public sector, plus a per capita share of debt interest payments, was £62.1 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure. ”

So Scottish public expenditure is above the per capita share of the UK population ( 8.6%).

” In 2009-10, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at
£42.2 billion, (8.3 per cent of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per
capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was
estimated at £42.7 billion (8.3 per cent of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £48.1 billion (9.4 per cent of UK total public sector revenue). ”

So Scottish tax receipts to the UK Treasury are in excess of the population share. Moreover, pre-recession the Scottish fiscal balance was in surplus while the UK was running a 3% deficit. Therefore, the subsidy was from north to south.

” In 2009-10, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £14.9 billion (13.4 per cent of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £14.4 billion (12.6 per cent of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £9.0 billion (6.8 per cent of GDP) including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue.

In 2009-10, the UK as a whole ran a current budget deficit, including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, worth £107.3 billion (7.6 per cent of GDP).

In 2009-10, Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £19.9 billion (17.8 per cent of GDP) when excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £19.3 billion (17.0 per cent of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £14.0 billion (10.6 per cent of GDP) when an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.

In 2009-10, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as ‘net borrowing’, was a deficit of £156.5 billion (or 11.1 per cent of GDP). ”

A significant deficit but it was still lower than the deficit that the UK was running.

Moreover, even the Treasuries own figures are subject to much criticism. For example, defence spending is attributable public spending that they say they spend in Scotland. £3 billion is counted and added to Scottish public spending and the actual spending is just over £2 billion. The UK Treasury are very good at with coming up with unidentified public spending that just happens to be spent in the deep south and managing to attribute it throughout the UK even though it is not spent there.

With 8.6% of the UK population Scotland has around a third of the UK land mass. Therefore, it is not difficult to see how providing public services will be more expensive. I would like to see public spending being lower but I understand why logistically some of it is higher. Outside of the Central Belt you have quite dispersed populations. Therefore, road maintenance, education, social services, health services, police and fire services will inevitably be more expensive than in more densely populated areas. Moreover, you have the areas suffering multiple deprivation consuming high levels of public expenditure without any noticeable improvement. The nationalists sarcastically refer to those areas as the Union dividend.

If you are interested in the arguments behind fiscal autonomy Prof. Andrew J. Hughes Hallett of George Mason University who is one of the world’s foremost public finance economists is the man to consult. He had this to say last year.

” Under our blueprint, the Scottish budget for 2007-08 would have been in a strong position and stronger than the UK as a whole, being in balance or a mild deficit (0.8% of GDP). By contrast, the UK would have had a deficit effectively unchanged at 3% of GDP for that year. ”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1585209

There are good arguments for Scotland continuing within the UK. However, you are not making them when you imply that they could not manage on their own when the numbers clearly show that is not true.

19. douglas clark

Again you miss the point. Samsung, and a lot of other companies think you haven’t a clue. That’s why they invest in renewables. It just so happens that our horrid climate is quite good for offshore wind. It is a commercial decision to invest in Scotland, no doubt they are investing elsewhere too.

No, they invest in renewables because the government offers them massive amounts of money to make up for the fact that they are not economically viable. That is, they are a way of destroying value to the economy as a whole. Which is why Samsung is not installing 100% of South Korea’s generating capacity in South Korea. They are not stupid you see. It is a commercial decision to invest where the Fife Council and the Scottish government give them enough cash. Rather like De Lorean building their cars in Northern Ireland.

And you say my nationalism is ethnic and yours is civic? Bloody hell.

There is no such thing as the British people. There is such a thing as the Scots. Britain is a state, it is not a nation. Scotland is not yet a state, but it is a nation. It is what it is. Whether you or I like it.

douglas clark

It is that the truth about Scottish financial independence was a secret for the length of the 30 year rule. That document told a totally different story from the one that you and your ilk promulgate. It was called the McCrone report and it said, inter alia: The report concluded that North sea oil revenue would have given an independent Scotland one of the strongest currencies in Europe and a large tax surplus.

So for one brief moment in the 1970s when oil prices were high, Scotland would have done well on an ocean of oil. So what?

Richard W

There are good arguments for Scotland continuing within the UK. However, you are not making them when you imply that they could not manage on their own when the numbers clearly show that is not true.

The numbers do not show that is not true. The numbers show that Scotland has moments, usually when oil prices are high, when they would keep their heads above water. It does not say much about the long term health of the economy.

Richard W @ 22:

I don’t think that working out the financial position of an independent Scotland is as simple as just subtracting government spending from taxes received by the Exchequer. I doubt, for example, that the Scottish economy would be doing nearly so well had RBS and HBOS collapsed, as would probably have happened had Scotland been independent at the time.

@ SMFS

I actually agree with you about oil prices. The nationalists make too much of a case around oil prices. Moreover, I take the view that in national budgets most of the revenue from oil should not be spent in recurring fiscal expenditure. The receipts should be invested in a national sovereign wealth fund and the investment income from the SWF should be used for fiscal spending. There are lots of reasons to do that but primarily it reduces the exposure of government finances to fluctuating oil prices. But I am not making a nationalist case here. Just trying to clarify some issues and asking for an honest appraisal of the issues.

Personally, I find the whole arguments about who contributes what a bit unseemly. Debates about independence and self-determination should be about higher ideals than whether one will be better off or worse off. Lots of areas contribute more to national finances than they get back. However, society should be about more than just getting back exactly what one contributes. Everyone benefits in some way or another through living in a stable society even if an area or person contributes more than they get back. All I want to see is better governance throughout the UK because I do not think our governance is very good. Therefore, if more devolution for Scotland makes politicians responsible for raising the money that they spend, that is something that I will support.

@ 24. XXX

I agree with you that one can’t just subtract spending from revenue. However, it provides a useful simple demonstration for the purposes here. Moreover, one can’t just assume that in an independent Scotland public spending would continue pro-rata to what it is in the UK. The UK has the fourth or fifth largest defence budget in the world. An independent Scotland would be highly unlikely to continue with that pro-rata spending. The same thing with foreign and diplomatic services and lots of other examples that would change.

The issue of what would have happened if Scotland had been independent when RBS and HBOS virtually collapsed is an interesting point. The first thing to say is an independent Scotland could not have saved them and would have been foolish to try. In 2008, RBS had 170,000 employees spread across the globe. Combined those two banks employed 200,000 employees with only one in six in Scotland. Therefore, it would not have been the responsibility of an independent Scottish government to save them. As john Kay points out in a good essay below their liabilities were not the liabilities of the people in Scotland. Therefore, their operations would have had to be ring fenced to the states that they operated in.

http://www.johnkay.com/2010/02/16/narrow-banking-and-all-that

@ SMFS and XXX

Anyone with access to the internet and a bit of common sense can soon find out that your arguments are spurious. The lies about Scotland being “too wee, too poor and too stupid” to cope on its own have been comprehensively rubbished. There is no foundation to your assertions (for that is what they are) that Scotland could not survive on its own, or would implode economically, whether it was fortunate enough to have North Sea oil or not. Go and actually look at the figures, they are widely available, and have been extensively debated. Any reasonable person (which I realise excludes both of you, but its worth repeating for the less ideologically blinkered) would look at the evidence and conclude that your position is baseless.

As Ricahrd W points out @25 however, in the end it isn’t just (or even mostly)about economics. People won’t make their minds up simply on the basis of whether they will be better or worse off. If that HAD been true, then declaring independence in the 1970′s would have been a no-brainer. Despite the misinformation above, there is still decades of oil left, and more to be expoited in more difficult areas west of Shetland etc. No doubt a Scottish governemtn can establish a sovereign wealth fund like that in Norway rather than piss it all away as successive UK governments have done.

In lots of areas of expenditure (as Richard again points out) an independent Scotland would be able to make huge opportunity savings, e.g. in defence where Scots contribute their share pro-rata via taxes, and get nothing like the same return spent or invested in Scotland. An independent Scotland could spend and invest more on defence within Scotland than is currently the case, and still make hundreds of millions of savings to spend on other priorities.