Scottish Independence

[Jacob]

I think the party most in trouble here are Labour.

How so?

[Sheilbh]

Interesting.

Was that expected? And what are the implications?

I expected him to step down as First Minister at the end of this term (2016) as he'd always said he'd serve a full term. So it's a surprise to be honest. And for Scotland a big change. He's more or less been leader of the SNP for the last 25 years.

It could be that they've just decided to escalate that so the SNP have time for a leadership contest after their November conference and set their own agenda before the next Scottish elections.

Part of it has been that he's run the SNP, with a brief break after the Scottish Parliament was introduced, since 1990 and the impression I get is that he's never really built up a power base in the party. Rather they stuck with him because he was a great politician and very charismatic. In the campaign it really became a double act with his deputy (and likely successor) Nicola Sturgeon performing very well. From what I've read she's got more of an internal base and now she's been tested it may have been hinted to him that it was time for a new approach.

Alternately there may have been a deal with Sturgeon that if it was no he'd step down.

If Sturgeon does succeed him it'd mean Scottish Labour, SNP and Scottish Tories are all lead by women which is nice.

[Sheilbh]

How so?

The Lib Dems have always supported a form of federalisation so there's no shift for them. They don't even use 'devolution' or 'devomax' preferring 'home rule' which they've supported in some way or other since Gladstone.

A lot of Tories are now coming out in support of quite strong devolution to Scotland and some form of similar devolution to England including full income tax changing powers.

Labour, so far, are looking far more coy. For example on income tax they've only suggested that the Scottish Parliament should be able to adjust it slightly from the UK base rate - and not cut it below that rate. Similarly they look very uncomfortable with the idea of English votes on English issues and favour less powerful regional assemblies that, I suspect, won't gain any support among voters. So they've got a policy problem of sorts.

Added to that I think they could have a political problem too. I suspect that UKIP will go in very strong on English votes for English issues and given the support they picked up in Labour areas in the European and Local elections, and scandals like Rotherham, they may do very well with that sort of policy in the 'left behind' Labour areas. In addition a big surprise last night was that the SNP didn't do best in their heartlands, but in Labour's. It's the 'left behind' voters of Clydeside who wanted to get away from Westminster (a similar situation as in England) not the slightly better off, older areas the SNP tend to do well in. If Labour go to their Scottish voters with the weakest offer on devolution then the SNP will be campaigning there very aggressively.

So I don't think they've got a policy that works for Scotland or England yet, I think in comparison with the other major parties they are most likely to offer something pretty disappointing and on both sides of the border they've now got political opponents who are getting organised and will take advantage of that weakness. Labour have depended to an extent on the 30-35% of people who'd never vote Tory. UKIP and the SNP may give them an alternative.

[Sheilbh]

Interestingly, which I hadn't realised, Salmond always said on the campaign trail that he thought this referendum should settle the issue for at least twenty years. But he also qualified that with his view, his successor may disagree (though I think Scotland'll be exhausted after a campaign that's lasted two years)

[Richard Hakluyt]

Robert Peston over at the BBC has produced an intro to some of the possible implications of devolved tax raising etc etc

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29278544


"The big question about the Prime Minister's plan to hand more control over taxes, spending and welfare to the four nations is how far this would end the subsidy of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by England, and especially by London and the South East.

For all that it may sound attractive to the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish to have greater influence over their respective economic destinies, presumably that would be less desirable if at a stroke they became poorer.

The point is that as and when there is an English parliament for English people - of the sort that the former Tory minister John Redwood has been demanding, and David Cameron seemed to concede today - the financial transfer from England to the rest of the UK may be harder to sustain.

So these constitutional reforms will be tricky, if not dangerous - if at least a part of the current glue that holds the UK together is a redistribution of resources from England to the rest, and that glue is progressively removed.

Being British right now means in part that public services and living standards are not too far apart in quantum and quality wherever you happen to live. But what if the overhaul of the UK's budget-making or fiscal constitution waters down that glue.

How much is at stake?

Well, spending on public-sector services per head is highest in Northern Ireland, £10,900 and it is lowest in England, at £8,500.

The figure for Scotland - beneficiary of the famous or notorious Barnett Formula, which formalises an income transfer from England to Scotland - is £10,200.

So expenditure on public services in Scotland is a fifth higher per person than south of the border, and it is 28% higher in Northern Ireland.

In Wales, the increment on public-service spending is 14% - which the Welsh have often complained is too little, compared with the transfer of income to Scotland.

Now one way of looking at the scale of the transfer is to look at the amount of income - or what is known as gross value added - generated in each country.

So English gross value added per head is highest, at just under £22,000, and it is lowest in Wales at £15,400.

The English enjoy public-service spending per annum equivalent to under 40% of the income they generate, whereas annual outlays on public services in Wales are equivalent to more than 60% of nationally generated income per head.

The ratios for Scotland and Northern Ireland are just over 50% and not far off 70% respectively.

In a UK of considerable social and cultural solidarity that prevailed for most of the twentieth century, these sorts of disparities between income and outlay between the nations were relatively uncontroversial: they captured the idea that all UK citizens are in it together, as it were.

But today it seems almost inevitable that in David Cameron's brave new world of greater national fiscal self-determination, some English nationalist MPs on the right of the spectrum may increasingly view Wales - and Scotland and Northern Ireland - as de facto socialist paradises excessively featherbedded by the English.

That said, if the nations are given much greater control over income taxes - which appears to be what is on offer - could they not pay for whatever public services they feel they need out of these locally levied taxes?

Not remotely.

Income and other direct taxes per head in Wales raise £5,564, considerably less than the UK average of £7,360, and nowhere near enough to cover public service expenditure.

There is a similar mismatch between direct income taxes and public spending throughout the UK.

Borrowing and indirect taxes, mostly VAT, make up the difference. And there is not the faintest chance that national parliaments will be given the power to increase VAT, because this would be an admin nightmare for businesses and undermine the UK as a frictionless single market.

All of which means that it may sound exciting and empowering in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland to make their own choices about taxing and spending.

But it may also be a bit nerve-wracking (or worse) if it provides cover for Westminster to reduce the income transferred to them from English taxpayers."

[PJL]

I'm not sure we're completely out of the woods re the break up of the UK either. Apparently when Alex Salmond pressed Dave on a timetable for more powers, the PM said it was a meaningless process. If that's true, it's likely to galvanise even a lot of the No voters into antipathy. That plus Labours lukewarm reaction to the current proposals means we could have another crisis soon anyway. It's not looking too good.

[Josquius]

I'm just praying we don't get an English parliament

[Grey Fox]

I'm just praying we don't get an English parliament

Why? You need one.

[Josquius]

I'm just praying we don't get an English parliament

Why? You need one.

We don't. It's utterly pointless. A separate parliament for 90% of the population, 1/3 of which already has their own separate parliament?
Regional devolution is the only sensible way to go.

[Grey Fox]

I'm confused.

What's the difference between having an England Only Parliament and regional devolution?

Are you saying you want it even more local than the big 4 + National?

[Josquius]

I'm confused.

What's the difference between having an England Only Parliament and regional devolution?

Are you saying you want it even more local than the big 4 + National?

Yes.
England broken up into 5 or 6 bits gives a more comparable size to the other nations.

[Grey Fox]

Local government is good idea no matter the forms.

[Warspite]

Or you make Westminster a purely English parliament, and make a new body to handle - with substantially fewer seats - centralised affairs such as defence, foreign policy and economic and trade policy.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes.
England broken up into 5 or 6 bits gives a more comparable size to the other nations.

Why do they need to be a comparable size?

[Josquius]

Yes.
England broken up into 5 or 6 bits gives a more comparable size to the other nations.

Why do they need to be a comparable size?

Because federalism is crazy when one state is bigger than all the others combined five times over.