UK Election - (Political - not Gossip, Sex or Literary)

[neonlyte]

Well... we here in the UK are less than a year away from an election.

For the benefit of USA readers, in the UK we have General Elections at least every five years, a ruling government can call the election earlier, or an election can be forced earlier by the loss of a vote of confidence in the ruling government. We ahve two main parties, Conservative (Republican) and Labour (Democrat). A third party, the Liberal Party, has not been in a position to influence the outcome of an election for about a hundred years.

I have one wish for the coming election: stop Politicking and start Governing.

Ranked major issues (for me):
Environment (Global Warming)
Social inclusion
Education
Health

On the latter, I have nothing but praise despite the representations made in trans-Atlantic press in recent months.

 

[Epmd607]

Well... we here in the UK are less than a year away from an election.

For the benefit of USA readers, in the UK we have General Elections at least every five years, a ruling government can call the election earlier, or an election can be forced earlier by the loss of a vote of confidence in the ruling government. We ahve two main parties, Conservative (Republican) and Labour (Democrat). A third party, the Liberal Party, has not been in a position to influence the outcome of an election for about a hundred years.

I have one wish for the coming election: stop Politicking and start Governing.

Ranked major issues (for me):
Environment (Global Warming)
Social inclusion
Education
Health

On the latter, I have nothing but praise despite the representations made in trans-Atlantic press in recent months.

American politics are a mess, but I've been following what's going on in England for years. You guys might even be in worse shape than us, in terms of having no leadership and having an economy that can't quite borrow as much as us. Good luck with that, I kind of hope Labour loses big, they're as embarrassing as the american Democratic party(Not that I'd back the conservative or republican party instead...)

 

[neonlyte]

American politics are a mess, but I've been following what's going on in England for years. You guys might even be in worse shape than us, in terms of having no leadership and having an economy that can't quite borrow as much as us. Good luck with that, I kind of hope Labour loses big, they're as embarrassing as the american Democratic party(Not that I'd back the conservative or republican party instead...)

I don't think currently there is much doubt that Labour will lose. It depends on whose lies are the most convincing. None of the three have the guts to admit higher taxation is the immediate solution largely because we don't trust any party to wisely spend the money raised through taxation.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Obama and the Democrats are in serious trouble if the Republicans find an articulate candidate able to congeal the kinetic anger of the American People; but it isnt likely to happen because the Republicans are as invested in the status quo as Democrats, and no existing Republican has an itch to cleanse the Temple of money-changers.

If a Lincoln comes along Obama will be another impotent James Buchanan.

 

[ishtat]

I don't think currently there is much doubt that Labour will lose.

To lose Labor has to do so by an overall margin in excess of 8.5%. Remember that the Tories had a majority of the votes in 1996 but they lost because they tend to win many of their constituencies by huge margins and many of those extra votes were ineffective.

Labour has a huge majority of around 165, something like that. A more likely scenario may be a stalemate where Labour loses 95% of its current majority but wins with a tiny majority. The precedent was the 1950 election where Labour was returned but with such a masive cut in their majority they were effectively crippled.

 

[neonlyte]

To lose Labor has to do so by an overall margin in excess of 8.5%. Remember that the Tories had a majority of the votes in 1996 but they lost because they tend to win many of their constituencies by huge margins and many of those extra votes were ineffective.

Labour has a huge majority of around 165, something like that. A more likely scenario may be a stalemate where Labour loses 95% of its current majority but wins with a tiny majority. The precedent was the 1950 election where Labour was returned but with such a masive cut in their majority they were effectively crippled.

The margins between the two major parties will undoubtedly reduce as the election looms. Listening to and reading the press, there is the notion that three successive terms is enough for any government, quite how much that is felt outside of the media is anyone's guess. From my own POV, Labour fails to explain what it has achieved over three successive terms. I fear they will resort to pointing fingers over the expenses saga during campaigning rather than clearly address past achievements and a future path. It's always been easier to stir the mud than to use it to build castles.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Well... we here in the UK are less than a year away from an election.

For the benefit of USA readers, in the UK we have General Elections at least every five years, a ruling government can call the election earlier, or an election can be forced earlier by the loss of a vote of confidence in the ruling government. We ahve two main parties, Conservative (Republican) and Labour (Democrat). A third party, the Liberal Party, has not been in a position to influence the outcome of an election for about a hundred years.

I have one wish for the coming election: stop Politicking and start Governing.

Ranked major issues (for me):
Environment (Global Warming)
Social inclusion
Education
Health

On the latter, I have nothing but praise despite the representations made in trans-Atlantic press in recent months.

I don't think currently there is much doubt that Labour will lose. It depends on whose lies are the most convincing. None of the three have the guts to admit higher taxation is the immediate solution largely because we don't trust any party to wisely spend the money raised through taxation.

I don't think there's much doubt that Labour will lose, either. They deserve to. They have made themselves the party of lies and deceit, and their rush to the right in pursuit of the votes of middle England has left them with no principles and damned few activists. But I think the really interesting issue for the UK election is none of those things; I think the real issue is the break up of the United Kingdom.

OK, I'm a nationalist, and I've been a nationalist most of my adult life. But I believe I'm also a realist; I don't think I'm grasping at straws here.

Yes, I know it is largely expatriate Scots who have led the Labour party into right wing popularism. But the Scottish Labour Party is a long way left of the UK Labour Party, and with reason - the Scottish electorate is a full doppler shift left of the English electorate, and is heading rapidly the other way. Three of the parties represented in the Scottish Parliament (including the government) are to the left even of Scottish Labour.

Scotland does not want another fifteen years of Conservative rule, and a Conservative victory south of the border looks more and more inevitable. Meantime the nationalists are half way through their first ever term of government at Holyrood, and even people who are not nationalists acknowledge that they've made a pretty decent fist of it.

So we're faced with the prospect of a Conservative-led administration in Westminster - perhaps without an overall majority, and with few if any seats north of the border, facing a very substantial number of nationalists; possibly even a majority of Scottish seats in nationalist hands. And even younger Labour politicians from Scotland will be looking at the choice between a generation in the political wilderness at Westminster, or a reasonable chance of power in an independent Scotland.

None of this makes independence inevitable, of course. But it gives Wee Alec - who is one of Britain's better political operators these days - an excellent chance to negotiate at the very least greatly enhanced devolution. And although Scotland's people probably would not vote for independence if you held a referendum tomorrow, a Conservative government at Westminster would swing a very large number of votes.

So where does this take your hot topic issues? They were

• Environment (Global Warming)
  • Scotland is already way ahead of target on renewable energy, and has an unreasonably proportion of all the UK's renewable energy. The nationalist's opposition to nuclear power makes new nuclear very unlikely in Scotland, but that isn't a problem because even when both of our existing reactors are down for repair we're still exporting very large amounts of electricity to both England and Northern Ireland. And we have very large new wind, hydro and tidal power systems in development and yet to come on stream.
  • Without Scotland's contribution, England's renewable energy position looks pretty weak. With higher population density you get even more opposition to wind farms, and short of the Bristol Channel barrage you have few other major options. So nuclear it's going to have to be.
• Social inclusion
  • In Scotland, social care for the elderly in their own homes is free; in England, it isn't.
  • In Scotland, travel on public transport for the elderly is free; I think it now is in England, too, but you're following our lead.
• Education
  • In Scotland, we've just legally mandated a maximum primary one class size of 25, against 30 in England.
  • Our university students get their fees paid, unlike English students. Not everything in the education garden is rosy, of course, but this is another of those places where gaps are opening up across the border.
• Health
  • In Scotland, health is still very much in the public sector, with very considerable public resistance to even the faintest hints of private sector involvement.
  • Scotland is making rapid strides towards towards free prescriptions for all.
  • Scotland spends considerably more per capita on health than England. Nevertheless it has to be admitted that outcomes are generally less good.
  • Meantime, in England, there are regular moves by politicians to move more of health provision into the private sector.
  • In Scotland, smoking in public places is banned, and we are moving towards minimum pricing for alcohol (OK, so our problems in this area are worse)

This could be read as saying 'Scotland is doing better than England' - and, of course, on these measures we are. But that's because these are by and large left wing measures - and Scotland is politically far to the left of England. Of course, if Scotland does become independent, that may make the position of the left in England even more beleaguered, but it also gives you the opportunity to point to what we're doing and say 'look at what they've got - wouldn't you like to have that here?'

 

[penandpaper]

I don't think there's much doubt that Labour will lose, either. They deserve to. They have made themselves the party of lies and deceit, and their rush to the right in pursuit of the votes of middle England has left them with no principles and damned few activists. But I think the really interesting issue for the UK election is none of those things; I think the real issue is the break up of the United Kingdom.

OK, I'm a nationalist, and I've been a nationalist most of my adult life. But I believe I'm also a realist; I don't think I'm grasping at straws here.

Yes, I know it is largely expatriate Scots who have led the Labour party into right wing popularism. But the Scottish Labour Party is a long way left of the UK Labour Party, and with reason - the Scottish electorate is a full doppler shift left of the English electorate, and is heading rapidly the other way. Three of the parties represented in the Scottish Parliament (including the government) are to the left even of Scottish Labour.

Scotland does not want another fifteen years of Conservative rule, and a Conservative victory south of the border looks more and more inevitable. Meantime the nationalists are half way through their first ever term of government at Holyrood, and even people who are not nationalists acknowledge that they've made a pretty decent fist of it.

So we're faced with the prospect of a Conservative-led administration in Westminster - perhaps without an overall majority, and with few if any seats north of the border, facing a very substantial number of nationalists; possibly even a majority of Scottish seats in nationalist hands. And even younger Labour politicians from Scotland will be looking at the choice between a generation in the political wilderness at Westminster, or a reasonable chance of power in an independent Scotland.

None of this makes independence inevitable, of course. But it gives Wee Alec - who is one of Britain's better political operators these days - an excellent chance to negotiate at the very least greatly enhanced devolution. And although Scotland's people probably would not vote for independence if you held a referendum tomorrow, a Conservative government at Westminster would swing a very large number of votes.

So where does this take your hot topic issues? They were

• Environment (Global Warming)
  • Scotland is already way ahead of target on renewable energy, and has an unreasonably proportion of all the UK's renewable energy. The nationalist's opposition to nuclear power makes new nuclear very unlikely in Scotland, but that isn't a problem because even when both of our existing reactors are down for repair we're still exporting very large amounts of electricity to both England and Northern Ireland. And we have very large new wind, hydro and tidal power systems in development and yet to come on stream.
  • Without Scotland's contribution, England's renewable energy position looks pretty weak. With higher population density you get even more opposition to wind farms, and short of the Bristol Channel barrage you have few other major options. So nuclear it's going to have to be.
• Social inclusion
  • In Scotland, social care for the elderly in their own homes is free; in England, it isn't.
  • In Scotland, travel on public transport for the elderly is free; I think it now is in England, too, but you're following our lead.
• Education
  • In Scotland, we've just legally mandated a maximum primary one class size of 25, against 30 in England.
  • Our university students get their fees paid, unlike English students. Not everything in the education garden is rosy, of course, but this is another of those places where gaps are opening up across the border.
• Health
  • In Scotland, health is still very much in the public sector, with very considerable public resistance to even the faintest hints of private sector involvement.
  • Scotland is making rapid strides towards towards free prescriptions for all.
  • Scotland spends considerably more per capita on health than England. Nevertheless it has to be admitted that outcomes are generally less good.
  • Meantime, in England, there are regular moves by politicians to move more of health provision into the private sector.
  • In Scotland, smoking in public places is banned, and we are moving towards minimum pricing for alcohol (OK, so our problems in this area are worse)

This could be read as saying 'Scotland is doing better than England' - and, of course, on these measures we are. But that's because these are by and large left wing measures - and Scotland is politically far to the left of England. Of course, if Scotland does become independent, that may make the position of the left in England even more beleaguered, but it also gives you the opportunity to point to what we're doing and say 'look at what they've got - wouldn't you like to have that here?'

Out of curiosity - where is Ireland in that mix? Simply interested.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I don't think there's much doubt that Labour will lose, either. They deserve to. They have made themselves the party of lies and deceit, and their rush to the right in pursuit of the votes of middle England has left them with no principles and damned few activists. But I think the really interesting issue for the UK election is none of those things; I think the real issue is the break up of the United Kingdom.

OK, I'm a nationalist, and I've been a nationalist most of my adult life. But I believe I'm also a realist; I don't think I'm grasping at straws here.

Yes, I know it is largely expatriate Scots who have led the Labour party into right wing popularism. But the Scottish Labour Party is a long way left of the UK Labour Party, and with reason - the Scottish electorate is a full doppler shift left of the English electorate, and is heading rapidly the other way. Three of the parties represented in the Scottish Parliament (including the government) are to the left even of Scottish Labour.

Scotland does not want another fifteen years of Conservative rule, and a Conservative victory south of the border looks more and more inevitable. Meantime the nationalists are half way through their first ever term of government at Holyrood, and even people who are not nationalists acknowledge that they've made a pretty decent fist of it.

So we're faced with the prospect of a Conservative-led administration in Westminster - perhaps without an overall majority, and with few if any seats north of the border, facing a very substantial number of nationalists; possibly even a majority of Scottish seats in nationalist hands. And even younger Labour politicians from Scotland will be looking at the choice between a generation in the political wilderness at Westminster, or a reasonable chance of power in an independent Scotland.

None of this makes independence inevitable, of course. But it gives Wee Alec - who is one of Britain's better political operators these days - an excellent chance to negotiate at the very least greatly enhanced devolution. And although Scotland's people probably would not vote for independence if you held a referendum tomorrow, a Conservative government at Westminster would swing a very large number of votes.

So where does this take your hot topic issues? They were

• Environment (Global Warming)
  • Scotland is already way ahead of target on renewable energy, and has an unreasonably proportion of all the UK's renewable energy. The nationalist's opposition to nuclear power makes new nuclear very unlikely in Scotland, but that isn't a problem because even when both of our existing reactors are down for repair we're still exporting very large amounts of electricity to both England and Northern Ireland. And we have very large new wind, hydro and tidal power systems in development and yet to come on stream.
  • Without Scotland's contribution, England's renewable energy position looks pretty weak. With higher population density you get even more opposition to wind farms, and short of the Bristol Channel barrage you have few other major options. So nuclear it's going to have to be.
• Social inclusion
  • In Scotland, social care for the elderly in their own homes is free; in England, it isn't.
  • In Scotland, travel on public transport for the elderly is free; I think it now is in England, too, but you're following our lead.
• Education
  • In Scotland, we've just legally mandated a maximum primary one class size of 25, against 30 in England.
  • Our university students get their fees paid, unlike English students. Not everything in the education garden is rosy, of course, but this is another of those places where gaps are opening up across the border.
• Health
  • In Scotland, health is still very much in the public sector, with very considerable public resistance to even the faintest hints of private sector involvement.
  • Scotland is making rapid strides towards towards free prescriptions for all.
  • Scotland spends considerably more per capita on health than England. Nevertheless it has to be admitted that outcomes are generally less good.
  • Meantime, in England, there are regular moves by politicians to move more of health provision into the private sector.
  • In Scotland, smoking in public places is banned, and we are moving towards minimum pricing for alcohol (OK, so our problems in this area are worse)

This could be read as saying 'Scotland is doing better than England' - and, of course, on these measures we are. But that's because these are by and large left wing measures - and Scotland is politically far to the left of England. Of course, if Scotland does become independent, that may make the position of the left in England even more beleaguered, but it also gives you the opportunity to point to what we're doing and say 'look at what they've got - wouldn't you like to have that here?'

Just for curiosity's sake, where's the employment question in all this? Normally a dependence on government looks really good when the private sector isn't doing very well. Can Scotland actually support all these freebies on its own? Traditionally, Scotland was dependent on sending its young men to fight England's wars. Then came the heavy industry based in Firth's shipyards. But with the shipbuilding industry all gone to Poland and China, what supports Scotland, now?

 

[SimonBrooke]

Just for curiosity's sake, where's the employment question in all this? Normally a dependence on government looks really good when the private sector isn't doing very well. Can Scotland actually support all these freebies on its own? Traditionally, Scotland was dependent on sending its young men to fight England's wars. Then came the heavy industry based in Firth's shipyards. But with the shipbuilding industry all gone to Poland and China, what supports Scotland, now?

That's a good question, and worth asking. The answer, at this moment, is energy, both fossil (mainly oil) and renewable (mainly wind - after Patagonia, Scotland has the highest average windspeeds of anywhere on Earth), and we export both in large quantities. But there are continual and unsettled arguments over the extent to which Scotland subidises England (or vice-versa).

There are many costs the UK has that an independent Scotland would not have. We would not be a 'World Power', and consequently would not need the trappings of 'World Power' status, so, for example, no nuclear submarines and greatly reduced armed forces.

Scotland is exactly average sized among the nations of the world, whether you consider population or land area. We have some natural economic advantages (that wind speed, for example, very strong tidal currents, and some mineral reserves including oil). We have good universities and on the whole still a well educated population - although where 150 years ago Scots were on average significantly better educated than people in competing economies this is no longer true.

We've also been exporting our best, brightest and most entrepreneurial people for the past three hundred years, and we now have a relatively low rate of business startup.

So it isn't possible to say that an independent Scotland would somehow magically become a rich nation, but there's absolutely no reason to believe we would be poorer than we are now.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Out of curiosity - where is Ireland in that mix? Simply interested.

The Republic of Ireland has been independent for eighty-five years. Northern Ireland remains a province of the United Kingdom, although I suspect that if there were now a major shakeup of the constitutional arrangements it might well choose to join the Republic.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The Republic of Ireland has been independent for eighty-five years. Northern Ireland remains a province of the United Kingdom, although I suspect that if there were now a major shakeup of the constitutional arrangements it might well choose to join the Republic.

That I disagree with. From what we see here on this side of the Pond, NI is more royalist than London. NI will join the Republic when there is a major down turn in Infernal temperatures.

 

[SimonBrooke]

That I disagree with. From what we see here on this side of the Pond, NI is more royalist than London. NI will join the Republic when there is a major down turn in Infernal temperatures.

Well, hey, don't listen to me, I only live an hour's drive from the ferry.

Seriously, yes the so called 'Loyalists' in Northern Ireland are very royalist. Guess what, they're a minority of the protestant community, which is in itself now a minority of the population of Northern Ireland (note, the fact that the protestants are a minority does not make the catholics a majority - they're a minority too). But the point is that a minority of a minority may be very noisy and vocal but it does not win elections.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Okay, then, if the Protestants are a minority and the Catholics are a minority, is there a large Secular population that would vote with the Catholics to permit 're-unification' without a return of The Troubles? Pardon my skepticism but it seems to me that Peace would have a much larger constituency than Progressivism. But what do I know? I live on the Pacific.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Simon, you miss the point really.

Nationalism is fine (is that Patriotism or Racism?) – I love it when the Red Sox stuff the Yankees – but it’s not devolution or independence. The only reason that small regions can have a quasi-autonomous existence in Europe is because, for good or bad, a supranational entity, the EU, has been created that now controls about 70% of activities in Scotland and Europe and, with the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty, that percentage will raise inexorably.

You may have power to decide trifling local issues, but from everything from the light bulbs you use, the way you tax sales, to the public aid you give to industries, you are already in thrall to a hydra that will not rest until it has total control.

In the US we have found an uneasy balance between federal and state competences. Your argument about right-wing government in London is just silly. We suffer swings every decade or so and, of course, us east-coasters, had a tad of a problem with Bush, just as the South is spluttering over Obama.

It’s called representative democracy and you already seem to have enough local control for it not to be a problem.

An independent (?) Scotland won’t need defence. So who will cover security issues?

 

[SimonBrooke]

Simon, you miss the point really.

Nationalism is fine (is that Patriotism or Racism?) – I love it when the Red Sox stuff the Yankees – but it’s not devolution or independence. The only reason that small regions can have a quasi-autonomous existence in Europe is because, for good or bad, a supranational entity, the EU, has been created that now controls about 70% of activities in Scotland and Europe and, with the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty, that percentage will raise inexorably.

Yes, and that's precisely the point. We don't need two layers of supra national governance on top of us. One's enough - and Europe, where we're an average sized country and have enough other average sized countries with which to form coalitions, gives us far more freedom than the UK in which we're in a permanent minority.

'Nationalism' is neither patriotism nor racism. Scots are in no position to be racist - we are explicitly a mongrel nation, and have been since the kingdom was founded in 848 AD; the only people with any claim to be pure-bred Scots are Clan Campbell (and for a lot of them it's dubious ). Nationalism is about better governance - about stripping away a whole unnecessary layer of governance. You're absolutely right - we'll still be in Europe, which has a significant influence (although not as much as you seem to think). Why, then, do we need the United Kingdom?

In the US we have found an uneasy balance between federal and state competences. Your argument about right-wing government in London is just silly. We suffer swings every decade or so and, of course, us east-coasters, had a tad of a problem with Bush, just as the South is spluttering over Obama.

It’s called representative democracy and you already seem to have enough local control for it not to be a problem.

An independent (?) Scotland won’t need defence. So who will cover security issues?

An independent Scotland will of course need defence, just as similarly sized countries like the Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark do. But we'll need a lot less defence. We won't need nuclear missile submarines, or aircraft carriers, or main battle tanks, because we won't be fighting other people's illegal wars for them.

The United Kingdom still has ambitions to be a 'World Power' with a seat on the security council. The United Kingdom cannot afford that, but our politicians have been so absurdly focussed on maintaining that fiction that they've bankrupted the country. Scotland cannot be a world power, and there's no point in pretending. What I hope is that, once the United Kingdom is gone, England will recognise that it also cannot, and the world will be a safer place with one less nuclear armed state, and one less imperialist power meddling in the affairs of countries across the globe.

 

[penandpaper]

The Republic of Ireland has been independent for eighty-five years. Northern Ireland remains a province of the United Kingdom, although I suspect that if there were now a major shakeup of the constitutional arrangements it might well choose to join the Republic.

I understand it's been independent, I was just curious as to it's political leanings. Thanks for the answer.

 

[Scotsman69]

Just to point out that on this issue, Simon probably represents majority Scots opinion. I speak as one who has been heavily involved in public affairs in this country for much of my life.

 

[ishtat]

what supports Scotland, now?

The English Taxpayer.

SimonBrooke is undoubtably sincere in his analysis but the crucial fact is that each Scot gets just under $5000 more per head spent on them by the government per annum than their counterparts in England.

Despite the comments on this thread many Scots are aware that they would have to make up the difference from their own financial resources if they were independent and the unfortunate fact is that their resources are not enough.

The only way the Scots are likely to get independence is if the English are allowed a vote. The ordinary English voter would vote to get rid of the Scots in a heartbeat.

What will save the Scots from their own ambition is that neither major party,labour or Tory favours independence because being run by professional pollies they like to exaggerate their own importance, thus a bunch of hairy knobbly kneed guys in skirts make up the numbers.

So far as Northern Ireland is concerned about 85% of the economy depends on handouts from London - like Scotland only worse.

Again the English would gift it to Dublin in an instant if ordinary people had a vote. In all votes in the past Northern Ireland has voted to remain part of the UK. There was a brief moment a couple of years ago when the economy of the "Celtic tiger" (Ireland) was going well when they might have joined the Dublin government but now the Irish economy has gone to hell it is unlikely the Northern Irish would relinquish the mothers teat that London represents.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The English Taxpayer.

SimonBrooke is undoubtably sincere in his analysis but the crucial fact is that each Scot gets just under $5000 more per head spent on them by the government per annum than their counterparts in England.

Despite the comments on this thread many Scots are aware that they would have to make up the difference from their own financial resources if they were independent and the unfortunate fact is that their resources are not enough.

The only way the Scots are likely to get independence is if the English are allowed a vote. The ordinary English voter would vote to get rid of the Scots in a heartbeat.

What will save the Scots from their own ambition is that neither major party,labour or Tory favours independence because being run by professional pollies they like to exaggerate their own importance, thus a bunch of hairy knobbly kneed guys in skirts make up the numbers.

So far as Northern Ireland is concerned about 85% of the economy depends on handouts from London - like Scotland only worse.

Again the English would gift it to Dublin in an instant if ordinary people had a vote. In all votes in the past Northern Ireland has voted to remain part of the UK. There was a brief moment a couple of years ago when the economy of the "Celtic tiger" (Ireland) was going well when they might have joined the Dublin government but now the Irish economy has gone to hell it is unlikely the Northern Irish would relinquish the mothers teat that London represents.

Suspicions confirmed!

 

[Scotsman69]

Ishtat knows so little about the UK that his/her keyboard apparently doesn't even have a £ sign.

The geography of UK public expenditure is public knowledge. The geography of the UK tax take isn't. For good reason. Westminster is terrified to make public the extent that England is subsidised by taxation on North Sea oil and gas, as it would only fuel demands for independence in Scotland.

Were Scotland independent, the big majority of the hydrocarbons tax take would go to the Scottish Exchequer, not to Westminster, as has been demonstrated by several papers by leading economists. (I speak as an economist.)

 

[scheherazade_79]

So it isn't possible to say that an independent Scotland would somehow magically become a rich nation, but there's absolutely no reason to believe we would be poorer than we are now.

Get independence and join the EU. Scotland and Wales have had years of watching EU grants getting pumped into the south east of England. If that money came directly to them we'd probably see a renaissance, similar to what happened to the Republic of Ireland when they joined the EU. They went from being one of the poorest countries in Europe to the richest, just through wise spending and investment of those grants.

Wales exports a lot of its water (for free) to English water companies in NW England, who then sell it on to the city of Birmingham and make a large profit. With SE England getting drier by the year, and the NW and the Midlands reliant on Wales for its water, I should imagine there's a very good profit to be made from taking control of the supplies once more.

Wales is the "greenest" part of the UK, so I doubt whether it would go back to the dark old days of coal mining. But there are definitely enough coal seams around to make for a profitable industry for quite a while.

If Scotland goes independent, my guess is that Wales won't be too far behind. The Welsh nationalist party is starting to make huge gains, and key Welsh figures from Westminster are starting to move to Cardiff Bay.

Things that devolution has brought so far in Wales include:

* Abolition of all government assessment tests in schools
* Free prescriptions for everyone
* Free hospital car parking, so that hospital workers and the terminally ill aren't penalised
* A new Learn through Play scheme for the early school years. Done as a result of cutting edge research - adult / pupil ratio of 1/8
* A Healthy Eating measure that stops kids from being fed stuff that's bad for them in school
* Free bus travel for over 60s

We're also on the verge of banning free plastic bags.

But the situation isn't great, because all new Measures require legislative competence to be granted by Westminster first. In other words, Scotland with its full law-making parliament can do whatever it wants in the devolved fields, whereas Wales still has to ask permission from England.

There'll be a referendum in 2011, where the Welsh public are asked to decide whether or not Wales should have a parliament with full law-making powers, like Scotland.

My prediction is that the answer will be yes, and that the next big push will be independence. Probably not for a decade, but the tide is turning fast.

England currently holds the purse strings, and the Barnett Formula (determined by population rather than need) sees to it that the economic status quo is maintained - that some areas remain dirt poor, and others gloriously rich.

I can't see the Union lasting an awful lot longer. Independence for both Scotland and Wales would lead to a cut in tax revenues, but they've been bled dry by England for so long that the EU grants would make them a lot better off.

 

[SimonBrooke]

The English Taxpayer.

SimonBrooke is undoubtably sincere in his analysis but the crucial fact is that each Scot gets just under $5000 more per head spent on them by the government per annum than their counterparts in England.

There are a lot of ways in which the public expenditure figures in the UK are fudged.

Yes, it's true that more is spent per head in Scotland than in England. What isn't clear (and particularly isn't clear over the past year) is what the net subsidy flow is. As indicated by Scotsman69, hydrocarbon taxes are reported in the UK treasury for the UK as a whole. We know that the overwhelming majority of that is raised in Scottish waters, but we don't know exactly how much. Similarly, commercial companies which operate in both Scotland and England pay corporate taxes in only one place - usually London, because that's where most head offices are. How much of that tax pertains to operations in Scotland is not easy to disentangle.

So, yes, Scotland gets more per head out of the treasury than England. Scotland also puts more per head into the treasury than England. But whether the amount more we put in is greater or less than the amount more we take out, nobody knows. It isn't clear.

In any case it's slightly academic because independence would change a lot of things, and, in my opinion, would make all the constituent parts of the UK richer - if only by the cost of four nuclear submarines and two aircraft carriers!

 

[ishtat]

Ishtat knows so little about the UK that his/her keyboard apparently doesn't even have a £ sign.

The geography of UK public expenditure is public knowledge. The geography of the UK tax take isn't. For good reason. Westminster is terrified to make public the extent that England is subsidised by taxation on North Sea oil and gas, as it would only fuel demands for independence in Scotland.

Were Scotland independent, the big majority of the hydrocarbons tax take would go to the Scottish Exchequer, not to Westminster, as has been demonstrated by several papers by leading economists. (I speak as an economist.)

Your first comment is helpful. In US dollars the figure is actually nearer to US$8000 . I apologise for understating it.

So far as the Hydrocarbons tax is concerned you can have it, but will it be remotely enough to meet the liabilities of your zombie busted bank RBS. Last time I looked that was a Scottish Institution based in Edinburgh.

And of course a good reason for not quoting UK liabilities in Sterling is that under the incompetant command of two Scotsmen, Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, the value of the UK currency is falling like a stone.

I understand they also spoke as (Scottish) economists.

Never mind, I support an independent Scotland even more than you do.

 

[ishtat]

independence would change a lot of things, and, in my opinion, would make all the constituent parts of the UK richer

That I think we can all agree on

However I believe you need to take a closer look at the liability side of your accounts, the picture for Scotland post independence ain't so rosy.