to wonder why the SNP aren't getting the same bashing that UKIP are?

[kinkytoes]

I'm not a political expert by any means and I know there has been a lot of discussion on both topics here.

But both these parties have the same ultimate aim - independence for their countries. Why is no-one calling SNP supporters racist? Not that I think they should be - just curious about the apparent double standard.

[OldLadyKnowsSomething]

It's not about being under the control of a foreign gvt; I may well be wrong here, but isn't the BoE in charge of interest rates, and not WM? (Was it Gordon that did that?) So theoretically it's not a political thing, but governed by an independent body in the best interests of all. (Yes, that'll mean "in the best interests of SE England", just as it does now...)

But WM won't be in control of how we levy our taxes, or how we spend our revenues. We can choose "bairns not bombs" and perhaps put our share of the £100bn Trident-replacement budget into more well-trained social workers for children, better follow-up services, whatever. Instead of paying "our share" of "national assets" like HS2 (which will take billions out of our economy if it ever gets going) or replacing the London sewerage system, we could dual the A9, at least between Inverness and Perth, or even transform it into the M9.

The point is that an iScotland could choose to do so many things differently. We don't have to carry on with austerity and child poverty, food banks in an oil-rich nation...

[SantanaLopez]

No, the Chancellor sets inflation targets and the BoE works to achieve them. It's definitely linked to the ruling party at WM.

WM won't be in control of how we levy our taxes, or how we spend our revenues.

That's what 'ced[ing]... financial autonomy' and 'tight fiscal rules' means. (I'm quoting from Young here). In a currency union, Scotland would have to demonstrate 'fiscal prudence'. It's 'an independent Scotland’s macroeconomic and monetary policies could not differ greatly from those of rUK'.

Scotland can only choose to follow a different path in anything to do with money if it rejects a currency union.

[MelonadeAgain]

I've tried to read "LallandsPeatWorrier's" blog, and its so self-important and full of waffle, tracking down the actual content of where he supposedly questions and then refutes the legal arguments is quite time consuming and difficult. You do realise that this would fail most undergraduate degree assignments for lacking in specification and being biased and not bringing all possible evidence and arguments? Theres also far too much leading argument and use of slang for effect. Anyway, the most erudite section I could find amongst the waffle was:-

"That could be true -- but only up to a point. It remains to be seen to what extent Nicola's text will represent a significant departure from the status quo. There is an obvious tension between insisting that the constitution isn't a matter for the government to determine, while simultaneously attempting to rule the question of whether the Queen should be head of state entirely out of consideration. But thus far, Sturgeon's public remarks on the plans have been masterly exercises in cultivated vagueness. As I understand it, the interim text is still being drafted, and is subject to particularly limited circulation even within the Scottish Government.


The most conservative proposal one might envisage would be an interim constitution which enshrines a unicameral parliament, the monarch as the head of state, still subjecting Holyrood legislation to strong judicial review under the European Convention on Human Rights, and imposing statutory controls on the exercise of the royal prerogative by ministers. A beefed-up Scotland Act, if you like. There might be a temptation for the Scottish Government to include a wider range of their own preferences in this interim document. For example, in addition to ECHR rights, the SNP leadership have indicated that they'd argue for nuclear weapons to be banned, and additional social rights to be written into the permanent constitution, and protected.


The inclusion of this sort of material in the holding text would be - in my view - wrong, both in principle and in terms of political strategy. We need an interim constitution, to hold parliament and ministers in check, and bring clarity to the distribution of powers among the institutions of the state. Anything else is a recipe for needless legal uncertainty, which is always the handmaiden of litigation. But if the interim text makes it clear that it is no higher law, and can be changed by the subsequent process? I can't see the issue.


Lastly, a word on the process. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Sturgeon story was the confirmation that her draft Bill will "outline the participative and collaborative process by which Scotland, as an independent country, will prepare its permanent written constitution." This is where the waters get choppier. How should the new constitution be formed?

Should we, like the failed post-crash Icelandic constitution, elect individuals to a special drafting group to compose the document? Should we re-form a Calman Max group of "civic Scotland" bigwigs and worthies, the same old faces and organisations, facilitating submissions from the crowd? Might we, like the current Irish Constitutional Convention process, mingle ordinary punters randomly selected from the electoral roll with politicians? Alternatively, should we leave less to chance, and allow folk to put themselves forward for consideration? And who decides?


The White Paper didn't go in for specifics on how the Scottish Government hoped the new constitution should be drafted, beyond that they believe it "should be designed by the people of Scotland, for the people of Scotland," drawn up by an “open, participative and inclusive" process. That fuzzy formulation covers a multitude of different ways in which the process could be said inclusively to engage the public. It seems this Bill will hope to solidify those ideas, and commit the government to a particular model, which will doubtless provoke its own controversy. Interesting times in Scotland for the dismal constitutional obsessive. I'm in my element..."

To summarise, this basically says that there is no draft bill for the interim stage in existence yet for the population to consider prior to the vote. No-one is yet sure what it will contain, if it does come into being, and no-one is sure whether any Scottish citizen on independence, would have any of the protections they currently enjoy under Human Rights legislation, European legislation or even UK legislation which applies to the UK as a whole.

From my point of view, one of things that concerns me as a professional woman in Scotland, is the general sexist behaviour I am subjected to both public and in the workplace. I find it appalling that no-one can tell me whether or not I will benefit from any anti-discrimination legislation, for example, after independence.

As I say, it took me quite a lot of searching to find something reasonably comprehensible amongst the rest, which tends to go like the following:-

"Disaster on disaster. While in the pages of Daily Telegraph the First Sealord warns that independence would hull our maritime security below the waterline, in the Kinlochbervie Chronicle this morning, Ecclefechan Mackay (MA) writes of the latest calamity to engulf the Yes campaign. This band of jokers. What are they like?


Expert blasts "reckless" SNP royal policy Kinlochbervie Chronicle, 15th April 2014


The Yes camp was thrown into disarray last night as a leading royal expert blasted the SNP's policy of retaining the monarchy as a "reckless gamble with the security of western Europe". In a speech today to the respected Brookings bar and grill, Washington county Durham, Nicholas Witchell will argue that "all recent European experience tells us that pooling the sovereign doesn't work without a political union", warning that "a cataclysmic succession crisis is inevitable" if Scotland splits. "

[OldLadyKnowsSomething]

Ok, fair enough re BoE. But couldn't you demonstrate "fiscal prudence" by not running up huge debts as a macroeconomic policy? We already spend our budgets differently (free prescriptions etc), I don't understand why it would be any different, but moreso, iyswim, in iScotland.

I'm assuming that neither party wants to get into a game of "beggar thy neighbour", as that woukd benefit no-one.

[OldLadyKnowsSomething]

Xpost. It's a blog, Melonade, which I presented as such. It's a blog that muses about the possible legal ramifications. It doesn't have to meet your editorial standards.

[SantanaLopez]

I'm assuming that neither party wants to get into a game of "beggar thy neighbour", as that woukd benefit no-one.

True, but one thing that struck me in the Young report was that the biggest benefit rUK gains from being in a CU with iScotland is controlling iScotland to minimise the risks coming through to it.

But couldn't you demonstrate "fiscal prudence" by not running up huge debts as a macroeconomic policy? We already spend our budgets differently (free prescriptions etc), I don't understand why it would be any different, but moreso, iyswim, in iScotland.

The best way to avoid debts is to avoid big overhauls and changes, because they naturally require a lot of government investment. So you mentioned upgrading the A9 into the M9. It's not a road that's familiar to me, but the upgrading of the A8 to join in with the rest of the M8 cost over £400 million. I'm assuming you'd find similar costs there.

Even training social workers requires investment in colleges, universities, placements and so on.

If the Scottish government is running a deficit from day 1, which is unavoidable if we want to maintain our current standards, fiscal prudence is unlikely to be interpreted as immediately throwing money into expensive schemes.

[OldLadyKnowsSomething]

Those were ideas totally off the top of my head, Santana, and not legally-binding on any future iScotland gvt. The point is that there would be money we currently send south, for it to be spent on our "share" of "national assets", which would remain in an iScotland, and how we spend it is up to us. It wouldn't destabilise either economy, any more than our current free tuition etc destabilses the economy atm.

[MelonadeAgain]

I know that OldLady but I'm astonished that there is nothing better, that the referendum is only a few months away and still we have very little idea of what will happen in the event of a yes vote.

Its not as if most SNP supporters haven't had the majority of their political careers to think about it and prepare. I would have thought they would have had some pretty well worked out draft legislation ready to go. Its so random and incompetent.

All that is certain is that anyone who points this out, or suggests potential pitfalls, is accused by the SNP of being scaremongers, or cowards, or unpatriotic, or whatever particular criticism is flavour of the month. Preferably with a "y" at the end, so as to effect the faux-colloquial playground slant that is so in vogue with SNP at the moment.

[OldLadyKnowsSomething]

It depends how you define better. To follow lallanspeatworrier, you really have to follow current Scottish politics (in all of it's gossipy glory) very closely, because he seems to blog in response to events that day. I suggested it in response to a pp who wanted to know more about the various ramifications on rUK if we say Yes, because he muses on such things. I also pointed out it was by a Yesser.

There are many, many opinionated sites on both sides, and other than Sir Tom Hunter's, I know of none that have no bias; including ScotGov stuff, and of course WM gvt stuff, both of which have their own agendas.

All in all, there are no guarantees from either side, and there can be no certainties. But I've been lied to, by gvts I respected/helped elect and gvts I didn't, all WM, for most of my adult life. And I'm tired of it.

I want a fresh start before I'm too old to appreciate it.

[MelonadeAgain]

It depends how you define better. To follow lallanspeatworrier, you really have to follow current Scottish politics (in all of it's gossipy glory) very closely, because he seems to blog in response to events that day. I suggested it in response to a pp who wanted to know more about the various ramifications on rUK if we say Yes, because he muses on such things. I also pointed out it was by a Yesser.

I do quite honestly think that could be used as a form of torture. Or at least recordings of it...

Its a certain style, isn't it? And not a particularly happy one. Certainly, the writer considers himself very interesting...

I've tried to follow the meanderings of the Scottish Parliament at times, and its disheartening. And quite appallingly trivial, personalised and pet-issue centred.

Some of the stuff that comes out of the Scottish Government is a bit worrying too. ref the Salmond push for controls on alcohol pricing. All very laudable, except its probably a breach of EU competition law and the Court of Session is referring it to the European Court of Justice.

Why not simply work out whether its legal in the first place? Or is Salmond grandstanding for effect at the Scottish taxpayer's expense? Or exploiting the lack of a second chamber (why criticise Westminster for the reformed HL when Scotland doesn't even have one?). Or does he realise that an independent Scotland really will have no controls on what legislation is passed from international treaties until the Scottish political elite choose to bother to sign up for them?

[MelonadeAgain]

I want a fresh start before I'm too old to appreciate it

Just this point. I've been thinking about this too, and I would like to spend the majority of the remaining years of my life in a country which is signed up to the ECHR and is a member of the EU. Not an applicant state in a queue behind Turkey or similar.

It could take years or centuries for all the much vaunted promises to happen in Scotland. It could be a bloomin disaster at first. The basic transport infrastructure isn't there either. There isn't even a motorway from England to Edinburgh fgs!

[OldLadyKnowsSomething]

We, as part of the UK/EU are already signed up to human rights legislation, equalities etc. We are fully EU-compliant, and have been for 40 years or more. We are a net contributor to the EU, and without access to our waters EU fisheries will run into difficulties. There will be no major difficulties in negotiating our continuing membership of the EU. We certainly won't suddenly lose several thousands of years of civilisation and find ourselves being hit over the head with a club as part of mating rituals.

Unionists accuse us of calling "scaremongering" when you/they say something we don't agree with. But what else are we to call "scaremongering", if not just that? An online thesaurus suggests pessimist, Cassandra, alarmist and Chicken Little; seems fair enough to me (except Cassandra was right. )

As for no motorway between England and Edinburgh, is that supposed to be an example of why we're BetterTogether? 300 years of union have left us with a completely inadequate transport system. It's not really an argument for staying together, is it?

[SantanaLopez]

The point is that there would be money we currently send south, for it to be spent on our "share" of "national assets", which would remain in an iScotland, and how we spend it is up to us. It wouldn't destabilise either economy, any more than our current free tuition etc destabilses the economy atm.

No, the point is that iScotland would not able to spend as it liked.

Mark Carney spoke about how iScotland would have to 'cede sovereignty' and face 'limit[s on its] autonomy' here

Even Leslie Young's article makes it clear that a CU will only work if it was governed by a treaty so tight that the rUK had such power over Scotland’s banking system and fiscal plans.... [it had the ability to] insist... that Scottish fiscal plans be based on those more pessimistic projections

It would not a be a case of 'there's your budget, away you go, don't spend too much!' You've also got to take into consideration that 'independence would impose substantial costs on Scotland' (Young) through unavoidable set up costs, embassies, passports etc.

Tuition fees aren't a great example because they would depend on EU membership, but go ahead with that. iScotland needs to demonstrate frugality and prudence. It takes its budget to Westminster and it shows that paying fees costs over 300 million.

That's a lot of money. It's totally conceivable and (imo, not scaremongering) to say that Westminster would turn round and say, we're not signing up to that.

It's not even helping the poorest students according to the latest report here

We are a net contributor to the EU

You cannot be a net contributor to the EU because you don't pay taxes to the EU.

without access to our waters EU fisheries will run into difficulties
proof?

The Spanish government is the one brought up in this most often, so if you look at their figures, 355 tonnes of fish (out of 987 thousand tonnes) was caught in the North East Atlantic zone, which does include Scotland but is bloody massive here

There will be no major difficulties in negotiating our continuing membership of the EU.

Schengen, Euro/ currency agreements, CFP, being a break away country... that's just off the top of my head.

Once again, it would not be continued membership. Scotland would have to reapply as a new state. www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/Letter_from_Viviane_Reding_Vice_President_of_the_European_Commission_dated_20_March_2014__pdf

[BigBoobiedBertha]

Oldlady - you keep say 'we' but if the 'we' you refer to is Scotland, you haven't signed up to anything because you don't exist yet as an independent state. Everything will have to be decided and agreed upon after the vote. You can't assume anything based on established agreements because you aren't party to them. You aren't a member of the EU for a start.

[MelonadeAgain]

Unionists accuse us of calling "scaremongering" when you/they say something we don't agree with. But what else are we to call "scaremongering", if not just that? An online thesaurus suggests pessimist, Cassandra, alarmist and Chicken Little; seems fair enough to me (except Cassandra was right. grin )

I wasn't aware that I was a Unionist. (I find neither the UK as it is nor the prospect of an independent socialist Scotland appealing). I do think its unrealistic to expect no-one to point out that the eutopian view based on Salmond's etc's pipedream is not quite accurate. Particularly where it is wrong, over EU membership and ECHR - its up to Member States to negotiate Treaty membership, and they have to be unanimous on admitting a new one to the EU.

As for UK discrimination legislation, it is UK legislation which mostly applies equally to Scotland and England. Scotland would presumably have to either adopt all UK legislation, go through it all with a fine toothcomb, adopting only those parts deemed suitable, either by one piece of enabling legislation, or by promulgating specific Scots laws, which could either be the same or divergent. This is likely to take a longish time.

I'm unsure what you mean by your references to Cassandra and Chicken Little - could you clarify what it is you are trying to say? If you think that anyone who points out difficulties with independence is a coward then I would argue you are resorting to schoolground battles. And probably the opposite is true - you could equally argue that the independence debate is full of disappointed under-acheivers, who want the chance to be big fish in a small pond, because they can't hack it in the big sea. I'm not saying that though - you are.

Cassandra is a recognised psychological phenomenon generally associated with long term effects of dealing with an autistic partner and not being believed.

As for no motorway between England and Edinburgh, is that supposed to be an example of why we're BetterTogether? 300 years of union have left us with a completely inadequate transport system. It's not really an argument for staying together, is it?

I have no idea if it is or is not. Scotland has had charge of its own roads network for a while now and it is still awful. It will also be very expensive to update, if it is ever done in my lifetime. Which I doubt.

[MelonadeAgain]

We are fully EU-compliant

Actually, I can think of two examples where Scotland specifically, should it ever exist as a nation state (so your use of "we" is wrong) would be in clear breach of EU rules:

(I) tuition fees being charged for English and Welsh students but not Scots or the rest of the EU - clearly illegal state aid and breach of EU competition law

(ii) Salmond's current proposals on minimum alcohol pricing - breaches of EU competition law.

But presumably because an independent Scotland wouldn't initially be part of the EU, Salmond feels safe enough deliberately transgressing EU law.

[OldLadyKnowsSomething]

Santana, are you really saying that iScotland in CU would have less say over spending priorities than we have now? Because I simply don't believe that. As for fisheries, it's not only our waters which would be closed to the dozen EU nations which currently fish there, access through our waters to fishing grounds further north would be closed too. This wouldn't be good news for anyone, except maybe the fish.

It is arguable whether iScotland would have to reapply to the EU as a new member, along with rUK, or whether each would be seen as continuing members. Unionists imply rUK would carry on as normal while iScotland would be cast into the outer darkness; I think this improbable. The EU is, above all, a pragmatic and expansionist entity and is unlikely to want to shut us out. They have smoothed over difficulties for other nations in the past, there's no reason for them to do anything different now.

Melonade, as I said, I had a swift look at an online thesauraus for other words for "scaremongering", and those were the results. I imagine that "Cassandra" refers to the Greek myth rather than a modern psychological condition.

I agree that an iScotland which is an EU member would be in breech of EU laws should we continue to charge tuition fees to rUK students, but it's legal for now. And we don't currently have minimum alcohol pricing, so yes, we are fully EU compliant.

[MelonadeAgain]

As for fisheries, it's not only our waters which would be closed to the dozen EU nations which currently fish there, access through our waters to fishing grounds further north would be closed too.

My guess would be that Scotland would try to negotiate a trade treaty which would still permit it some ability to trade its goods and services and its people to work with its main European trading partners. Because if it doesn't, it is going to be well and truly stuffed. And anyone who wants to leave Scotland to work abroad who is a Scottish citizen will need a Visa.

Again, its something I would have expected the SNP to have fairly well worked out draft plans if not treaties in place for already.

Melonade, as I said, I had a swift look at an online thesauraus for other words for "scaremongering", and those were the results. I imagine that "Cassandra" refers to the Greek myth rather than a modern psychological condition.

Indeed. How fascinating. Are you scared to leave Scotland to find out the way things are done in other countries then? Or will you be staying in a small country of slightly over 5 million people complaining about its larger neighbour if independence fails, whilst you continue to benefit from EU rules on the free movement of people?

[MelonadeAgain]

I agree that an iScotland which is an EU member would be in breech of EU laws should we continue to charge tuition fees to rUK students, but it's legal for now.

The highly offensively worded question in the White Paper is:

"Are you confident that the Court of Justice of the EU will support this position on fees?"

This is offensive because it is not the ECJ's purpose to "support" anything, lest not political movements. Is it an alien concept to an independent Scotland that a court be neutral? The ECJ makes decisions once cases are put to it or preliminary rulings requests are received. It simply doesn't "support" anything in the highly misleading manner mentioned in the White Paper. The Scottish Government has absolutely no idea what decision the ECJ would make in relation to the illegal state aid and breach of competition law that would be levied on racially discriminatory fee charging in education by a new Member State, but it is likely that the member State would be fined substantially by the EU Commission, which is the EU enforcement agency, not the ECJ.

The laughably simplistic and wrong answer given in the White Paper is:

"Each Member State is free to adopt its own domestic policies, consistent with the objectives of the EU. We believe that our fees policies contribute to student mobility across the wider EU, while addressing the consequences of the unique situation of Scottish independence. In these circumstances we believe that it will be possible to deliver our policy in a way which is compatible with EU requirements."

It really is pathetic. I honestly wonder what kind of education system can produce people in government so universally thick. This is like something a primary school child might come up with, so lacking in a basic understanding of not only EU Law or the correct names of the institutions, but also of how to write a White Paper. Its cringeworthy and dishonest.

I also have to question what kind of compliant, unquestioning people puts up with such tosh.

[Taz1212]

I don't think Scotland would have less say over spending priorities unless they went down a route where their spending put the overall economy at risk, but I don't think there will be this excess of additional funds which would enable Scotland to make changes which can't currently be made. Yes, we send money south but we also receive money back. Even if you take the SNP's figures which show an additional contribution per head compared to what is spent per head on Scotland, you will have significant additional costs because you will lose the economies of scale for bodies and functions currently carried out on a UK wide basis. It may be that along the lines of using the BoE as the central bank, iScotland decides they want to share yet more areas with rUK to cut costs, but again, that's not independence.

appear to be to set up an oil fund even though the report commissioned by the Scottish govt stated that unless the boom days of the 80s reappeared, with an annual deficit the oil fund would only work with either raised taxes and/or cutting back on public spending.

The economy will need to be balanced under the terms set by BoE and I just do not see where significant additional funding will come from under even the SNP's best case scenario.

[Taz1212]

I think what I'm saying is that under the SNP's ideal set up there won't actually won't be that much change but it sure will cost a hell of a lot!

[SantanaLopez]

Santana, are you really saying that iScotland in CU would have less say over spending priorities than we have now? Because I simply don't believe that.

It depends on the terms and conditions of the CU, but as your own link pointed out, to make the CU work and make it benefit the rUK, it has to be a very tough and very tight agreement.

As for fisheries, it's not only our waters which would be closed to the dozen EU nations which currently fish there, access through our waters to fishing grounds further north would be closed too. This wouldn't be good news for anyone, except maybe the fish.

This would be especially bad news for Scotland, because it's in breach of the UN's open passage laws. www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

Of course, Scotland might not be in the UN, so no problem.

It is arguable whether iScotland would have to reapply to the EU as a new member, along with rUK, or whether each would be seen as continuing members.

No, it's not.

www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/Letter_from_Viviane_Reding_Vice_President_of_the_European_Commission_dated_20_March_2014__pdf.pdf

The EU is, above all, a pragmatic and expansionist entity and is unlikely to want to shut us out. They have smoothed over difficulties for other nations in the past, there's no reason for them to do anything different now.

Many of the 'smoothing' out problems were in the 90s, with the ex-Soviet countries, which carried a lot of goodwill. Goodwill expired even further after the Greek debacle. They won't want to shut Scotland out, but many countries will not want to see Scotland have an easy ride.

[MelonadeAgain]

Taz I think what I'm saying is that under the SNP's ideal set up there won't actually won't be that much change but it sure will cost a hell of a lot!

I'd actually be seriously worried about the following:

• needing a VISA to work abroad
• lack of EU membership, ECHR membership, laws on discrimination
• higher levels of personal income tax
• state controls on purchasing property or what you do with existing property
• increasing nanny state interference in everyday life
• failure to tackle current infrastructure, education and social problems
• tendency to pander towards the lowest common denominator and to discourage independent thought, personal ambition and aspiration
• hijacking of quite a reasonable idea (independence for a formerly independent country) by strongly left wing controlling socialists/communists to turn into their own personal fiefdom

-failure to discourage thuggish response to educated debate and for it to proliferate in an independent Scotland

• funding of an already disproportionately overloaded public sector workforce to provide the organs of independence

[Taz1212]

Sorry Melonade I should make it more clear that I don't think there will be the scope for all that much change re public spending because of the tie to BoE and costs of being independent. I am vehemently against independence and hold many of the concerns you listed but am more comfortable when arguing economics.

[BigBoobiedBertha]

I don't know how you can think Scotland would have significantly more say than it does now. No sovereign nation would hand over control of their currency to a tiny state like Scotland and become equal partners, it just won't happen. Your policies will always have to fit round what WM are doing for the good of rBritain.

WM have said they won't have CU. By doing that they are making sure that that they are in control and so anything they do agree to will be on their terms. They have Scotland on the back foot and if the Scottish want CU they will have to ask for it and probably give up some of their sovereignty to get it. It makes no sense to get independence and then give some of it back but that is what you will have to do.

As far as the EU goes don't forget that the vast majority of the UK won't have changed. 92% of it will be exactly as it was after the vote as it was before. I very much doubt we will have to apply for membership again but the Scots will and it takes time. They can't even begin the joining process until they have independence. You are then going to have to persuade the other member states to let you in which is not a forgone conclusion.