to start yet another Indyref thread?

[FannyFifer]

Round 3 folks.

We should arrange an Indyref meet up at this stage.

"I agree FPTP isn't perfect - I just meant that I don't view myself as having a democratic deficit just cos I'm in Scotland IYSWIM. There are plenty of constituencies in England/Wales that also aren't swing seats."

Yes, a lot of people who don't live in Scotland can certainly complain about a democratic deficit! It is even worse for people in NI who, for decades, haven't even had the option of voting for a Labour MP, as the Labour party would not field candidates for general elections there. Imagine running the affairs of a state while not even fielding candidates for elections.

But just because other parts of the UK also suffer from a democratic deficit doesn't mean that the concern is somehow less real or valid for voters in Scotland, and Scottish voters now actually have the chance to do something about it for once.

Press release from the Scottish Police Federation www.spf.org.uk/2014/09/spf-media-release-independence-referendum/

In response to the suggestion of absolute carnage in and around polling stations on the 18th Sept Brian Docherty, Chairman of the Scottish Police Federation said;

“The independence debate has been robust but overwhelmingly good natured and it would prove a disservice to those who have participated in it thus far to suggest that with 17 days to go, Scotland is about to disintegrate into absolute carnage on the back of making the most important decision in the country’s history

Politicians and supporters of whichever point of view need to be mindful of the potential impact of intemperate, inflammatory and exaggerated language, lest they be seen to seek to create a self fulfilling prophecy"

We have a massive growing divide between rich and poor and I don't think the WM govt has any interest in doing anything about it as it suits them

Do you mean the current WM government? Or WM generally?

The current government will be in power for a maximum of 1 further year before they must seek re-election. The polls indicate they won't get it. Labour, who will probably replace them, want to increase the top rate of tax to 50%. The SNP oppose this. The SNP also want to reduce the corporate tax rate in Scotland to just about nil. The advantage of doing this is that it encourages companies to HQ in Scotland, thus engaging in beggar-my-neighbour economics. It also encourages rich locals to channel their income through companies and trusts and thus avoid tax. Contrast this to the Tory-dominated government at WM, which has recently introduced an anti-avoidance provision into tax legislation.

I wonder why the SNP aren't being called out on these proposed policies.

If you mean WM generally over the last few years, then my comment is that it is true that spending has increased massively over the very years that WM took a sharp, right turn. Social spending was higher under Thatcher's government than Callaghan's. Spending under Blair's government was higher again. The UK has been running budget deficits pretty much consistently for the last 30 years. The exception (off the top of my head) was the period between 1997 and 2001. It is partly for this reason why UK national debt is now so high.

In any event, even if what you say is true (which I doubt: all politicians want to deliver prosperity for all: they just disagree as to the means), Holyrood was already granted tax-raising powers in the Scotland Act 1998. The answer is already there. However, astonishingly, neither the Labour or SNP administrations at Holyrood have ever used this power.

Chocco - true, but I think I would then just.let RUK fight those battles. It's been nearly forty years for me and nothing has changed. A lot of money will be spent on replacing Trident when even military bods don't think it's the right thing to do (I was actually surprised at that - I have always been against them anyway, but that added another dimension entirely). Can dig out link when have more time if folk interested....

Criseyde

But just because other parts of the UK also suffer from a democratic deficit doesn't mean that the concern is somehow less real or valid for voters in Scotland, and Scottish voters now actually have the chance to do something about it for once.

I think this perception that Scotland has some sort of democratic deficit re Westminster does need to be challenged. Remember that historically Scotland was over-represented at Westminster by about 20 seats and it has a devolved parliament (and tax raising powers it doesn't use).

"Scotland" got the goverment "it" wanted between 1997 and 2010. The reason for the quotes is that, of course, large parts of Scotland - ie, just about everywhere outside the central belt - did not return Labour MPs. The truth is that not getting the government you want at all times does not represent a democratic deficit. I might say that between 2005 and 2010, "England" didn't get the government it chose, because the Tories won a majority of English seats. However, I didn't vote Tory myself and certainly wasn't complaining about the result. I doubt most people in the north of England, the West Midlands or London were complaining either.

Should add that taken as a whole, Scotland voted to retain FPTP just as emphatically as the rest of the UK did.

I went to a Treasury event where they basically said that it was felt that the Republic of Ireland's low corporation tax approach had had a negative effect on NI, and that having seen that in the event of independence rUK was unlikely to just not respond whilst Scotland slashed corporation tax. I think that's probably broadly true - so we either end up in a race to the bottom or tacitly agreeing on a rate.

And given then we'd probably be using a currency under the control of rUK then I'm not so sure being a total pain in the ass neighbour would be the cleverest of ideas!

"Labour, who will probably replace them, want to increase the top rate of tax to 50%. The SNP oppose this".

I'm no fan of the SNP, but this isn't quite true. Firstly, the SNP proposed a vote against scrapping the 50p rate in 2012. Labour, astonishingly, did not support it. Now that Labour have (eventually) decided that they will campaign for a 50p tax rate in the run up to the GE, they have asked the SNP to support it in Westminster. The SNP have said that they would vote with Labour to restore it. So they don't oppose restoring it in Westminster at all.

"In any event, even if what you say is true (which I doubt: all politicians want to deliver prosperity for all: they just disagree as to the means), Holyrood was already granted tax-raising powers in the Scotland Act 1998. The answer is already there. However, astonishingly, neither the Labour or SNP administrations at Holyrood have ever used this power."

The tax-raising powers in the 1998 Scotland Act are utterly inadequate. They only allow taxes to be raised or lowered by 3p, and only across the board - ie. raising taxes for higher earners necessitates raising taxes for lower earners by the same amount. This is not at all redistributive and is no answer to reducing inequality.

And Scotland has a UKIP SMEP!

I really annoys me when AS claims that in an independent Scotland we would get the government we voted for. Only if the party you voted for gets a majority. The fact that other Scottish people voted the same way as me is no more important to me than the fact of any constituency or group of constituencies voted the same way.

This claim about Scotland being left-wing. Yes more votes for labour than any other party -same as NE of England, NW of England......

Last one from me for now: this is in reply to itsallgoingtobefine from a few pages back (sorry: I was asleep!)

I've not seen anything about a joint defence force?

It was some months back. Admiral Zambellas from the Navy pointed out defence of the island of Britain would get more difficult (I would have thought that "Captain Obvious" would have been a better name for a person who raised such a point). The SNP reply was that there would be a joint defence strategy. Which was presumptive, and doesn't even refute his point. A unified defence force is obviously going to be less cumbersome than a joint defence strategy.

And of course, a lot of the White Paper is effectively an SNP manifesto, and should be read as such.

I read them as reasons being given to vote for independence, and accordingly they require analysis.

What is important is that nobody on the No side has said that Scotland can't be a successful independent country, which is completely true. The question is not whether Scotland can go it alone, but whether Scotland should go it alone.

What the No side have asked is whether an independent Scotland would be as successful and wealthy as it is now. New Zealand is a successful, independent country on its own terms. No one here particularly wants to unite with Australia. But I don't think Scots would vote for independence if it meant adopting our levels of government spending. It is a poorer country than the UK.

being a total pain in the ass neighbour

And grabby - it's our oil, our fish, our whisky etc. Nice.

A vote for independence is a vote for competition instead of co-operation.

The SNP have explicitly refused to guarantee a 50p tax rate in iScotland, and have been lukewarm on supporting Labour in Westminster on the point.

The tax-raising powers in the 1998 Scotland Act are utterly inadequate. They only allow taxes to be raised or lowered by 3p, and only across the board - ie. raising taxes for higher earners necessitates raising taxes for lower earners by the same amount. This is not at all redistributive and is no answer to reducing inequality.

That's nonsense. Whether or not it is redistributive depends precisely on how the money raised is redistributed. What's to stop the SNP, for example, increasing the rate of tax by 3% across the board and using it to subsidise housing or increase benefits for example? It took me five seconds to think of that example.

Or re-introducing prescription charges for those who can afford it. As another example.

What the No side have asked is whether an independent Scotland would be as successful and wealthy as it is now. New Zealand is a successful, independent country on its own terms. No one here particularly wants to unite with Australia. But I don't think Scots would vote for independence if it meant adopting our levels of government spending. It is a poorer country than the UK.

I guess it depends how you measure success and wealth. Given the massive disparity in this country I think we could afford to lose some wealth overall and still get the average wealth up. Success is a tricky one - if you measure it by having nukes, MOD spending, Barack Obamas ear then fair enough iScotland will be less successful.

A successful country for me is one where vanishingly few people live in poverty, one where health care and education are free at point of use, where everyone has a living wage....

Of course we won't get every possibility that independence offers from day 1.

This isn't an election.

It isn't a 4/5 year plan.

The long term possibilities only independence can deliver could take a generation or more to come to fruition. Bit that is the point. It is a long term choice.

It might take several years to get rid of trident but a no votes secures it's place next to half of Scotland's population for our children's lives.

The white paper said we'll keep the queen but I don't see an independent Scotland crowning another Windsor.

The childcare pledge isn't even due to fully come into force until the second parliament.
I don't see this as unrealistic as it will save money in the long term and isn't just empty spending unlike MPs salaries and expenses.

The ability to have tax raising powers was costing the Scottish Government a fair whack!

"The agreement with HMRC regarding the Scottish Variable Rate covered the period July 1, 2003 to July 31, 2007 at which point HMRC themselves announced they would be installing a new IT platform and that further discussions would be needed regarding additional multi-million investment requirements to operate the 3p tax power beyond the £12 million and £50,000 annual cost paid by the previous administration for a tax power that has never been used."

Or re-introducing prescription charges for those who can afford it.

Not sure this actually saves any money? Much higher administrative costs to deal with payment/ sort out who is/nt eligible, plus greater costs to NHS as people may not pay for prescriptions for initially mild issues

Of course we won't get every possibility that independence offers from day 1

Exactly. The only guarantee with independence is that we will be governed from Holyrood by people who live in Scotland, voted for by people who live in Scotland.

People on both sides have a tendency to write about independence as the end, when in fact it is just the beginning.

"The truth is that not getting the government you want at all times does not represent a democratic deficit. I might say that between 2005 and 2010, "England" didn't get the government it chose, because the Tories won a majority of English seats."

Firstly, the issue isn't simply 'not getting the government you want at all times'. It is the fact that the results of general elections in the post-war era have been decided by the electorate in England, who do consistently get the government they want. You point to the 2005 general election as the great exception, but, crucially, if you take away Labour seats in Scotland from that result, there would still have been a Labour majority without Scottish seats. Once again, no impact.

Sometimes, if voters in marginal constituencies in elsewhere choose to vote for Labour, then Scotland gets a Labour government, which they always vote for. There are no key marginals in Scotland where the seat is realistically challenged by a Conservative candidate. So it's not just a case of not always getting the government you want, it's about never having any influence over which government is in power. It's a simple numbers game. If you are happy with that level of representation, then that's up to you, but having no impact on GE results certainly represents a democratic deficit. It might just be a deficit that you feel personally comfortable with.

Poverty is obviously a difficult one to "fix" and it depends very much what you thing the solutions are, but surely there is plenty the Scottish Government could have been doing already within its existing remit to improve the situation? I know benefits aren't devolved but I'm not sure that just increasing benefits is the answer actually. What about building more social housing to decrease housing costs - that's in their remit. Health care and education are already free at the point of use.

Reading this thread has caused me to realise that the vote should probably not be 'Yes' or 'No' but 'Now' or Not Now'. There is so much bitterness even here that I don't see how the Scots can establish a viable independent state on the back of it. Surely people should be asking 'Is this the way and with these people?' Trying to establish a new nation where half of the population are unhappy about it seems like a recipe for pain and disaster.

The tax-raising powers in the 1998 Scotland Act are utterly inadequate. They only allow taxes to be raised or lowered by 3p, and only across the board

"That's nonsense. Whether or not it is redistributive depends precisely on how the money raised is redistributed."

It's not nonsense. The whole point of progressive taxation policies is to ensure that the income tax system itself is actively redistributive, and that higher earners pay proportionally more. Flat rate tax raising powers are unhelpful in achieving this.

And it's simply not true to say that the SNP have been 'lukewarm' on restoring a 50p tax rate in Westminister. They have confirmed that they will support it, and what's more, actively tried to stop it being scrapped in 2012! It was the Labour party who failed to support that, and are now (Curran especially) being incredibly disingenuous in insinuating that the SNP won't support a move to restore it. Incidentally, all SNP MPs voted against the benefit cap this year, which the Labour Party supported.

"A successful country for me is one where vanishingly few people live in poverty, one where health care and education are free at point of use, where everyone has a living wage...."

Ditto. I want the poor to end up less poor. And the rich to be taxed heavily.

Poverty is obviously a difficult one to "fix" and it depends very much what you thing the solutions are, but surely there is plenty the Scottish Government could have been doing already within its existing remit to improve the situation?

The problem is without full control of your finances all you can really do is tinker around the edges - ScotGov paying out millions to offset the impact of the bedroom tax is a good example of this.

WRT to social housing, I don't know what the stats are on this (but would be interested to see), but I would guess it's hard to find money for things like this without full control of your budget.

Health care and education are already free at the point of use.

Yes. And I think this is a great thing, and something Scotland is successful at. It is something I would say England is less successful by this measure as they are privatising NHS, and tertiary education is not free.

I brought up this two things not because Scotland already has them, but because England doesn't (almost in case of NHS). Many people would view England as more successful than Scotland by other measures, but the measures chosen determine the success IYSWIM, and different people would choose different measures of success.

To whoever mentioned NZ if you compare NZ to UK on OECD better life index it fares pretty well. I also found this sentence striking "New Zealand is a successful, independent country on its own terms. No one here particularly wants to unite with Australia. But I don't think Scots would vote for independence if it meant adopting our levels of government spending. It is a poorer country than the UK." So although the writer of this post thinks NZ his poorer than the UK, with lower levels of government spending, they are happy being independent and wouldn't want to form a union with Australia.

without full control of your finances

Sadly with their current proposals we won't have this anyway.

And the rich to be taxed heavily

Especially when we would have a culturally very similar country next door, with the same language, how many of "the rich" do you think would stay to be taxed very heavily? Very few I would suspect.

Poverty? I always think genuine poverty is Dickensian workhouse conditions or people in drought conditions in Africa. Yes, people are often poor, or struggling on benefits, but poverty it ain't. There are a huge range of benefits for the sick, the elderly, children. Healthcare is free. Education is free.

It really boils my piss when people bandy around the word poverty in a wealthy place with universal access to benefits, education, social housing.

Agreed, it is not perfect and people need more help (not always financial, but ways of helping themselves). But voting "Yes" to "end poverty" is ridiculous.