One week to go

[rich_jacko]

...and the Scottish referendum seems to be dominating the news and half of all conversations at the moment.

I will be very sad if, as looks increasingly probable, the Scots vote to leave the UK. Much as the "Yes" campaign likes to pretend we wouldn't really become two foreign countries, that is what independence means. It's not just about showing that Scots are "fed up with the effing Tories" as David Cameron put it surprisingly candidly today. Among so many other things, why turn your closest trading partner into a competitor?

This "It's all about Westminster" mindset is not helped by an increasingly negative "Yes" campaign doing little more than snipe endlessly at Westminster politicians. This is shooting fish in a barrel (which is why they do it), but I can't see that the Holyrood lot are any better. Politicians are politicians the world over. The SNP's current lies and scaremongering that the NHS in Scotland - despite being fully devolved already - can only be saved by a "Yes" vote being a case in point. That the SNP has the audacity to claim they have a positive message and some sort of moral high ground in the campaign beggars belief.

The last-minute love-in from the other parties is hardly inspiring or particularly convincing either, but at least they're (very belatedly) trying. I am actually quite excited by the potential prospect of further devolution immediately after a "No" vote (even if the timetable was announced in a bit of a panic and in flagrant breach of purdah guidelines...). Especially since there seems to be actual recognition that there would need to be a fair settlement for all parts of the UK. We might finally see some much-needed decentralisation within English politics at long last. A "yes" vote, on the other hand, would knock all other considerations aside and the next couple of years of politics would almost certainly be dominated by bitter negotiations on how separation would work.

A couple of realisations I've had since my last post on the subject (which several of you were kind enough to tell me you got a lot out of, even if the online comments I got were mainly on facebook! :op):

1. Currency union (I see we're still banging on about that) was dead the instant Salmond conceded that his "plan B" was to carry on using Sterling without a formal union. If plan B offers all the same ease of trade and travel, without the risk of potentially having to bail out a foreign government, why on Earth would England, Wales and Northern Ireland agree to plan A?


2. Independence won't happen in March 2016 following a "Yes" vote. It might suit the SNP to stitch everything up before they get chucked out of Holyrood six weeks later by disgruntled "No" voters, but unpicking a 300-year-old union is likely to take a lot longer than 18 months and there is absolutely no reason for anyone else to agree to their timetable. It's one of the many things that would have to be negotiated. This isn't a reason to vote one way or the other, but from a democratic perspective I reckon it's a good thing that voters get to choose both the UK and Scottish governments again before a final settlement is reached.

Whatever happens in the vote next Thursday, there are going to be an awful lot of people very disappointed in the result. Can we all agree that the winning side, whichever it is, gets no more than one day to gloat before we move on productively?

Comments

[grok-mctanys.livejournal.com]

For an interesting (and unusual) perspective that does its best to ignore anything that is "all short-term and will be resolved within a generation." and tries to take a much longer and broader view instead, Charles Stross' post The Referendum Question is worth reading.

(I wanted to comment on it and leave a link to your last post, but you had to register and stuff so that didn't work out.)

This guy keeps surprising me with his smarts and insight. He shouldn't, because I know how clever his books are, but he seems like someone who could actually play a decent game of counterfactuals.

[rich-jacko.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've read that via another source.

I don't agree that you can achieve greater consensus and be better served by fragmenting into smaller and smaller states. Not only do you lose economies of scale and vastly increase the number of government bureaucracies, smaller states have far less clout when it comes to standing up against the self-interests of global corporations.

Looser multi-state treaty organisations tend to become paralysed by internal wranglings between their members - just look at the EU and, to a lesser extent, the UN. That's not to say those organisations don't have a role in the world. There are certain things they are very good at (see NATO), but they can't do everything that an integrated nation state can.

[gnomentum.livejournal.com]

1) Because ultimately, Westminster know damn fine and well that without a formal currency union Scotland is under no obligation to shoulder any of the UK's debt

2) You're almost certainly right, especially where it comes to Trident..

I'd also like to address your point about the NHS. You're correct when you say control of the NHS in Scotland is already devolved, but without full control of its own income and resources (rather than having to rely on Westminster allocated funds) further cuts to the Scottish budget can and almost certainly will pretty much force the issue. I f the NHS in England is cut, but Holyrood holds out a begging bowl saying it wants to maintain the NHS as-is, I'm pretty sure the rUK will say 'tough titties'. Devolved services are only good for as long as funds allow, and we already know there are further austerity measures scheduled by the 3 big parties right across the board regardless of a Yes / No vote.

[rich-jacko.livejournal.com]

I've heard the SNP's blackmail argument on the debt. It's true that the debt is ultimately the UK government's responsibility, but it's as much Scotland's debt as it is England's, Wales's and Northern Ireland's. Once you start rejecting divisible things like the debt, where does it end? Scotland could certainly forget about any share of the UK's gold reserves. What about other assets which aren't geographically fixed, like the military? Plus a country whose first act was to absolve itself of all its debts would hardly start with a good credit rating. There's also the chance the Treasury does the maths and concludes that a one-off 10% increase in the debt is a price worth paying to avoid having to consult Scotland over interest rates / budgets and the potential cost of any future bail-outs.

Some analysis of the NHS argument here (http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-scotlands-nhs-threat-westminster/18821). While privatisation of health services is vile and should be stopped, the only danger for NHS Scotland is a budgetary one. The fact is the NHS budget in England has increased under the current government. Both the Tories and Labour have said it won't be cut in the next parliament. Now, you might not believe them, but it remains the case that the "Yes" campaign's claims on the NHS are scaremongering with no basis in fact - precisely the sort of thing they are always accusing the "No" campaign of doing.

Austerity is a way of life for many European countries and will continue to be for a good few years. That's because there simply isn't the money. Independence isn't going to solve that. The Scottish Government's funding from Westminster has actually been cut by a lot less than most Whitehall Departments, and some reports have claimed Scotland might have to make more cuts in the years immediately after independence, not less.

I might add that one contributing factor to austerity has been economic mismanagement of the UK for 13 years by a certain Scottish former Chancellor / Prime Minister. God help you if he gets into Holyrood like he's threatening to!

[grok-mctanys.livejournal.com]

See also John Oliver on Scottish Independence for a good laugh, as always.

[rich-jacko.livejournal.com]

Very good. Here's a sneak time-travelling peek at the next few days' headlines (http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/the-siege-of-balamory#fjowtr). ;o)