Alex Salmond is amongst the shrewdest of politics. And if people doubted it before he was First Minister then his conduct since he became the leader of Scotland has surely confirmed it. Ambushing Tony Blair on the Libyan Memorandum of Understanding not to mention the consensual style of Politics that has opposition parties grasping at straws (except the Tartan Tories who are loving their chance to shine).
So I wonder if I am now only finally catching on to what Mr Salmond's independence plan is going to be. The straw to this camel's back was The Times article found here.
The article relates to the prospect of British taxpayers funding Scottish students to go to university for free.
It is another example of people in Scotland getting a better deal than those in England, but the Barnett Formula remaining unaffected (think early payrises for nurses, free care for the elderley, free eye tests etc etc). I presume we in Scotland will still get the same block level of finance regardless of whether Scottish students pay this graduate tax or not.
So, parents and students in Scotland are happy as they get free university education. Meanwhile, our English friends down south get increasingly peeved at those Jocks up north who are bending the rules in their favour. This Scottish resentment will be compounded by an SNP government who's core policy is independence, a Scottish Prime Minister who is struggling in the polling figures (though I expect this to change soon) and of course a truly unfair anomaly whereby Scottish ministers can vote on English matters in Westminster but the inverse does not occur.
So, what could this mean for the independence question?
Well, we've always assumed that Scotland would only be independent if the Scottish people voted for it. But imagine this: David Cameron knows he isn't going to get anywhere in Scotland at the next election. He's going to have to win power despite us rather than with us. So he may well try to use the anti-Scottish sentiment that is growing in Middle England and go as far as to propose an English-Welsh-Northern Irish referendum in the Conservative manifesto which will ask: "Should we keep Scotland as part of the United Kingdom?"
Is it really that infeasible?
Alex Salmond will be biding his time and licking his lips as the next 2 years of UK Politics unfolds, and we can possibly expect a few more freebies on top of university education along the way just to fan the flames.
Labour at war with itself over Welsh NHS
1 hour ago
6 comments:
Well, just a couple of things - that wouldn't be independence by the back door, people in England are entitled to their own national self-determination too. And many are, quite rightly, coming round to that point of view.
I think most people would agree, when it is put to them, Scotland should really be in control of its own finances - either with independence or without independence. It is just not acceptable we have a Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Government that is not responsible for creating wealth. I suspect David Cameron would attempt to go down this line first before going so far as to have an "Expel Scotland from the UK policy". The only problem with that is, it is not clear (a) how it would be done (b) whether the UK would be able to survive such a dramatic constitutional, political and economic change - this would be an even bigger devolution of power, than devolution itself! I suspect that the UK wouldn't survive that, but it is paradoxical that many Unionists are calling for the devolution of financial powers.
One thing is for sure, this constant whining we have on both sides of the border about who scrounges off whom the most or how the Barnett Formula is so unfair (and it isn't really that unfair - but completely misunderstood - the Barnett Formula by its very operation, still allocates far less to Scotland, than Scotland raises in taxes) is totally ridiculous.
And another interesting point, I bought the Sunday Times Scotland, which carried, broadly the same story, by the same journalist - but the headline was completely different and there was nary a mention of this fabled creature - the "English taxpayer!"
Thanks for the comments, I agree it would be a big shock to the Scottish system to have full financial powers but the fear of change/unknown shouldn't stop us going for it, especially if as you say, Scotland should really be in control of its own finances.
I totally agree about the Barnett formula, too many people talk about it without understanding it.
As for "independence by the back door", I ake your point in the broad picture of things. But from a Scottish viewpoint, it's certainly an unorthodox way of 'winning' one's independence when other countries decide it for you. The irony is it may be the SNP's best chance!
Its unlikely to be David Cameron, who has nailed his colours to the British mast - and presumably has Scottish ancestry.
However a successor might. Its not hard to imagine William Hague as the first ever English Prime Minister.
But your right Scottish independence ( or stopping Scotland's English dependence ) is already more popular in England than Scotland.
I know being in the SNP you have to believe Scotland contributes more tax than it spends. But that, and the story you were told about the tooth fairy as a kid, is a fable.
North Sea oil revenues are going to go of a cliff very soon. You can expect major issues as very old North Sea infrastructure starts to break down - pipes leak etc over the next 10 years. I know what I'm talking about - this is already happening in the oldest sector of England.
The case for Scottish independence is not get rich quick on the oil, but to sober up and become self reliant as the Irish have finally done ( after being financially bailed out by the English twice in 100 years ).
Going cold turkey from English tax payers funds is going to really hurt - but could be better for you in the long run. And it will certainly be good for us English.
Some very interesting points there, I would just add to the following:
Aberdeen and the surrounding area is receiving seriously heavy investment from all the major oil and gas players, for example you'd struggle to get a hotel room in that city any day of the week. That to me doesn't suggest the oil/gas is about to "go off a cliff". I've just been recruited into the oil/gas sector in a way, and unless I've been sold up the river, it's growing at a phenomenal rate up there.
With that and the burgeoning Financial Services sector in Edinburgh (second only to London in the UK) then Scotland is well placed to go it alone. I do agree that some people seem to be too fixated on the oil though, we need to be self reliant in all sectors if we're to make it.
The only issue I can see is we are very much an immature country in terms of standing on our own two feet and self-confidence so your comment about going in "cold turkey" but being a good move in the long term is something I can't disagree with.
I also agree with the David Cameron stuff, though as 'British' as he is, he's also a bit of an opportunist so if English nationalism (or whatever you want to call it) is sufficiently popular, then you just never if he'll jump on the bandwagon. Would be a risky move though...
Interesting to imagine William Hague being PM again, wouldn't bet against it I suppose....!
"I totally agree about the Barnett formula, too many people talk about it without understanding it."
Very much so, the phrase Barnett Formula is shorthand for describing something that it simply is not. Indeed the biggest proportion of Scotland's deficit comes from non-identified expenditure which total UK expenditure estimated on a per capita basis across the UK, like the forthcoming London Olympics for example, the costs of running the foreign office, or defence procurement. No concept is given to which parts of the UK actually benefit from from such expenditure, just that the costs are doled out according to whichever nation and region of the UK one wishes to analyse. Of course the costs may be proportional, the benefits certainly are not.
""But from a Scottish viewpoint, it's certainly an unorthodox way of 'winning' one's independence when other countries decide it for you.""
You could put it like that, I don't. I don't believe it will work like that. My own gut feeling is that independence will come about as I've described - the further devolution of powers away from London to the point where the UK becomes ungovernable, or Scotland gets to the stage where it is practically economically and politically independent anyway. Indeed, it is interesting to note that Prof Brian Ashcroft (I think he's Wendy Alexander's husband) admitted in one of the recent Fraser of Allender series, that is we are talking devolving financial powers to Scotland (an even the Tories are doing that) then the only logical and practical outcome of doing that is devolving all financial powers to Scotland - in other words, making Scotland independent. That would be far more preferable than anything else in that regard
"I know being in the SNP you have to believe Scotland contributes more tax than it spends. But that, and the story you were told about the tooth fairy as a kid, is a fable."
Sorry, but that really is just an economically illiterate fairy story - with the greatest respect of course. I'm not going to argue that Scotland runs a surplus all the time, but nowhere ever does that, certainly not Scotland and certainly not England. Scotland has run fiscal surpluses (from 1979 to 1986,for example) in the past as well as fiscal deficits - ditto England. But more recently, both countries, more often than not run at deficit level, or if we want to put it in business terms, they run at losses. On broad Government figures at the moment, England alone has an annual fiscal deficit of around £30 - 40bn (and that is with stripping out the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish dimension) Effectively that constitutes the same deficit to GDP ratio as Scotland is in, when everything is taken into account.
Indeed as Nigel Lawson implicitly notes in his memoirs - the great Thatcherite revolution was firmly suckled to the teat of (Scottish) North Sea oil revenue. And without such a great drip feed of revenue, would not have been as successful. Certainly in Scotland we won't be able to benefit from our resources in such a sustained way as Mrs Thatcher did during the 1980s, but as noted before, the oil industry will certainly be around and much more importantly so will the other growth industries in Scotland, like services, which are far more important, in terms of employment and revenue, to Scotland, than oil.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
酒店,
Post a Comment