The Scottish Politics Thread

[Biffer]

It can't just be one region, it needs to be all - having the NE as second-fiddle to London doesn't address the main issue, I can understand why it wasn't seen as viable. Even living in England we suffer with the London-centricity of decision-making (Crossrail and HS2 rather than decent rail services between Liverpool, Manchester and the NE and even between Oxford and Cambridge).

Agree with your point about Mayors - Bristol has a progressive in Marvin Rees, but despite some good work in the city itself he can't do a great deal around e.g. Universal Credit.

I'm still not sure why these things aren't addressable within the context of the union (we seem to have managed devolution), but I can understand a Scottish person's frustration when feeling the impact of issues mostly instigated south of the Cheviots

The main reason that it's not addressable inside the Union is that most people in England aren't interested in addressing it. It then follows that it's not going to be addressed, regardless of what people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland think, due to the democratic deficit mentioned previously.

You have lost me there. The democratic deficit that Scotland receives means that you cannot dictate what England needs to discuss/consider/enact in the way they setup?

I'm referring to the previous posts where we were discussing the democratic deficit across the UK not just Scotland, which I thought was reasonably transparent from the post I was replying to and the previous ones in that thread of conversation. If the societal (rather than national) divisions across Britain only sit there and get wider, and contribute further to the political culture we have which depends on and enhances those divisions, we're still part of a dysfunctional country.

[Biffer]

I don't think this is fully accurate. England is an ancient nation with as much right to national identity and institutions as any other.

Regional assemblies shit all over that and people understand that, it's one of the reasons why they've always been a non-starter.

Not sure which bit you're disagreeing with - constitutional reform being needed, Mayors being a token exercise in representation or there being a core problem about democratic deficit within the UK. Or something else.

Britain is now over 20 years into experimental tinkering with the constitution. Hard to say we have a more coherent country as a result and so I am very sceptical of 'one last heave' suggestions.

That all depends on if you think the tinkering is what caused the lack of coherence or if it just brought it out into the light. I think it's the latter.

And just because you think a particular change hasn't had the desired effect, that's not a valid reason to not try to make further changes if you think there's something wrong.

[Slick]

so If we are crap at exporting as part of the UK - what changes would you propose to change that ?

Get rid of SDI and work more closely with the HMG resources across the globe would be my first suggestion. Have more diversity in the markets we target would be another.

But it’s not really up to me to come up with an answer for that, it’s up to SG to tell me what they would change in an independent Scotland, with far less resources, that would improve our exports. Why is it a secret? Should this not be exactly the kind of thing they should be shouting from the rooftops to convince people like me?

Or is it just bollocks?

Well, you did say we’re crap at exporting, so it’s either a case of you're happy with that or come up with something to address it. Having worked with SDI and various HMG departments in promoting the UK overseas, they both have a role. HMG departments tend to get rattled by a ‘region’ standing up and saying they need better representation and what they’re intending to do ignores half the country. If you pushed me, I’d say the difference between the two is that SDI is genuinely trying to benefit exporters but is very often not particularly good at it, and HMG departments are most interested in demonstrating to ministers that they’re doing the activities but don’t actually care whether it’s effective or not.

And both are hampered by the amount of money and staff available and what they’re allowed to spend money on.

I do have my own ideas and I regularly try to share them with anyone that will listen. But I’m not the one trying to yank us out of the Union by saying we can do better but not being able to say exactly what that better is. It’s a nonsense, we are potentially a few months away from a referendum (unlikely, but who knows) and there just doesn’t seem to be any answers to questions, just vague, we can do better.

I work with SDI and DIT on a daily basis and your summing up is absolutely bang on.

[Slick]

Here is an alternative take on Blyth’s comments, yes it’s The National, which is at its worst only the other side of the coin from The Telegraph, which is where the quotes in Slick’s post come from, if I’m not mistaken

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19561 ... se-brexit/

Well, no, they came from Blythe. (Smart arsery aside, it was the Times.

The thing is that National article just does exactly what he talks about - states where we want to go with absolutely no substance on how we get there. Example - we are middling at exporting (we are not, we are crap) but with our own policies we can change that. Well what are these policies - Also rather hilariously uses Denmark as an example.

The article mentions Denmark once, it also mentions Sweden in the same point, with reference to how many civil servants each has.

The reason for my posting it was that the Times (I thought it was the Torygraph) article does not mention that Blyth favours independence for Scotland, he knows it's going to be tough but he views the current economic being followed in the UK as a disaster - 'Blyth himself is scathing about the potential negative impact of Brexit, noting “the supposed benefits have so far at least proven illusory”. He argues that the debt-financed, monopolised UK economy outside of the EU will mean a “resulting decline in investment and productivity” that forces down real wages.'

I think the Times article has cherry-picked some quotes and arranged them to suit their agenda. This happens all the time of course, and it will only increase in the run up to any second referendum, it's going to be tough trying to get any kind of neutral analysis.

Anyway, the main thrust of his comments and my point of posting them is that we need to have that honest level of debate. As I’ve said a few times, I’m not against independence but I want honesty about what is going to happen and how the fuck we are going to get out of it. It’s not just prevarication on the part of the SNP, it’s straight out lies and that’s not good enough.

The first steps towards the second referendum were taken yesterday, I'd like to think there is going to be an open and fair debate, but I'm not holding my breath.

I think we agree on a lot of that. My main point of posting it was to highlight that these are the debates and answers we need to have

[Biffer]

I work with SDI and DIT on a daily basis and your summing up is absolutely bang on.

We're starting to change some of what we do to be 'we'll organise it and put the effort in if you pay for it' with both of them. They're all very short of people so I think it'll be well received and might help us do something effective.

[Paddington Bear]

I'm not sure anyone's disputing England's right to national identity.

My concern is that significant parts of the UK don't receive much meaningful representation, and this is of interest in this thread as it's also a factor in Scottish representation in broader UK reserved policy.

I'd say getting a more balanced representation and devolution of powers across the UK is in everyone interest.

What does 'meaningful representation' actually mean? Scotland elects MPs in proportion to it's population (and previously in excess of it), and has a devolved government. Should Scottish votes count more?

I meant the term 'meaningful representation' in the sense of being able to meaningfully influence policy which impacts your life.

Think of it being more the people of e.g. Cornwall don't really get much look-in around policies such as benefit levels - Scotland suffers this to some extent but is being mitigated by increasingly devolved levels of powers, Cornwall doesn't have this luxury. I think it should. In the context of this thread, there are some UK reserved powers which Scotland just doesn't have the critical mass to change.

I get the point but not sure it stacks up - the UK is not a confederation, it is a unitary state and I'm not sure that 'Scotland' is, say, a foreign policy entity in terms of having a unified point of view. I've met plenty of Scots on both sides of the nukes debate and know plenty of English people who are likewise, for example.

[Slick]

I work with SDI and DIT on a daily basis and your summing up is absolutely bang on.

We're starting to change some of what we do to be 'we'll organise it and put the effort in if you pay for it' with both of them. They're all very short of people so I think it'll be well received and might help us do something effective.

We are doing a bit of that as well, although both claim to have no cash- which is true to an extent, but not completely.

The main problem I have with SDI is that the last man in Africa left last month, so as a country we have zero trade representation in the whole of sub- Saharan Africa…

Edit: the new DIT Scotland head is very keen to try every avenue to get more DIT cash up here so a good time to strike!

[Dogbert]

What does 'meaningful representation' actually mean? Scotland elects MPs in proportion to it's population (and previously in excess of it), and has a devolved government. Should Scottish votes count more?

I meant the term 'meaningful representation' in the sense of being able to meaningfully influence policy which impacts your life.

Think of it being more the people of e.g. Cornwall don't really get much look-in around policies such as benefit levels - Scotland suffers this to some extent but is being mitigated by increasingly devolved levels of powers, Cornwall doesn't have this luxury. I think it should. In the context of this thread, there are some UK reserved powers which Scotland just doesn't have the critical mass to change.

I get the point but not sure it stacks up - the UK is not a confederation, it is a unitary state and I'm not sure that 'Scotland' is, say, a foreign policy entity in terms of having a unified point of view. I've met plenty of Scots on both sides of the nukes debate and know plenty of English people who are likewise, for example.

Scotland does not have a foreign policy Entity because as you say it is a small part of a much larger union, It would only have the Foreign policy Entity if is was a independent state

Having the ability to decide if you want WMD , or what Military operations you want to be part of is pretty important , which is part of the consideration when people look at the independence debate

[tc27]

Tichtheid


As Is aid I do not agree with Blyths overall assessment (I mean within Scotland itself even if it was Independent people would want rich areas to be taxed to provide universal services base on need - this is basically what his 'inter-regional' transfers are) but he is light years ahead of the other ''experts' often rolled out in support of independence (Murphy, Wilson et al) because he's objective enough to talk about the negatives.

Regarding votes - AV is better at reflecting overall voting shares than FPTP but its clearly not a PR system. The current Scottish government would be forced to reach beyond the Greens for support if it was.

When we get unionists pointing out that staying within the UK will be just as bad, as Blyth states, and pointing out the positives for Indy, then perhaps there will be reciprocation from the other side and a more honest and open debate.

Actually I have addressed both sides of Blyth's comments in this exchange. You however are just repeating the National's 'door step answer' you linked to which is to basically repeat that Blyth supports independence and not get into any attempt to address the substance of his comments.

FWIW the story is being reported because he's a reasonably well respected indy backing economist who has being appointed as an advisor to the FM - if he was one of the many economists who take a negative view of independence I doubt it would be much of a story. Its also perfectly normal to only publish the comments the that are the most interesting and relevant....and lets face it unless he explicitly renounced them all in unincluded parts of the interview then there's really no reason to suggest its all due to editing.

Anyway here is a copy of the Herald's story - highlights are my own

Sturgeon adviser warns of 20 years of economic upheaval after independence157
POLITICS6th September
Nicola Sturgeon's economic adviser warns of 20-year economic transition after independence

By Tom Gordon @HTScotPol
Scottish Political Editor
Sturgeon adviser warns of 20-year economic transition after independence

AN independent Scotland would take decades to reorder and stabilise its economy, one of Nicola Sturgeon’s leading advisers on the subject has warned.

Professor Mark Blyth said the country would “need a 20-year period of getting from A to B”, and that it would “come with costs”.

He also said leasing the Faslane nuclear base on the Clyde to the UK and US to bring in billions of pounds a year would be better than the SNP’s “knee-jerk unilateralism”, which would “make the economic transition that much harder”.


The Scots-born academic, professor of international economics at the Watson Institute of Economics at Brown University at Rhode Island, also mocked the SNP’s repeated claim that Scotland would become like Denmark if it was independent.

“No, you wouldn’t be Denmark. Denmark took 600 years to become Denmark,” he said, bemoaning the “complete lack of specificity” in planning for the economic upheaval.

Prof Blyth, who was made a member of the First Minister’s new economic advisory council in July, made the comments days before his appointment was announced in an interview with the Foreign Press Association.

Some of Prof Blyth’s remarks were reported by the Mail on Sunday, but the Herald has seen the full video of the interview in which he makes a series of other points likely to prove uncomfortable for the Scottish Government.

As reported yesterday, Prof Blyth warned independence risked being the equivalent of “Brexit times ten” because of the deeper and longer nature of the Union involved.

He said: “If your argument is that we need to do this because of Brexit, then Scotland separated from England is the biggest Brexit in history. The last time Scotland was fully economically independent, the word capitalism hadn’t been uttered.

“It [the Union] has been together for over 300 years. So, if pulling apart 30 years of economic integration with Europe is going to hurt, 300 is going to hurt a lot.


“That means one of two things. Either you have brass-plate independence — you declare independence, you get a vote, but nothing really changes, you put up some brass plates in Edinburgh, and nothing really changes, you keep the pound and all that stuff.

“Or you go for regulatory divergence — different currency, different economic policy, etc, which will entail significant short to medium-term costs. There’s no way around that.

“We know that because it’s Brexit times ten.”

The SNP conference later this week is expected to back the removal of Trident within three years of independence.

However Prof Blyth said that ejecting nuclear weapons could deter much-needed foreign direct investment (FDI) from the United States and antagonise Nato and the EU.

He said: “The SNP have embraced a knee-jerk unilateralism, get the nukes out, we don’t want any of that stuff. I don’t know how that’s going to work out in the long-term.


“If the first thing you do is to say to Nato and to the leader of Nato that we’re not going to host any nukes any more, you can forget it, and your submarine access is cut off, you can’t dock in our ports or anything, they’re going to make life very difficult.

“If you do that also from the European side, you’re going to basically bugger up Nato’s only nuclear deterrent, don’t expect them to be too forthcoming on the EU membership.

“On the other hand, if you basically think about this as an asset, one way to do this is to lease the bases. So you would do a joint lease to the United Kingdom and the United States for Coulport, Holy Loch, whatever it is, you declare it ex-ante sovereign territory, you sign a 50-year lease and you get two billion a year.

“You’re doing a transit project. You’re trying to get from where you are economically to where you want to be economically, and basically getting a ton of FDI and getting a transfer of two billion a year into an economy of only 4.5m people, that would be a good thing to do.

“But then, you would have to basically swallow all you’ve said about ‘no nukes’ and all that sort of stuff. So it depends if the politics wins out. If the politics wins out in the way that it’s being written just now, it’s going to make the economic transition that much harder.”


Prof Blyth said he favoured independence on pragmatic and democratic grounds, believing the UK economic model was unstable, while demography meant the population was gradually moving more and more towards Yes.

However he said there appeared to be a lack of economic thinking going on as to how Scotland could move from its current state to a future one outside the UK.

He said there would be challenges, and a new Scottish currency was not a panacea, as it would be pegged to sterling as the UK would still be Scotland’s biggest trading partner.

Discussing the republic of Ireland’s economic struggle after independence last century, he said: “Scotland doesn’t need a 50-year drag but it does need a twenty-year period of getting from A to B, and that’s going to come with costs if it is to be meaningful.

“You can have all the independence you want if at the end of the day nothing really changes - you just change the brass plates in Edinburgh. I think they want more than that.

“The question is, how do you get from there to there. You need a plan.”

He mocked the SNP’s repeated claim that an independent Scotland could simply be another Denmark, pointing out it borders the massive trading market of Germany.

He said there was a “complete lack of specificity” in thinking about Scotland’s current business model, and where it wanted to go and how.

“Instead of which we’ve got, ‘Denmark is awesome. We should be like Denmark. If we were independent, we would be Denmark’.


“No, you wouldn’t be Denmark. Denmark took 600 years to become Denmark.

“How do you become your own thing given where you’re starting? That’s the only thing that really needs to be answered."

He went on: “The Danes have a far bigger connection to Germany [than Scotland]. They’re a peninsular that’s stuck up on the butt of the hinterland of Germany.

“[One view is that] the basic reason that Denmark is rich and cooperative isn’t really it’s social-democratic traditions or any of that, it’s the fact that you’ve got 80m Germans up your backside.”

Prof Blyth’s comments echo those of former SNP MSP Andrew Wilson, who drew up the SNP’s Growth Commission blueprint for independence in 2018.

In recent weeks, Mr Wilson has been urging greater honesty about the transition to independence, given the complication of Brexit that did not exist in 2014.

In response to Prof Blyth’s comment about “Brexit times ten”, a spokesman for Ms Sturgeon said: “Scotland has been torn out of the EU against our democratic will, causing massive harm to our economy and society. Brexit is inflicting huge labour shortages, leading to empty shelves in shops. Independence will give us the chance to rejoin a market around seven times bigger than the UK.”

[inactionman]

Lads, if you'll allow me to be condescending for a moment, it's threads like this that make me glad ASMO (I think?) et al set up an alternative to PR.

It's so nice to be able to discuss something with people with notably different experiences and perspectives without resort to tired hyperbole and insult.

That's it. As you were.

[Biffer]

Lads, if you'll allow me to be condescending for a moment, it's threads like this that make me glad ASMO (I think?) et al set up an alternative to PR.

It's so nice to be able to discuss something with people with notably different experiences and perspectives without resort to tired hyperbole and insult.

That's it. As you were.

Not it's not. Ya fucker.

[Slick]

Lads, if you'll allow me to be condescending for a moment, it's threads like this that make me glad ASMO (I think?) et al set up an alternative to PR.

It's so nice to be able to discuss something with people with notably different experiences and perspectives without resort to tired hyperbole and insult.

That's it. As you were.

+1 it has got heated on a couple of occasions (guilty) but I’d like to think I’d enjoy a beer with anyone who is not a Saffer on NPR.

And yes, it was ASMO you ungrateful cunt

[Dogbert]

We're a' Jock Tamson's bairns.

[Tichtheid]

Tichtheid


As Is aid I do not agree with Blyths overall assessment (I mean within Scotland itself even if it was Independent people would want rich areas to be taxed to provide universal services base on need - this is basically what his 'inter-regional' transfers are) but he is light years ahead of the other ''experts' often rolled out in support of independence (Murphy, Wilson et al) because he's objective enough to talk about the negatives.

Regarding votes - AV is better at reflecting overall voting shares than FPTP but its clearly not a PR system. The current Scottish government would be forced to reach beyond the Greens for support if it was.

When we get unionists pointing out that staying within the UK will be just as bad, as Blyth states, and pointing out the positives for Indy, then perhaps there will be reciprocation from the other side and a more honest and open debate.

Actually I have addressed both sides of Blyth's comments in this exchange. You however are just repeating the National's 'door step answer' you linked to which is to basically repeat that Blyth supports independence and not get into any attempt to address the substance of his comments.

To be honest I don't think you did address "both sides", in fact I don't think there are two sides to Blyth's comments, he supports independence, he thinks it's going to be a tough road to get to where to Scotland wants to be, but, and this is important, no tougher than staying within the UK.
He supports an open and honest debate, hooray, more of this please

I've yet to see one cohesive argument for staying in the union, as Biffer pointed out previously there is no unionist argument being put forward that Scotland will be a better place within the union, only that Scotland will suffer outside of it.

If someone can put forward a vision of a union which is a progressive northern European social democracy, where corruption and entitlement through birth are things of the past, where everyone in the UK is given a fair shake, then I'll support that.

[Tichtheid]

.... or I might not

As I've said several times, for me this isn't really about the UK or England, it's about a feeling that those in Scotland should choose their own way.

[Slick]

When we get unionists pointing out that staying within the UK will be just as bad, as Blyth states, and pointing out the positives for Indy, then perhaps there will be reciprocation from the other side and a more honest and open debate.

Actually I have addressed both sides of Blyth's comments in this exchange. You however are just repeating the National's 'door step answer' you linked to which is to basically repeat that Blyth supports independence and not get into any attempt to address the substance of his comments.

To be honest I don't think you did address "both sides", in fact I don't think there are two sides to Blyth's comments, he supports independence, he thinks it's going to be a tough road to get to where to Scotland wants to be, but, and this is important, no tougher than staying within the UK.
He supports an open and honest debate, hooray, more of this please

I've yet to see one cohesive argument for staying in the union, as Biffer pointed out previously there is no unionist argument being put forward that Scotland will be a better place within the union, only that Scotland will suffer outside of it.

If someone can put forward a vision of a union which is a progressive northern European social democracy, where corruption and entitlement through birth are things of the past, where everyone in the UK is given a fair shake, then I'll support that.

Sorry, but that’s a nonsense argument. You may not like a lot of things about the U.K., and I’m with you on some of that, but it is nonetheless one of the most affluent, fair, progressive, tolerant etc etc countries on the planet - that is the status quo.

The argument that needs to be made is why would we leave that and what would we do that would make our situation better. If things are so terribly shit in the Union then you would presume it is easy to articulate some major policy decisions that would be made out of it to make our lot better. So where are they? Why after 15 years of an SNP government, one referendum and another apparently on its way, can no one tell me how the government of an independent Scotland will do things differently?

Edit: and surely as an independence supporter it’s SG that should be giving you the vision of this Northern European utopia, so where is it and why are you happy to look the other way as they don’t address it

[Tichtheid]

Sorry, but that’s a nonsense argument. You may not like a lot of things about the U.K., and I’m with you on some of that, but it is nonetheless one of the most affluent, fair, progressive, tolerant etc etc countries on the planet - that is the status quo.

The argument that needs to be made is why would we leave that and what would we do that would make our situation better. If things are so terribly shit in the Union then you would presume it is easy to articulate some major policy decisions that would be made out of it to make our lot better. So where are they? Why after 15 years of an SNP government, one referendum and another apparently on its way, can no one tell me how the government of an independent Scotland will do things differently?

Edit: and surely as an independence supporter it’s SG that should be giving you the vision of this Northern European utopia, so where is it and why are you happy to look the other way as they don’t address it

The UK is not affluent, fair, progressive, tolerant etc etc for a great many in the UK, one of the main drivers for Brexit was the vote from those who were on the wrong end of austerity for six years, but at the bottom rung for a lot longer than that. It takes decades and billions to fix the kind of problems the UK was facing in the 90s.

I think it's up to both sides to put forward a coherent argument, not just the side proposing change - there has to be more than 2014's Project Fear from the union side - Britsplaining is not a policy that is going to stop the push for independence, it won't gain a buy-in from the Scottish electorate.

There are very different visions of the future paths already in place in Scotland and for rUK, one of the big challenges facing Scotland is the end of freedom of movement,

I've been interrupted by a phone call and lost my thread, I'll post this anyway and perhaps I'll edit or add to it later

[Slick]

Cool.

Are you going to come up for an Edinburgh game at some point? I’m keen to try and organise a cabal.

[Tichtheid]

Cool.

Are you going to come up for an Edinburgh game at some point? I’m keen to try and organise a cabal.

I'll certainly let you know when I'll be up for a game, the new stadium looks great, the new shirts look great, this is going to be our year

cough

this might be more suited to the rugby thread, but good dog I hope we play some rugby this year, losing whilst playing that shite was hard to take last season

[Biffer]

Cool.

Are you going to come up for an Edinburgh game at some point? I’m keen to try and organise a cabal.

I'll certainly let you know when I'll be up for a game, the new stadium looks great, the new shirts look great, this is going to be our year

cough

this might be more suited to the rugby thread, but good dog I hope we play some rugby this year, losing whilst playing that shite was hard to take last season

Do insomniac agnostic dyslexics lie awake at night and wonder if there such a thing as a dog?

[Tichtheid]

Cool.

Are you going to come up for an Edinburgh game at some point? I’m keen to try and organise a cabal.

I'll certainly let you know when I'll be up for a game, the new stadium looks great, the new shirts look great, this is going to be our year

cough

this might be more suited to the rugby thread, but good dog I hope we play some rugby this year, losing whilst playing that shite was hard to take last season

Do insomniac agnostic dyslexics lie awake at night and wonder if there such a thing as a dog?

Don't you?

I do.

It's a thing from another bored, tbh, dog instead of, well, y'know.

[Slick]

I'll certainly let you know when I'll be up for a game, the new stadium looks great, the new shirts look great, this is going to be our year

cough

this might be more suited to the rugby thread, but good dog I hope we play some rugby this year, losing whilst playing that shite was hard to take last season

Do insomniac agnostic dyslexics lie awake at night and wonder if there such a thing as a dog?

Don't you?

I do.

It's a thing from another bored, tbh, dog instead of, well, y'know.

Not totally convinced by my new pet name.

[Dogbert]

Maybe coming at it from a different angle and look at some of the reserved powers that would move to Scotland should it become independent, and how they have been handled in the recent past

Foreign Policy – Afghanistan / Iraq / Libya / Syria – all outstanding successes we can all agree

Defence– Where do you start – smallest Land army forces for 200 years creating yawning capability gaps

Defence Procurement - We have seen four, maybe five substantial attempts to reform the procurement of large programs since the late 1990s.
The same issues have been highlighted time and again. None of the lessons are ever learnt. These failings are costing huge amounts of money
The fuck ups in defence procurement would fill a bookshelf

Immigration – Another roaring success for both legal & illegal immigration ( Scotland’s specific needs here are completely ignored )

Energy Efficiency – Sunaks botched 1.5 billion Green Homes fiasco – axed without notice after only 5 months after its launch – Sunak gave the energy ministry only 12 weeks to design and deliver the scheme. This one is so bad its comical - Cowboy politicians, and not cowboy builders - Sheer Utter incompetence

Could we, should we do better – Damn right we should

[Biffer]

Maybe coming at it from a different angle and look at some of the reserved powers that would move to Scotland should it become independent, and how they have been handled in the recent past

Foreign Policy – Afghanistan / Iraq / Libya / Syria – all outstanding successes we can all agree

Defence– Where do you start – smallest Land army forces for 200 years creating yawning capability gaps

Defence Procurement - We have seen four, maybe five substantial attempts to reform the procurement of large programs since the late 1990s.
The same issues have been highlighted time and again. None of the lessons are ever learnt. These failings are costing huge amounts of money
The fuck ups in defence procurement would fill a bookshelf

Immigration – Another roaring success for both legal & illegal immigration ( Scotland’s specific needs here are completely ignored )

Energy Efficiency – Sunaks botched 1.5 billion Green Homes fiasco – axed without notice after only 5 months after its launch – Sunak gave the energy ministry only 12 weeks to design and deliver the scheme. This one is so bad its comical - Cowboy politicians, and not cowboy builders - Sheer Utter incompetence

Could we, should we do better – Damn right we should

In energy policy you can also look to the abolition of the renewables obligation and the introduction of contracts for difference. This took years and put the handbrake on both the research and development into wave and tidal, implementation of new renewable facilities and the nascent manufacturing industry for renewable generation. It took years and during it there was no clarity about what the returns would be on generation facilities, as such there wasn’t much. And the reason it took so long is because the government wanted to wrap nuclear generation in to the same scheme - all the investment in that now going to China and France.

[Slick]

Maybe coming at it from a different angle and look at some of the reserved powers that would move to Scotland should it become independent, and how they have been handled in the recent past

Foreign Policy – Afghanistan / Iraq / Libya / Syria – all outstanding successes we can all agree

Defence– Where do you start – smallest Land army forces for 200 years creating yawning capability gaps

Defence Procurement - We have seen four, maybe five substantial attempts to reform the procurement of large programs since the late 1990s.
The same issues have been highlighted time and again. None of the lessons are ever learnt. These failings are costing huge amounts of money
The fuck ups in defence procurement would fill a bookshelf

Immigration – Another roaring success for both legal & illegal immigration ( Scotland’s specific needs here are completely ignored )

Energy Efficiency – Sunaks botched 1.5 billion Green Homes fiasco – axed without notice after only 5 months after its launch – Sunak gave the energy ministry only 12 weeks to design and deliver the scheme. This one is so bad its comical - Cowboy politicians, and not cowboy builders - Sheer Utter incompetence

Could we, should we do better – Damn right we should

With respect, it's exactly the same angle - here are things we could change. OK, what are the new policies going to look like? Silence.

[Paddington Bear]

Maybe coming at it from a different angle and look at some of the reserved powers that would move to Scotland should it become independent, and how they have been handled in the recent past

Foreign Policy – Afghanistan / Iraq / Libya / Syria – all outstanding successes we can all agree

Defence– Where do you start – smallest Land army forces for 200 years creating yawning capability gaps

Defence Procurement - We have seen four, maybe five substantial attempts to reform the procurement of large programs since the late 1990s.
The same issues have been highlighted time and again. None of the lessons are ever learnt. These failings are costing huge amounts of money
The fuck ups in defence procurement would fill a bookshelf

Immigration – Another roaring success for both legal & illegal immigration ( Scotland’s specific needs here are completely ignored )

Energy Efficiency – Sunaks botched 1.5 billion Green Homes fiasco – axed without notice after only 5 months after its launch – Sunak gave the energy ministry only 12 weeks to design and deliver the scheme. This one is so bad its comical - Cowboy politicians, and not cowboy builders - Sheer Utter incompetence

Could we, should we do better – Damn right we should

In energy policy you can also look to the abolition of the renewables obligation and the introduction of contracts for difference. This took years and put the handbrake on both the research and development into wave and tidal, implementation of new renewable facilities and the nascent manufacturing industry for renewable generation. It took years and during it there was no clarity about what the returns would be on generation facilities, as such there wasn’t much. And the reason it took so long is because the government wanted to wrap nuclear generation in to the same scheme - all the investment in that now going to China and France.

Don't think anyone is suggesting that Britain is well run from the centre (and hasn't been for some time), but I'm not convinced that the issue is any better at Holyrood.

Taking back control and having more say over many of the areas and more above has worked out fairly shambolically, even people with very good intentions both in politics and the Civil Service have been overwhelmed with the scope of the mess to sort out on leaving a 40 year union.

It's not an argument not to do it and I get Ticht's point that it's a negative rather than positive position, but it doesn't follow that an independent Scotland will automatically run any of these things better than they are now. Their energy will be very focussed on the immediate aftermath of leaving the Union, currency, applying to join the EU etc and finding the oxygen for anything else will be very tough.

[robmatic]

Maybe coming at it from a different angle and look at some of the reserved powers that would move to Scotland should it become independent, and how they have been handled in the recent past

Foreign Policy – Afghanistan / Iraq / Libya / Syria – all outstanding successes we can all agree

Defence– Where do you start – smallest Land army forces for 200 years creating yawning capability gaps

Defence Procurement - We have seen four, maybe five substantial attempts to reform the procurement of large programs since the late 1990s.
The same issues have been highlighted time and again. None of the lessons are ever learnt. These failings are costing huge amounts of money
The fuck ups in defence procurement would fill a bookshelf

Immigration – Another roaring success for both legal & illegal immigration ( Scotland’s specific needs here are completely ignored )

Energy Efficiency – Sunaks botched 1.5 billion Green Homes fiasco – axed without notice after only 5 months after its launch – Sunak gave the energy ministry only 12 weeks to design and deliver the scheme. This one is so bad its comical - Cowboy politicians, and not cowboy builders - Sheer Utter incompetence

Could we, should we do better – Damn right we should

I'll chip in on the immigration thing because I am a professional in this area. UK immigration policy and implementation is an absolute shambles, but the migration flows are there that would meet Scotland's needs. The big problem is that London is only 400 miles away and is an English-speaking global city where you can earn good money, which is a massive pull factor both within the UK and internationally. An independent Scotland won't change that.

[Tichtheid]

Maybe coming at it from a different angle and look at some of the reserved powers that would move to Scotland should it become independent, and how they have been handled in the recent past

Foreign Policy – Afghanistan / Iraq / Libya / Syria – all outstanding successes we can all agree

Defence– Where do you start – smallest Land army forces for 200 years creating yawning capability gaps

Defence Procurement - We have seen four, maybe five substantial attempts to reform the procurement of large programs since the late 1990s.
The same issues have been highlighted time and again. None of the lessons are ever learnt. These failings are costing huge amounts of money
The fuck ups in defence procurement would fill a bookshelf

Immigration – Another roaring success for both legal & illegal immigration ( Scotland’s specific needs here are completely ignored )

Energy Efficiency – Sunaks botched 1.5 billion Green Homes fiasco – axed without notice after only 5 months after its launch – Sunak gave the energy ministry only 12 weeks to design and deliver the scheme. This one is so bad its comical - Cowboy politicians, and not cowboy builders - Sheer Utter incompetence

Could we, should we do better – Damn right we should

In energy policy you can also look to the abolition of the renewables obligation and the introduction of contracts for difference. This took years and put the handbrake on both the research and development into wave and tidal, implementation of new renewable facilities and the nascent manufacturing industry for renewable generation. It took years and during it there was no clarity about what the returns would be on generation facilities, as such there wasn’t much. And the reason it took so long is because the government wanted to wrap nuclear generation in to the same scheme - all the investment in that now going to China and France.

Your post made me think of Salter at Edinburgh Uni and his "ducks" - a missed opportunity there.

[Biffer]

Maybe coming at it from a different angle and look at some of the reserved powers that would move to Scotland should it become independent, and how they have been handled in the recent past

Foreign Policy – Afghanistan / Iraq / Libya / Syria – all outstanding successes we can all agree

Defence– Where do you start – smallest Land army forces for 200 years creating yawning capability gaps

Defence Procurement - We have seen four, maybe five substantial attempts to reform the procurement of large programs since the late 1990s.
The same issues have been highlighted time and again. None of the lessons are ever learnt. These failings are costing huge amounts of money
The fuck ups in defence procurement would fill a bookshelf

Immigration – Another roaring success for both legal & illegal immigration ( Scotland’s specific needs here are completely ignored )

Energy Efficiency – Sunaks botched 1.5 billion Green Homes fiasco – axed without notice after only 5 months after its launch – Sunak gave the energy ministry only 12 weeks to design and deliver the scheme. This one is so bad its comical - Cowboy politicians, and not cowboy builders - Sheer Utter incompetence

Could we, should we do better – Damn right we should

In energy policy you can also look to the abolition of the renewables obligation and the introduction of contracts for difference. This took years and put the handbrake on both the research and development into wave and tidal, implementation of new renewable facilities and the nascent manufacturing industry for renewable generation. It took years and during it there was no clarity about what the returns would be on generation facilities, as such there wasn’t much. And the reason it took so long is because the government wanted to wrap nuclear generation in to the same scheme - all the investment in that now going to China and France.

Your post made me think of Salter at Edinburgh Uni and his "ducks" - a missed opportunity there.

Maybe. The fundamental problem that no one has ever got past in wave technology is survivability. Generation facilities need to have a 25 year lifespan, and in that time you've got a 50% chance of having a one in a hundred year storm (isn't stats weird) so your facility has to be able to survive that. But wave generators have to be, by definition, highly flexible with a lot of moving parts. So far as I know, no one has really got past that.

[Tichtheid]

Maybe. The fundamental problem that no one has ever got past in wave technology is survivability. Generation facilities need to have a 25 year lifespan, and in that time you've got a 50% chance of having a one in a hundred year storm (isn't stats weird) so your facility has to be able to survive that. But wave generators have to be, by definition, highly flexible with a lot of moving parts. So far as I know, no one has really got past that.

The funding was pulled after oil prices stabilised so the project was never tested in an ocean environment.

It may have been, if you'll excuse me, a dead duck, but it may have been "the answer".

I seem to recall that there was lobbying on behalf of nuclear power which won out over renewables - I'm not anti nuke power btw.

[Biffer]

Maybe. The fundamental problem that no one has ever got past in wave technology is survivability. Generation facilities need to have a 25 year lifespan, and in that time you've got a 50% chance of having a one in a hundred year storm (isn't stats weird) so your facility has to be able to survive that. But wave generators have to be, by definition, highly flexible with a lot of moving parts. So far as I know, no one has really got past that.

The funding was pulled after oil prices stabilised so the project was never tested in an ocean environment.

It may have been, if you'll excuse me, a dead duck, but it may have been "the answer".

I seem to recall that there was lobbying on behalf of nuclear power which won out over renewables - I'm not anti nuke power btw.

There are many wave generators that were tested in ocean at EMEC in Orkney. Pelamis, Aquamarine Power, Well-Oy, an others. But none of those technologies has ever gone into a production system. Wave is a good idea in theory but I just don't see how it'll ever get over that hurdle, regardless of investment.

[Dogbert]

Maybe coming at it from a different angle and look at some of the reserved powers that would move to Scotland should it become independent, and how they have been handled in the recent past

Foreign Policy – Afghanistan / Iraq / Libya / Syria – all outstanding successes we can all agree

Defence– Where do you start – smallest Land army forces for 200 years creating yawning capability gaps

Defence Procurement - We have seen four, maybe five substantial attempts to reform the procurement of large programs since the late 1990s.
The same issues have been highlighted time and again. None of the lessons are ever learnt. These failings are costing huge amounts of money
The fuck ups in defence procurement would fill a bookshelf

Immigration – Another roaring success for both legal & illegal immigration ( Scotland’s specific needs here are completely ignored )

Energy Efficiency – Sunaks botched 1.5 billion Green Homes fiasco – axed without notice after only 5 months after its launch – Sunak gave the energy ministry only 12 weeks to design and deliver the scheme. This one is so bad its comical - Cowboy politicians, and not cowboy builders - Sheer Utter incompetence

Could we, should we do better – Damn right we should

With respect, it's exactly the same angle - here are things we could change. OK, what are the new policies going to look like? Silence.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/migra ... d-prosper/

[Slick]

Maybe coming at it from a different angle and look at some of the reserved powers that would move to Scotland should it become independent, and how they have been handled in the recent past

Foreign Policy – Afghanistan / Iraq / Libya / Syria – all outstanding successes we can all agree

Defence– Where do you start – smallest Land army forces for 200 years creating yawning capability gaps

Defence Procurement - We have seen four, maybe five substantial attempts to reform the procurement of large programs since the late 1990s.
The same issues have been highlighted time and again. None of the lessons are ever learnt. These failings are costing huge amounts of money
The fuck ups in defence procurement would fill a bookshelf

Immigration – Another roaring success for both legal & illegal immigration ( Scotland’s specific needs here are completely ignored )

Energy Efficiency – Sunaks botched 1.5 billion Green Homes fiasco – axed without notice after only 5 months after its launch – Sunak gave the energy ministry only 12 weeks to design and deliver the scheme. This one is so bad its comical - Cowboy politicians, and not cowboy builders - Sheer Utter incompetence

Could we, should we do better – Damn right we should

With respect, it's exactly the same angle - here are things we could change. OK, what are the new policies going to look like? Silence.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/migra ... d-prosper/

But that's a proposal for Scotland being in the Union. What's the proposal for an independent Scotland? We can't attract immigrants here now, so what specific policies are going to be in place in an independent Scotland that will make it more attractive?

[tc27]

I've yet to see one cohesive argument for staying in the union, as Biffer pointed out previously there is no unionist argument being put forward that Scotland will be a better place within the union, only that Scotland will suffer outside of it.

If someone can put forward a vision of a union which is a progressive northern European social democracy, where corruption and entitlement through birth are things of the past, where everyone in the UK is given a fair shake, then I'll support that.

This is not a reasonable or honest argument.

Independence is the radical departure from the status quo so its really up to those like you who advocate it to make the detailed and cohesive arguments as to why its necessary (even as the the economist who supports it thinks it will be like Brexit x10) - and to honestly address the problems critics say it will cause. And its not like the problems are marginal - they could affect the money people use, their ability to pay their mortgages and the most vulnerable who rely on the state for support.

[tc27]

With respect, it's exactly the same angle - here are things we could change. OK, what are the new policies going to look like? Silence.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/migra ... d-prosper/

But that's a proposal for Scotland being in the Union. What's the proposal for an independent Scotland? We can't attract immigrants here now, so what specific policies are going to be in place in an independent Scotland that will make it more attractive?

Being opposed to independence does not mean you have to pretend the UK government is not dysfunctional in areas - and I happily admit this is the worst government in my lifetime.

On the other hand you only have to look at the current Scottish governments record at doing anything remotely complex to understand that moving the full functions of nationhood to Holyrood is not going to lead to better outcomes (on that note I see the national energy company has being shelved). Most of the stuff I get told the SG does really well is basically just freebies funded by slashing local government spending and Barnett.

[Tichtheid]

I've yet to see one cohesive argument for staying in the union, as Biffer pointed out previously there is no unionist argument being put forward that Scotland will be a better place within the union, only that Scotland will suffer outside of it.

If someone can put forward a vision of a union which is a progressive northern European social democracy, where corruption and entitlement through birth are things of the past, where everyone in the UK is given a fair shake, then I'll support that.

This is not a reasonable or honest argument.

It is an honest argument, there is absolute no deceit on my part, I have no intention of misleading anyone or lying or putting forward falsehoods. Why do you suggest I'm being dishonest?

In a momentous Yes or No decision it's unreasonable to expect a coherent argument from both sides? Really?

Independence is the radical departure from the status quo so its really up to those like you who advocate it to make the detailed and cohesive arguments as to why its necessary (even as the the economist who supports it thinks it will be like Brexit x10)

That ignores the fact that the same economist stated that staying in the union will be just as bad for Scotland.

- and to honestly address the problems critics say it will cause. And its not like the problems are marginal - they could affect the money people use, their ability to pay their mortgages and the most vulnerable who rely on the state for support.

My belief in the prospect that the people who live in Scotland should determine their own future is an emotional one, I don't think that is dishonest or unreasonable.
I don't have the answers to every "what if?"

Some of those answers might be found here https://www.believeinscotland.org/

I await the dismissal of the site out of hand.

[Dogbert]

With respect, it's exactly the same angle - here are things we could change. OK, what are the new policies going to look like? Silence.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/migra ... d-prosper/

But that's a proposal for Scotland being in the Union. What's the proposal for an independent Scotland? We can't attract immigrants here now, so what specific policies are going to be in place in an independent Scotland that will make it more attractive?

A proposal that was dismissed out of hand - I would suspect that trying to mitigate the Brexit that the Westminster government has pursued is probably a higher priority at the moment

And yes I fully agree that we should be presented with all the facts - by both sides on any independence debate - but there is still time for that , I believe that their is some global pandemic going around that might be slowing things up

We also have the issue is that the granting of an independence referendum is also a reserved power

Would you be happy for Government money to be spent on lost of white papers / polices for an Independent Scotland ?

I see no issue at this stage at looking at other countries of similar size to what an independent Scotland , and see how they manage being an independent state , it would certainly look very different to what we have now

[Slick]

I believe that their is some global pandemic going around that might be slowing things up

You would think so, but it hasn't stopped the FM announcing she wants a new referendum.

Would you be happy for Government money to be spent on lost of white papers / polices for an Independent Scotland ?

Come on, be serious.

[Dogbert]

I believe that their is some global pandemic going around that might be slowing things up

You would think so, but it hasn't stopped the FM announcing she wants a new referendum.

Would you be happy for Government money to be spent on lost of white papers / polices for an Independent Scotland ?

Come on, be serious.

Do you think parties should follow through on the manifesto they were elected on?

[clydecloggie]

As a thought experiment, apply the 'give us a clear idea of what all major policy areas will look like in indy Scotland' to the Unionist side in the 2014 campaign.

So, Better Together, give us a clear idea of what major policy areas will look like in the UK in, say, 2021.

Whatever the answer would have been, it would have borne very little resemblance to a Boris Johnson-led post-hard-Brexit insular far-right country, the laughing stock of Europe, with no influence and no friends (other than some wannabe Trumps on the fringes of Europe).

Of course questions on things like currency and EU membership are legitimate, but for me the incessant calls for a fully-developed picture of an independent Scotland is nothing but a massive straw man.

Things are shit now. Undoubtedly, lots of things will be shit in an indy Scotland, But it will be shit we own and can address in ways that the people of Scotland want. That's the bottom line for me. I don't like where we are in the UK and it gets worse every day; Scotland can see a way out of that, even if we can't completely see where that way leads. Let's take it anyway; it's emergency exit time.