Lowering expectations
At the weekend we examined the likely outcome of Scottish Labour’s long-awaited “Devolution Commission”, and the media’s extraordinary spin on it. Hyped breathlessly as a “game-changer” by more than one Scottish journalist, the plan is in fact an empty piece of window-dressing, a charade as fake as the shop-fronts which line so many High Streets as the UK government’s “recovery” bypasses most normal people’s lives.
And while Johann Lamont might have fooled the media – always willing to be suckered by any passing devolution conman – she clearly doesn’t fancy her chances of pulling the (painting of) wool over the Scottish public’s eyes, because a piece in yesterday’s Sunday Mail reveals just how low Labour are trying to manage Scotland’s hopes.
The alarm bells start going off from the headline: “Johann Lamont promises ‘maximum devolution Scotland would want’ if country says no in independence referendum”.
Now there’s an uninspiring bit of weasel-wording for you, readers. “You might think you want a lot of devolution, but you don’t really – listen while I explain to you why less power is actually all you can handle” would be a fair translation, and in the main text Lamont goes on to remove any doubt.
Uh-oh. Remember, it’s only a few short years since Labour already decided what “the maximum devolution Scotland would want” was, in the form of the petty tinkering of the Calman Commission. We can’t think of anything that would have changed the party’s fundamental view since 2009, when the Commission delivered its final report.
This stuff is the political equivalent of the small print in a mobile phone contract. Read between the lines and you can see that almost nothing is being promised at all. Borrowing powers are already coming to Holyrood anyway via the Scotland Act 2012 (though we can’t be the only people whose blood runs a little cold when Labour politicians start talking about borrowing anyway).
You didn’t have an incentive to grow the economy before? Remember, Labour’s whole case is the “pooling and sharing of resources”, meaning that if Britain does well, Scotland does well because it’s part of Britain. It therefore stands to reason that if the Scottish economy grows now, that would benefit Britain, and therefore Scotland.
The great deception of the “pooling and sharing” argument, after all, is the pretence that somehow everyone can get more money while nobody gets less. Labour never go into the detail of what “pooling and sharing” means (and the media never presses them on it), because under the slightest scrutiny it’s revealed to mean that Scotland, which is more blessed with resources than the UK as a whole, will subsidise the rest of the UK even more than it does now.
We’d have a degree of respect for Labour if they’d actually make that argument. If they said “Look, poor people in England and Wales and Northern Ireland need Scotland’s money so we’re going to take it from you and give it to them”, their case would at least have some moral weight and honesty.
But instead they pretend that somehow that’s good for Scotland. Instead they talk of “solidarity” and “sharing” without spelling out what that means in practice – money flowing out of Scotland and into Whitehall, notionally to be spent on the poor but actually to be used for tax cuts for the rich, yet more huge infrastructure projects in London and weapons of mass destruction to strut around on the world stage with.
Lamont’s quotes above can be summarised down to three words: “business as usual”. We’ve already analysed how the proposed tax-devolving won’t actually make any difference to anything even if it happens, and what the Mail piece shows is that Labour aren’t even pretending otherwise.
The only way to generate more tax in Scotland will be to generate it in the whole of the UK, because Scotland’s taxes will be – will HAVE to be – exactly the same as England’s. Which leaves us with what Labour have always offered: a plea and a promise that if only we’ll elect them to power at Westminster, they’ll fix everything. (If England elects them to Westminster too, that is. Scottish votes don’t actually matter.)
We’ll be examining the commission’s findings very closely tomorrow for any reference to the Barnett Formula. We don’t expect to find one, because Labour don’t like to talk about that. What we expect to find is a thin document vaguely promising useless powers that can never be exercised while Scotland is part of the UK. And why do we expect that? Because that’s what Johann Lamont’s just told us is coming.
Err, wasn’t one of those people calling for Devo-max proposals to be brought forward a certain Mr Alex Salmond? – An invitation roundly spurned by all Unionist parties until it no longer mattered as a viable option for the ballot paper.
Good summation of Labour’s real intentions.
Not until the Labour group in Scotland realign themselves wholeheartedly and absolutely with the needs of Scotland can they be trusted to deliver genuine political progress. At the moment and for forseeable years ahead their entire objective is to keep Scotland controlled.
The ideal amount of devolution for Labour is the amount that gives them the maximum amount of personal benefit and power – whether as Lords, MPs, MSPs, councillors or quango members. Whether that is of any benefit to the electorate is irrelevant.
Vote ‘Naw’ for hee-haw.
Perhaps Johann has been reading up on Gregoriy Potemkin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village
Jam tomorrow, that is all the Labour Party ever promises. Now it is not even margarine. Weasel words indeed, it may fool some but then they are the fools who will believe anything that is said to them. The remainder will not.
Breeks; I could be wrong here, it has been known, but I understood the first people to suggest devo-max were unionists. They then convinced themselves that it was an SNP suggestion, and when it was removed from the Edinburgh Agreement they congratulated themselves that they’d ‘won’ a concession from the Scottish Government.
As I say, I could be wrong, but that’s as I picked it up.
Regardless; devo max is a. a bit of mythical beast and b. if it proves to be real it is to be treated with enormous suspicion. Because you should all know, for I don’t think there are any idiots around here, that if Westminster pass further tax raising powers to Holyrood they will have calculated the likely revenue take from them… and reduce the block grant by an equivalent percentage. Scotland gets more control over taxation but ends up absolutely no better off.
Vote yes. All the tax powers, all the revenue streams. And then they can shove their block grant into that place the sun does not reach.
2015 Oxford Dictionary – New word added.
Lamont (verb)
To decry, moan and reject any sensible suggestion that benefits all rather than a privileged few.
Lamont (noun)
The collective noun for Debates.
In fairness, that shop space in paisley is now occupied.
By a discount store. Two owned by the same company, actually, if my memory of the layout is correct: One on the street there, one replacing the entranceway to that unit that was in the Paisley Centre when the unit was Littlewoods. A Discount UK and a Poundworld respectively.
Still, somewhat proves the point. Department store replaced by a bargain basement.
“Vote ‘Naw’ for hee-haw.”
That could catch on!
Partial devolution of taxation is a poison chalice.
It couldn’t be more straightforward. Page 28 of the latest GERS release list the various public revenue streams for Scotland and UK, and Scotland as a % of UK.
Devolving any taxation where our % of the UK take is less than population share (8.3%) would result in either the rate needing to increase for the revenue to stay the same, or in a budget cut. Would the block grant be upped to compensate? Of course not, it would render the whole process utterly pointless.
Devolving any taxation where our % of the UK take is higher than population share (8.3%) results in a benefit to Scotland, would the block grant be cut to compensate? You bet…imagine the response in the South if Scotland was seen to get ‘even more’ than we do now.
“Powers for a purpose, not for power’s sake”
This reminds me of a line from the Harry Potter movie where the ministry of magic were trying to take over Hogwarts without anyone noticing, yes that sounds about right!!!
Only thing is we have noticed and we’re not having it.
I will expect forensic examination of these offers of jam tomorrow by our valued and trusted media.
Nothing less than the rigour which has been applied to the SNP proposals over the last year or two will suffice.
I await with expectation, but fear, that Labour head honchos are already hunkered down in a dark room with media spokesliars as to how to spin JoLa’s offer of heehaw!
“notionally to be spent on the poor but actually to be used for tax cuts for the rich and weapons of mass destruction to strut around on the world stage with.”
To that I would add hugely expensive infrastructure projects in London and the South East. Crossrail, Channel Tunnel, HS2, the Olympics developments and many others. There are figures floating around the web showing that the spend on transport in London is approx £2,000 per person whereas in the north of England it is £12 per person.
Scotland is blessed with more resources than the UK as a whole – on a population basis of course. As a pensioner I would accept higher taxes in the knowledge that after YES they wouldn’t be frittered away on goodies via Westminster, and used here.
I’m the type of Scandic person that surprised Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall with the same reply. There is though a hard edge to this redistribution in that while the social net has a fine mesh to support eg those losing jobs, there is in the deal a requirement to eagerly pursue new employment.
Pooling and sharing? Like they do regionally for transport now? Londoners get £2600 now while if you live in Newcastle you get a whopping Fiver (£5.00). No thank you!
That is now, under the Tories but transport projects take a long time to roll out, so how about a history going back to the Labour Government. Let’s see how they stack up.
No one will get to see the report as it will be buried by three budget in the media. Could this be deliberate? Surely not.
Sorry should read buried by the budget.
The press (English MSM) is essentially acting like the propaganda wing of the No campaign.
I always thought that Devo Max meant full fiscal autonomy and paying Westminster for foriegn policy (wars), defence (wars again plus Trident) and immigration/border control, similar to the Isle of Man arrangement (allowing us to keep the english pound). Now it appears that Devo Max is an elastic term that means whatever the unionist spokesman/woman of the week thinks is going to win most votes.
A definition of pooling and sharing in Westminster’s terms:
Pooling: Scottish taxes help pay for a high speed train service from London.
Sharing: It won’t serve Scotland.
Elizabeth
I like the “How No?” badges that are starting to appear.
I believe Tom Sheids former Herald diary writer hasca few.
Surely the baws burst when it comes to
“Okay..we stated that there would be NO Devo Max but now we see that we have no success from trying to make you all shite yourselves we are now willing to promise you the world just so we can keep ourselves in Ermine and Expenses”>
The only “Line in the Sand” ever worth appreciating was Belinda Carlisles “Circle in the Sand” video
If these proposals are so wonderful, why didn’t Brown enact them when he was in power? This mob, Labour, have probably very little chance of becoming the next U.K Government, Vote No, get Boris and Nigel scenario, so why would we want to listen to their half, and that’s being generous, baked ideas. Come to think of it, that’s also being too generous. No doubt the compliant M.S.M, led by their cheerleader, the B.B.C, will work themselves into a frenzy hailing this as the greatest thing since sliced bread,but when closely examined, as I’m sure you will Stuart, they will disappear faster than, “snow aff a dyke”. What’s the betting that some time in the summer, the three amigos, Cons, Lab , and LibDems will come up with “joint” proposals, cobbled together at the last moment in a vain attempt to prevent a successful Yes vote. Of course, they will mean nothing, but once again the M.S.M will promote them unceasingly. Not for the first time, nor I suspect for the last, their refusal to consider a second question on the ballot paper will come back to bite them on the bum. Serves them right.
This version of the Labour party could not possibly place my expectations of them any lower!
Lets see what they have,but it will have to be better than independence or else it won’t amount to much.
“We’ll be examining the commission’s findings very closely tomorrow for any reference to the Barnett Formula. We don’t expect to find one, because Labour don’t like to talk about that.”
I’d be very surprised if the Barnett formula is not in there because ever other devolution proposal so far has used the formula:
Devolved taxes collected in Scotland + Westminster Top up Block Grant = Current Barnett Formula funding.
Once all the hoo-haa and smokescreen about the control of taxes in any of the current devolution proposals dissipates it always turns out that Scotland is left holding the Barnett Formula.
The one thing that would drive English and Welsh Labour MP’s mad would be any suggestion that Scotland was in line to get more than the current Barnett Formula funding which they already regard as featherbedding They’ve got to mention it.
“We’d have a degree of respect for Labour if they’d actually make that argument. If they said “Look, poor people in England and Wales and Northern Ireland need Scotland’s money so we’re going to give them it”, their case would at least have some moral weight and honesty.”
I’d have a lot of respect for that position if it was honest, and if the poorest people in rUK were actually benefitting. I never liked the “It’s Scotland’s oil” line because I’m perfectly happy with Britain pooling and sharing IF that is for all our benefits.
Sadly is hasn’t been for the benefit of anyone but the wealthy and political classes. Westminster has pissed away the oil, creating every greater inequalities and impoverishing the poor even more. They haven’t used oil money to help communities, or to put money into a fund, or given some to Scotland in the way many other oil regions gain.
So given all that, it’s empty and meaningless rhetoric, just another load of unionist nonsense.
The Labour/Tory policy for Scotland is simple. They will devolve more powers and funding directly to local government, by-passing the Scottish Parliament. (Fill your boots Glasgow and Aberdeen)
Also, Jim Murphy thought he was re-assuring us this morning when he told listeners on GMS that the Tories only have a year left then “we’re in”.
I don’t know which is the more depressing thought, having a Tory/UKIP coalition or a Labour/Lib/Dem coalition.
Frightening isn’t it.
I’m starting to scare myself now.
“To that I would add hugely expensive infrastructure projects in London”
Excellent point. Done! 😀
beachthistle: “Vote ‘Naw’ for hee-haw.”
Brilliant and oh so true.
Jim Murphy was taken apart by whoever the GMS interviewer (lady) was this morning. Pretty sure Mr Sinclair will have told Mr Boothman he’s loosing his grip and may be reported to the boss for not keeping his fingers round the newsroom throat.
The lady presenter was a credit to herself and proper journalism. What was her name? Anywhere else she would have done herself a lot of good. But this is the EBC so watch your back.
Jim, if I were you I’d keep my mouth shut, head down and look for new opportunities!
If I thought the money was going to the poor of England, Wales and Northern Ireland then I would willingly listen to the arguement.
However it is paying for Trident (and son of Trident) / Aircract Carriers / Astute Class nuclear submarines / High Speed rail / M25 and vaiations / Nuclear power station subsidies / Banker bail out / etc etc.
The Labour spin of helping our fellow man in Manchester and Liverpool is a barefaced lie.
The two main parties have been having turns each in power and what have we seen over the last 50 years.
The gap between rich and poor increasing
All of the regions, not just Scotland, steady decline and de-industrialisation
Illegal Wars
The House of Lords now over a 1000 strong
London sucking the life from every part of the UK.
The NHS being slowly privitised and run down.
Life expectancy in the South up, life expectancy in the North down.
A growth in foodbanks.
More children in poverty.
The list goes on and on.
Labour / Tory or Tory / Labour it’s the same thing.
The Westminster machine is a fixed model. The direction of travel is already determined. The pretend difference between the parties is manufactured.
We need to do things differently.
“If you keep doing things the same way you will get the same result”
When they claim they are going to give Scotland more powers I read following and laugh. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-12756759
John Mcanally in the Telegraph writes nothing can defend Scotland or England if Scotland becomes Independent.
“The world is, as events in Crimea show, becoming more dangerous and less predictable. The list of potential threats is mind-boggling: terrorism, nuclear proliferation, tensions in the Arctic”.
Which I read as: The list of threats is mind-boggling terror from Unionists, that they won’t feel so important anymore: bollocks proliferation in their panic stricken pronouncements, tension in their Arses as they try to keep control of their sphincters.
Another definition of pooling and sharing in Westminster’s terms:
Pooling: Weapons of mass destruction are based in Scotland.
Sharing: The huge cost of maintaining them is spent in England.
@Elizabeth, loved the “How No” badge idea. I think that was my big laugh for today.
Was looking forward to the Marr post in BBC Scotlandshire but for some small reason it seems to be busy.
“Vote ‘Naw’ for hee-haw.”
That has to be the best caption of the campaign!
Well done, beachthistle.
This devolution proposal which has been sprung on us at the last minute strikes me as being the scariest option so far. Honestly I’d rather have the status quo than what’s on offer here.
Labour lies. Scotland subsidies lying, tax evaders criminals in Westminster who are starving the most vulnerable.
@ Caz-M,
I wouldn’t even rule out a Tory/Labour coalition.
But that would give the game away, wouldn’t it?
🙂
I see Struan Stevenson is saying that we should have “full fiscal autonomy”. Apart from the obvious conclusion that that means that the currency union refusal is a bluff, it rather lends to the thought that the Tories are more honest than Labour on the constitution and might in fact offer something more appealing. Did I really say that?
In actuality, all these complicating factors push people to the conclusion that simple is best. Independence solves all these nuances because first and foremost it puts the power in the hands of the people of Scotland. It is our choice to keep or share sovereignty. Nothing more, nothging less
Thanks Stu – great analysis and article
@Papadox says:
Jim Murphy was taken apart by whoever the GMS interviewer (lady)
Jim Murphy will be thinking now that Hayley Millar? is maybe one of those free-range Cybernats* that he was so scared of a few weeks ago.
(* Cybernats that emerge from their bedrooms and start asking awkward questions in public, a bit like Saruman’s next-generation Orcs, that can go out in daylight.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074hf7/presenters/hayley-millar
Wee Johann and her Scottish Labour Party are now officially “Toxic” in Scotland.
I’ll bet a lot of Labour voters never thought they would see the day that they would see that statement made in Scotland and agree with it.
When you think about it, you would probably have to go way back to the 1960s to find anything worthwhile that the Labour Party has done for Scotland.
They actually built lots of homes, roads, factories, shopping centres and schools.
Then we discovered oil, and it has been all downhill ever since.
@GrahamB
To quote from Alice in Wonderland, “When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean, no more no less” Humpty Dumpty.
“When we talk about Devo-whatever, it means what we choose it to mean, no more, no less” said the NO-Better-Together campaign spokesperson.
@Breeks – “Err, wasn’t one of those people calling for Devo-max proposals to be brought forward a certain Mr Alex Salmond?”. Well, Breeks, no it wasn’t. First of all it was both the SG. & The SNP who campaigned on those grounds. Alex Salmond is the leader of both but he has no way to dictate policy to either. Unlike Westminster PMs, (where Blair took us to illegal wars on his say so), Holyrood FMs cannot act without their Government/Party’s democratic assent. Secondly, what the SG/SNP actually claimed was that their preferred option was a straight YES/NO but would listen to the electorate of Scotland if that electorate wanted a question on devolution. You seem infected by the endemic, “BBC/MSM Promulgation Virus”, this dire disease causes such spurious, distorted claims as you have just made.
OT but visited the drivelling Telegraph. I shouldn’t ,I know!
“Salmond did mention on his last golfing holiday to the US that he would quite like to see American bases in Scotland in order to become a US protectorate.” – this sort of crappy comment makes me angry but I didn’t respond.
And another telling the world that Alex Salmond was hardly ever off the telly – does anyone think that the comment is made by a numpty who can’t tell the difference ‘twixt the FM and Mr Farage?
“Powers for a purpose, not power for power’s sake.”
Of course this is a weasel phrase. What is means, and is code for, is an attempt by SLAB to preserve and maintain their power bases, and patronage networks in Scotland (at least the unionists in SLAB). This is what they are primarily concerned about. It is not a concern for the poor, disabled, and other groups without power, it is simply self preservation by those SLAB drones, such as Lamont, Murphy, Alexander, Gray, Baillie etc. Nothing more, nothing less.
So much for devolution being a ‘journey’ – they are being very clear where the road ends.
We all ready have that Gerry. It’s called Westminster.
The only “Line in the Sand” ever worth appreciating was Belinda Carlisles “Circle in the Sand” video
*coughs*
http://www.b5-dark-mirror.co.uk/v3cont.html
Jim Murphy to Haley Miller.
“Don’t hit ma face, am winchin”
@caz-m @Robert Peffers
You now have me sitting shaking my head pondering the vilification of Alex Salmond yet Labour folk like John Smith and Donald Dewar are looked upon as Heroes of our Nation.
Talk about living in a strange land!
“Vote ‘Naw’ for hee-haw.”
We need a catchy Vote ‘Aye’ for ??????, to go with that. 🙂
It’s classic Labour redistribution of wealth.
Not from Scotland’s rich to Scotland’s poor, or UK’s rich to UK’s poor, of course. Just from Scotland’s rich and poor to UK’s rich. And maybe poor, if we feel like it.
By ‘pooling n sharing’ she really means we will all be taken down with the sinking ship, oh except we all know who has already bagged the lifeboats.
My brother came up from Newcastle this weekend, said the austerity measures by westminster are having a terrible effect down there, he may very well be losing his job soon as they are making people redundant, again. The main swimming baths has closed and you know what, it was too depressing to go into any depth about it as I hadn’t seen him for months.
This all while there was a bbc story yesterday about Osbourne’s announcement regards building a 15,000 home garden city in Kent and also plans to extend their high speed railway services in Kent.
Aye all in this together? Thing is people are desperate for an alternative and as my bro pointed out re Labour getting their votes, they have no alternative, it’s really incredibly sad.
@Pedro
“Vote Aye for Bye-Bye”
I liked the ‘Aye Have A Dream” posters at the Rally last year.
@ caz-m
I think you’ll find Labour build thousands of sub-standard council houses, (or allowed to be built) schemes and high rise flats, in the fifties and sixties, invariably on the edge of towns and cities where they could move “problem families.”
Only now are we seeing those dumps bulldozed in place of modern, well designed and insulated homes, complete with some decent landscaping rather than “wee wizened trees” bent to the breeze.
For a prime example of the folly see Niddrie Marischall, Edinburgh, and Craigmillar. Lost more Glasgow and Dundee.
Mein Gott!!
the unbelievable irony of Slab decrying “power for powers sake”!Its the only motivation they have FFS!!(scuse,it is Paddys day).fine analysis El Reverendo Green(it is Paddys etc etc)I am now unable to contain my excitement and slabbering anticipation of what will be surely the greatest moment in the short,but entirely unmemorable,career of J.Lamont(in absentia)and will undoubtedly mark Slabs long walk back to oblivion.(shouldnt that be “from oblivion”?shome mishtake shurely…)
Staying on a Lord of the Rings theme, I’m struggling to spot meaningful differences between the Devo-Evil monster that the (divided) Unionist parties are frantically cobbling-together and The Land of Mordor.
Sounds like Jim Murphy has got the Wormtongue part.
I view most politicians who’ve made it as far up the greasy pole to MP as venal, self-serving scum but “Scottish” Labour are way way beyond that.
Words fail me – or rather they don’t but if I said exactly what I thought then I’d get banned (rightly) from here.
What are you guys going to do about these incompetent morons once you get independence?
SLAB is going to have to be totally eviscerated from top to bottom in order to stand any chance of regaining any power in a generation (at least); “SCons” are unelectable and you can’t believe a single thing the LibDems say on any subject as their leader is only interested in “politics, not details”.
@Juteman.
Aye, “Buggin’s turn”
🙂
The usual shaky issues are their and will be trumpeted non stop by the BBC et al.
There is one fundamental truth that applies to the Unionists,
do not believe a word they say, and you will not go wrong.
Scotland Act analysis over on Business for Scotland.
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/explaining-the-limited-tax-powers-in-the-scotland-act-2012/
@Clootie 11.22,C mon Clootie we are nothing if not fair minded people on here, we are helping the people,s of
Manchester/Liverpool. New costs of HS2 £42bil, of course they
will need a morgage to pay for a ticket,we pay fur a no away
day trip, an as somebody said already,we git Hee HAW.
It’s almost impossible to imagine that a simple X in the YES box Sept 18, puts this “take what we give you and shut up Scotland” bullshit in the bin for good.
Dear Labour, Please read carefully.
It is impossible to get out of a problem by using the same kind of thinking that it took to get into it.
– Albert Einstein
Re. If they said “Look, poor people in England and Wales and Northern Ireland need Scotland’s money so we’re going to take it from you and give it to them”,
I think we should be generous with our wealth towards the poor of the rUK, but as an independent country we should apply the same constraints that any sensible aid giving country applies to suspect regimes. The money should go to the needy and should not go to line the pockets of the elite or to be spent on foolish armaments.
What’s good enough for the developing world should be good enough for rUK.
We will only get this choice with a Yes vote. A No vote just results in the money going to the powerful.
O/T Andrew Marr interview…
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/16/bbc-justify-andrew-marr-remarks-scotland-right-join-eu
“The BBC’s coverage of the Scottish referendum debate has been fair and balanced and we will continue to report on the story without fear or favour.”
Labour’s proposals, however insubstantial, will be spun by the English MSM as evidence that the gullible and the benighted can place their trust in that moribund party and we don’t need to fill out all the forms that will ensure with that nasty independence.
The bottom line in all this is that if, after being offered the opportunity after 307 years finally to determine our own future and take our place in the world with self-respect, we cannot get more than half of our countrymen and women to vote for that state of affairs then we deserve everything we will undoubtedly get.
There are lots of really stupid terms being used by both the Better Together Campaigners, and accepted as fact by those who should really “Know Better” together.
A – “The United Kingdom”, is, “A family of four nations”. Wrong – It is legally a bipartite union of kingdoms. It is NOT a union of four countries.
B – Scotland leaving, “The United Kingdom”, will result in a, still united, “rUnited Kingdom”. Wrong – As a bipartite union the Status Quo Ante is two independent Kingdoms NOT a still United Kingdom and a new Country.
C – Westminster is the United Kingdom’s Parliament. Wrong – Westminster is NOW The de facto Parliament of, The Country of England in a four country set-up that has England as the master race and the three other countries as second class countries with devolved English powers.
Come-on folks read the actual words and look out for the spin put upon them by Better Together. Here’s another myth from Better Together. Where in the Treaty of Union does it mention, “Countries”? Where in, The Treaty of Union does it mention that Scotland’s share of, “The United Kingdom’s”, assets should be decided upon population ratios?
With a Labour government in London, a Labour administration in Holyrood is, to all intents and purposes, just direct rule from London. Under this scenario, a Labour government in Holyrood would be less productive than a neutered dog.
It would be interesting to see how many Sewel Motions were sent south by the Labour led Holyrood ‘Executive’ from 1999 – 2007, and how many have been passed by the present SNP government from 2007 – 2014.
There are 4 paths forward, I have placed them in my order of desirability:
Independence. We make all our own decisions in Scotland’s interests and live with the consequences which should be a fairer and more just society. The grown up option.
Devo-Max. Everyone knows exactly what it is, so attempts to fudge it are irrelevant. Scotland handles all money and writes a cheque to the UK government to pay for wars. Devo-Max has it’s attractions perhaps, but it doesn’t get us away from wars and WMD. Also, Scotland wouldn’t speak for itself on the world stage.
Status Quo. It has served Scotland poorly and would continue to do so. Doing nothing would be pathetic.
Lastly and worst is Devo-a-wee-bit-more. The phrase which everyone seems to use is a Poisoned Chalice, which is a good description. Some more tax powers but with reductions in the block grant. It’s a nasty plan to throw post-Nae Scotland into political and social chaos in an attempt to put us off more powers for a long time. It may be that the Unionists have at last found something to kill self determination.
In September we have only two options. It now looks like these will effectively be the best and worst above!
“Jimbo says:
With a Labour government in London, a Labour administration in Holyrood is, to all intents and purposes, just direct rule from London. Under this scenario, a Labour government in Holyrood would be less productive than a neutered dog.”
… which is exactly how Labour intended the existing devolution settlement to work!
So glad it’s all going wrong for them 🙂
O/T – Anybody who wants to see Andrew Marr getting an even bigger roasting that the one Alex Salmond gave him yesterday should have a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjENnyQupow
Comment from the person who posted it on CiF today:
If you have not seen the intellectual battering he takes by Noam Chomsky from 1996 on YouTube can I suggest you look it up and revel in the sight of a highly educated ‘heavyweight’ BBC political commentator completely deconstructed and exposed to be an establishment hack.
He is shown to be merely repeating catchphrases and slogans without knowing their meaning or having the depth of thought to be able to look into problems as opposed to just repeating what he has heard or been told to say.
Even when Chomsky asks him to give examples of his understanding of events and issues, his ignorance becomes glaringly obvious. it’s epic and you will never look at him in the same way.
@Vestas: Don’t worry too much about Scottish Labour’s future. The party is already doing very badly in all elections except those to Westminster, where many electors have believed that it is their best option for having some saying in a slightly-less malign governing party in London.
Once the union has gone, so has SLAB’s raison d’etre. Groups like Commonweal, Radical Independence and Labour for Independence are already building the new future of left politics in Scotland.
Its current antics are the last bits of fight from a dying rat.
So this isn’t just a post-stroke thing then?
Don’t know if anyone else has mentioned this excellent post from James Aiken of Legal Knowledge Scotland on why substantial tax powers will never be devolved
http://www.legalknowledgescotland.com/?p=1418
Substantiates Rev Stu’s thoughts
Stuart
For wry humour take a look at the British Airways banner advert at the top of the Scotsman’s homepage.
Three quarters of the panorama is given over to London’s skyline. On the left, crammed into a small space, is what appears to be the airline’s idea of Scotland, a ruined fortified house. (It sure ain’t a castle or tower house.)
Accepting the ad’s sole purpose is to promote visits to London, one can’t help thinking the depiction of “the north” either a fanciful 16th century romantic vision, a poor attempt to render Scotland in generalised terms, or what BA’s advertising agency presumes Scotland will look after independence.
As someone who supported Devo with full fiscal autonomy a year ago I’d be interested to hear what Labour Devo Maxers like Malcolm Chisholm make of these proposals. He’s been awfy quiet on the constitution lately.
Devo Max felt like the natural position for me and it was only after I fully engaged with the debate that I switched to the yes camp. I think as interest in the debate grows others will do the same.
In line with the principles of the newspeak that he wrote about, George Orwell managed to condense “pooling and sharing” and “needs based allocation of resources”, down to two words. Oligarchical Collectivism., a.k.a. English Socialism.
http://www.poverty.org.uk/09/index.shtml
This reminds me of a quote I heard made by martin o’ neill the ex mp for Clackmannan.”the purpose of the labour party was to lower the expectations of the Scottish people”
A few seconds ago · Like
I can’t remember who posted on here a while back about unionist jam but the phrase stuck with me.
“Let’s make our own jam”.
It makes perfect sense and a high 5 to whoever it was.
“Vote ‘Naw’ for hee-haw.” is great but possibly even better how about “Vote ‘Naw’ get hee-haw.”?
Vote “AYE” Fur the hale pie.
@ galamcennalath
My 4 paths forward:
1. Full Independence
2. See 1.
3. See 2.
4. You get the idea…
I loved that BBC response regarding the Andrew Marr comment.
The issues appear resolved – be it Andrew Marr or Academic studies regarding the referendum coverage.
“The BBC has the final say regarding the issues of fairness, quality and the balance of the BBC coverage.”
That’s it then!
“SALMOND’S £1.8 BILLION BILL FOR WIND FARMS”
So said sunday post front page yesterday…NOT Scottish government….SALMOND!
I don’t buy papers, only photograph front covers for evidence, but it got me researching….
CROSSRAIL,LONDON – £18 BILLION
OLYMPICS, LONDON – £8 BILLION
REFURBISHNENT OF UNDERGROUND, LONDON – £16 BILLION
NEW AIRPORT/3RD RUNWAY, LONDON (god knows how many billion)
NEW SEWAGE TUNNEL, LONDON – £16 BILLION
REFURBISHNENT ST PANCRAS STATION, LONDON – £1 BILLION
HS2 RAIL LINK, LONDON TO BIRMINGHAM – 50 BILLION
TOTAL COST -£109 BILLION PLUS
(Feel free to add more – I only spent a wee while on it)
They’re making pretty damn sure London’s infrastructure is sorted then…..before their cash cow, The Bank of North Sea, closes their account.
Take a wild guess at how many council houses this would have built or how brilliant Scotland’s infrastructure could have been.
Austerity, recession, skint?
Only for some, it seems.
Better together?
Pass the sick bag!
STOP PRESS – They’re trying to rush through HS2 now.
You bet they’re scared!
And another thing……
London, brand new stadium, Wembley – £1 billion.
Scotland, Hampden Park – £69 million (that’ll be a lick of paint, then?)
Commonwealth Games, Manchester, NEW stadium – £110 million
Commonwealth Games, Glasgow, – Surely you can use Hampden?
RAF bases left in Scotland, 1 (just hanging on)
RAF bases in England, 46.
Car manufacturing plants in Scotland, 0
Car manufacturing plants in Engerland 30
Better together?
@ Andy C
Very perceptive.
That’s the British press for you … protecting the British way of life and corporate interests.
By concentrating fire on an elected representative to discredit him as untrustworthy the press keep the public mind off the real issues that affect Scotland, namely how disadvantaged its people are controlled from London.
Rags such as The Sunday post are no different from what the UK press in general are repeating, in a nutshell …
… “this far and no more,” which pretty well sums up the objective of devo-max, in all its vague forms and guises.
Indeed, prepare for a lot of upfront payments out of UK central government accounts over the next 6 months.
The idea of some other poor sod picking up 8.3% of the bill for whatever they fancy is a big incentive to bring forward such projects.
@Calgacus MacAndrews
That Chomsky interview was a great watch, thanks! Not just in terms of showing Marr up, but it’s all very relevant stuff about press bias and influence.
The only way the people of Scotland should believe any of this, is for this so called “maximum devolution for Scotland” to be laid out by the SLab party in a written document to be endorsed and signed off by messrs Cameron, Clegg and Milliband well before September this year for all to review.
Fat chance of that happening so no change here for the No campaign as it’s now being made up as they go along.
‘Vote naw for hee-haw’
Really should be ‘vote naw for less than hee-haw!’
Rev
You refer to your earlier post “Why Labour doesn’t need Scotland”. Your analysis there showed that in all the UK elections since World War 2, the combined weight of the Scottish electorate failed to make any difference in the UK elections, with just three exceptions, where the result was finely balanced, all resulting in short term or weak governments-
1964 Without Scotland Con majority 1 With Scotland Lab majority 4
1974(Feb) Without Scotland Con minority -12 With Scotland Lab minority -33
1974(Oct) Without Scotland Lab minority -8 With Scotland Lab majority 3
Our influence under the current electoral setup would have been even more pathetic than that. Scotland and Wales had proportionately more MPs in those elections. Under the current setup, we have fewer MPs, which are now allocated in proportion to population. Northern Ireland has more now, as they used to be under-represented at Westminster.
I have looked at what the effect of the current distribution of seats would be in those elections. If we scale the number of MPs in those three elections up or down, in each of the four countries of the UK, to reflect the current populations, then the results in those elections would have been affected as follows-
1964 Without Scotland Con majority 9 With Scotland Con minority -9
1974(Feb) Without Scotland Con minority -14 With Scotland Con minority -36
1974(Oct) Without Scotland Lab minority -15 With Scotland Lab minority -7
So under the current setup, we would have had an even more negligible effect than was previously the case.
Thanks for that, most educational. Marr was thoroughly out of his depth and intellectually outclassed at every level. It was arguably cruel to have set him up with that interview.
I have watched the Marr/Chomski video and rate it as a “must watch”.
Marr comes over as a young arrogant immature person on the make. He is skilled at the put down.
“Let’s see which chair you have been allocated”
“Let’s discuss the propaganda model, as you call it”
Right at the beginning he attempts to put his guest at ill-ease. Contrast and compare Marr with Stephen Sackur of the BBC World Service or RT’s Sophie Shevardnadze, both true professional world class TV interviewers.
Chomski then runs rings round him. The final scene is edifying. “Thank you professor Chomski.” The rictus grin on the closing image surpasses even that of our own beloved Gordon Brown.
Please take heed of professor Chomski’s thesis of coming together of disparate groups who had no prior knowledge of each other. So ahead of the times and so germaine vis-a-vis the Yes campaign make-up we have right now.
Be fly – vote AYE.
“Contrast and compare Marr with Stephen Sackur of the BBC World Service or RT’s Sophie Shevardnadze, both true professional world class TV interviewers.”
Stephen Sackur is a far worse egoist than Andrew Marr and much more biased.
Did you hear him bully, I mean interview, an EU officil who very calmly put him in his right place?