2012: Sinister positionings
Last week, unnoticed by the media, the “Better Together” website issued a rather disturbing “Activist Briefing”. It was based around what’s been a core facet of the anti-independence campaign for years – the notion that even with oil revenues, Scotland is too poor to go it alone. (Despite regular assurances to the contrary in more recent times, this is still a fundamental belief of the No camp.)
The alarming passage was this one:
“Even with a generous allocation of Scotland’s oil revenues (a geographical share) the best estimate is that in 2011-12 Scotland was running at a significant deficit. Assuming a geographical share of oil revenues – which would in no way be guaranteed – Scotland would have run at a significant deficit in each of the last ten years.”
The two troubling aspects of the quote above are pretty obvious. Firstly, the notion of Scotland receiving its clear rights under international law is described as “generous”, as if it was somehow in the gift of the UK to decide where Scotland’s maritime borders lay in the event of a Yes vote. But much more worrying is the second part, which reaffirms the assertion that such a share “would in no way be guaranteed”.
Any attempt by the rUK to annexe internationally-recognised Scottish resources after independence would be quite simply an act of war, and as such can be discounted as belonging to the realm of fantasy. But what such comments do point to is a mindset and possible strategy that’s barely any less discomforting.
Back in April, we analysed a curious exchange on Newsnight Scotland between presenter Glenn Campbell and Labour MSP Jenny Marra. In it, Ms Marra repeatedly refused to say that Labour would accept a simple-majority Yes vote in the referendum, appearing to refer instead to some sort of threshold beyond 50%+1. Eight months later, we’re still not aware of a single Labour politician having actually stated that they’d accept such a result.
The Edinburgh Agreement, signed by David Cameron, Alex Salmond, Michael Moore and Nicola Sturgeon in October, was widely hailed as securing the legality and decisiveness of the referendum beyond doubt. But there is, of course, a problem with that. Independence negotiations couldn’t possibly be concluded between autumn 2014 and the next UK general election, which will take place no later than May 2015. And no government can bind the hands of its successor.
Labour, bluntly, is not party to the Edinburgh Agreement. Given the comments of Jenny Marra (which one has to assume were made with the backing of her leadership) it cannot safely be assumed that it would accept a narrow Yes victory were it to be elected to power at Westminster in 2015. The independence negotiations could be aborted mid-flow. It’s not as if Labour doesn’t have history in that regard.
[EDIT: And of course, 2015 could deliver a result whereby Labour only had a majority on account of Scottish MPs, who would all lose their seats in May 2016 when the first elections to an independent Holyrood were held, turning a Labour government into a hung parliament. Does anyone really think Labour might not seriously consider drastic action to prevent losing its control of Westminster in such a scenario?]
There is, of course, an easy way for this uncertainty to be dispelled as paranoid “cybernat” scaremongering – Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont could issue a simple and unequivocal statement that they’ll respect the democratic result of the referendum even if it’s close, and honour the Edinburgh Agreement as if they’d signed it themselves. It’ll be interesting to see if 2013 brings any such commitment, or if anyone in our free and impartial press even bothers to ask.
When Scotland votes YES in 2014 and is on its way to independence I cannot for one moment think that the people of England will tolerate the Scots voting in an election to the Westminster parliament in England. I can only presume that they would be apoplectic with rage at the thought of Scots participating in what they will then see as a purely English election.
Comes down to something I have been seeing for sometime. If it were true that Scotland was in fact too poor to go it alone, and existed on the generosity of the UK…what Scot would ever vote for Indy? Also what Englishman would ever want Scotland in the Union if this was the case?
The No camp cannot argue positively or make a positive case, and so will engage on a very negative campaign. But its largely the same message repeated different ways.
In the end I think it will backfire, as I don’t think the majority of Scots are going to enjoy being told your too wee, too poor and too stupid to run your own affairs. Its a viewpoint few Scots will identify with. Curiously, its a viewpoint that is increasingly believed by the English, who have been spood fed this diet of crap for many long year…largely to explain what tories do so poorly here.
As for the theft of our resources…John Redwood suggested something similar in an attempt to force us into staying. I think if your are going down that path, then you have sort of lost the argument already.
Despite what the nabobs of negativity say, it will become apparent to most how horrible a place the UK will become under the conlib coaltion. Also we cannot leave out the stated aims of Labour to go further to the right. This may bring more people round the idea that Independence is the only way to safeguard Scotland.
In the end most folks don’t know enough about constituional issues but they do know what matters to them most, and its in this arena that the referendum will be won or lost.
There is a problem with us voting in the GE in 2015. It might deliver a Labour government which then loses its majority if we leave. Consequently it’s true that Labour might want to block Scotland’s exit in order to prevent that happening.
“There is a problem with us voting in the GE in 2015. It might deliver a Labour government which then loses its majority if we leave. Consequently it’s true that Labour might want to block Scotland’s exit in order to prevent that happening.”
That’s such an excellent point I might have to edit it into the piece.
Hopefully, the world has changed sufficiently since 1979. The mainstream media no longer hold a monopoly on public debate, so any such jiggery-pokery would be quickly spotted and (one would hope) roundly condemned.
Just to add to my comment above, this is all predicated on a YES vote which obviously might not happen.
Would we be so stupid as to vote in Labour MP’s, to potentially sabotage the independence negotiations, after a successful Yes vote?
The issue of Scottish MPs at Westminster in the interim period after a Yes vote is a fascinating one. You can’t have 5 million people unrepresented at Westminster for two years or more, and equally you can’t have Scottish MPs voting for the rest of the term when Scotland is independent. Scots would have to bear in mind the scenario outlined in the piece, but also wouldn’t want their parting gift to their English brethren to be a Tory government.
There’s an argument that the 2015 UK Parliament should only sit until the day Scotland becomes formally independent, and then dissolve for a new election. Of course, that creates the possibility of the negotiations being deliberately drawn out by Westminster. It’s quite the can of worms.
Hmmm. And here is me wondering just why Cameron and his Tory Government is bringing all British troops out of Afghanistan in 2014 and settling a whole load of them into barracks in Scotland.
The NO camp neither believe that Scotland is too poor to be Independent nor do they believe there will be any conflict as a consequence of a YES vote.
It’s scaremongering-nothing else.
Merry xmas to everyone.
AndrewFraeGovan says:
24 December, 2012 at 11:54 am
Would we be so stupid as to vote in Labour MP’s, to potentially sabotage the independence negotiations, after a successful Yes vote?
It seems to me that after our longed-for YES vote in the Referendum, the only logical option for those YES voters (of all parties and none), will be to vote SNP or Green in the historically unique set of circumstances of the (last ever) UK Parliamentary elections of 2015.
What else could strengthen the position of the Scottish Government better than an unambiguous statement of will represented by a significant block of nationalist MPs determined to secure the best for Scotland in the negotiations.
Trouble with common sense though….its not very common! However I am confident Scots will see where our self interest lies.
If Scotland votes yes in 2014, which it will, and by 60%+, that’s it.
Naff all Westminster can do about it short of sending in tanks (been tried before with horses, bows and arrows, cannons etc many times, always failed). But then that’s not going to happen. The UK economy would be crippled in a matter of days as the oil, gas and power start running out. Rioting and looting in e.g. London follows as shops empty of produce etc…
By this point the UN and EU would be outlawing the rUK and threatening sanctions/intervention…
And anyway, the Edinburgh agreement was with the UK and Scottish Governments, does not matter who they are in terms of party in power. Labour could not say ‘we didn’t sign it so it’s not valid’. They’d have to pass a new bill through Westminster rescinding the agreement as the UK government. That’s just not going to happen.
We won’t be voting in the UKGE 2015; of that I’m perfectly confident.
I’ll say again; Ed’s One Nation is England. He’s not pinning any hopes on Scotland, not any more, not with his union jackery and Thatcher pep talks. Hell if we vote N, then he might look for some Labour MPs come 2015, but he’s not pinning any hopes on it. Dave’s the same; he and Tory chums are largely keeping out of it as they know it’s inevitable; hell there are even some positives.
I think most of the Scottish Tories are largely resigned to it. The Scottish Libs are reduced to wee wullie shouting from the back of the class.
Scottish Labour are left trying to save their wee union and the luxurious trappings they’ve become accustomed too; they just can’t believe their hegemony is over. It’s all falling apart with dreams of ermine robes evaporating into Scotch mist. Hence the general headless chicken type approach to better together.
Have a nice Christmas all; been a very good year!
And thanks to Rev Stu for a truly excellent blog.
“We won’t be voting in the UKGE 2015; of that I’m perfectly confident.”
There’s simply no way the independence negotiations will be done and dusted by then, which means we HAVE to be. It’s just not tenable to have five million people unrepresented in the Parliament which will still be making decisions that affect them.
Come a Yes vote in 2014, should negotiations start to falter or in any way seem to become intentionally spun out by Westminster parliamentarians in the hope of a Labour mandate in Scotland 2015 to further muddy the negotiations, I can’t help but feel the current Holyrood parliamentary majority would simply pass a bill declaring UDI and then conduct the remainder of the negotiations as independent states. With the power of a Yes mandate behind them, any majority will of course be accepted as legitimate by the Scots electorate irrespective of what the Unionist parties and press say or feel. The pro independence parliamentarians will not allow their hard won (but freak) majority position in Holyrood to simply fizzle out and nor should they. Yes vote in 2014, I would say there is a very good chance of a Holyrood Independence declaration in 2015. No Westminster elections in Scotland and so no chance of a renewal of a Labour mandate in Scotland. Fait accompli. Scotland moves into a new age and I can’t wait.
O/T, but NNS heading with a brilliant analysis of ‘BBC Scotland’ called The Untouchables – worth keeping as a reminder of the arrogance and unaccountability we’re dealing with.
Assuming we win the 2014 referendum, and the negotiations go smoothly…. The Labour MPs then return to Scotland in 2016, unless some of them want to take up residence on the other side of the border. But in terms of those who return, would the New Labour lot take root here and keep the party to the right of the SNP? Would the left be able to reform the party?
Also, if some of them lose their seats in 2015, in the wake of a YES vote, will they start working on their future political careers in an imminently independent Scotland? Will losing those seats cut them loose from the Westminster party and allow them to start working on a truly Scottish Labour party?
And if Labour were to win the 2020 or 2021 general election in an independent Scotland, who would be Prime Minister? Someone we’ve already heard of (and might even guess at) or some new person who’s yet to emerge?
There’s some interesting questions that would arise in the wake of a YES vote.
“Scotland would have run at a significant deficit in each of the last ten years”
Shock, horror! The “Better Together” UK would never run a deficit would it? I’m pretty sure if you ask them they will produce the figures showing how big the UK’s surplus was for each of the past 10 years.
Stu, I had a look at the pdf you link to and there was statement in there which expands on the one you quote. The interesting bit it is the per capita idea. Better Together consider that division of the oil reserves on a per capita basis is a valid one. In other words England will get control of 91.6% of the oil reserves in Scottish waters. This may simply be scaremongering but it gives an idea of how they consider handing over Scottish assets to the rUK/England to be quite in order as part of any independence negotiations. The bold is mine.
“The critical assumption underpinning the statement made by the anti-UK campaign is the basis on which North Sea oil revenues are allocated. The calculation assumes that Scotland would receive a geographical share of North Sea oil revenues. This is by no means guaranteed. If, alternatively, a per capita share of North Sea oil revenues was assumed, then Scotland’s deficit is 14.7% of GDP – much higher than the UK figure of 9.2%. Therefore, under this scenario the anti- UK campaign’s statement would no longer hold. With a per capita share of North Sea oil revenues, Scotland only accounts for 8.3% of revenue (Table E.2) and its deficit is correspondingly higher.”
There’s also an article by Christine Bell on the Scottish Constitutional Futures Forum about the Edinburgh Agreement which is linked to from Wikipedia. The one passage that struck me was:
“Interestingly one additional matter relating to the referendum is not specifically dealt with by the Agreement; namely the Agreement does not tightly specify what will follow from the referendum result. The Agreement talks of the parties agreeing that the referendum, ‘deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect’. Paragraph 30 of the Memorandum of Agreement provides that ‘The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.’ But even this does not clearly say what either government must do to respect the result.”
link to scottishconstitutionalfutures.org
You may be right. Labour in Scotland are already planning to either ensure that Scotland is asset stripped at independence or that Labour may simply refuse to recognise a yes victory in the referendum.
@Rev stu.
I see the point, but while negotiations will undoubtedly go on for some time, Scotland would be ‘territorially’ independent the moment a yes vote is achieved. I’d imagine the Scottish Government would formally announce independence and say it was entering negotiations on the (logistics) transition. The people will have spoken. Westminster would no longer ‘control’ Scotland from that point on unless there was some formal agreement that this would not be the case. Instead, you will have the government of an independent Scotland negotiating the division of assets, liabilities etc with the government of the rUK, although I expect much of this will have been done beforehand (it’s going on right now) as it would be ludicrous not to get the main issues (an obvious one being trident) sorted ahead of things.
When Moore was attacked in the Lords for the Uk Gov seemingly not being prepared it was not quite what it seemed. Westminster is preparing, just not wanting to shout about it as this would aid the Yes campaign. I just can’t believe they would not being doing this; that would be beyond crazy.
In the end, both in terms of the treaty of union and international law, there’s really nothing Westminster can do to stop things. If it could, it would be doing that right now, not signing Edinburgh Agreements. ‘Vote SNP if you want independence’ we were told for good reason; Scottish independence has always been Scotland’s to take, but it needed to get off its arse and do it.
My thoughts anyway.
As for voting in 2015, what’s the point? It would be even more of a waste of time than normal. I’ve voted in 4 UKGE’s and never had my vote counted once. It would also, as noted by others, potentially cause a big problem when Scottish MPs are withdrawn a year later or so. Best not send them there in the first place.
Surely, at some point, after the YES vote the Scottish Labour party are going to have to constitute themselves as a distinct party based in Scotland if they hope to fight future elections; though my money is on them ditching the Labour brand so that they don’t inherit 8.4% of British Labour’s debt. What ‘new’ party would want to crippled with over £1M of debt?
Yes in 2014 means that the UK is over. Had the devolved electoral system worked as designed by the Unionists, then yes, all the problems and messiness of the possible 2015 elections and the feasible return of a phalanx of Labour anti independence MP’s to Westminster, the formation of another Scots mandated Unionist centre of power for another five year term to wriggle and spin and generally try to undermine the referendum result. All backed up with the supposed majority unionist opposition parties in Holyrood effectively neutering the Scots government cheered on by the MSM and ‘National’ Broadcaster. In these circumstances (and these were the circumstances the system was designed to cope with) I could see the Union possibly staggering on again from crisis to crisis. But .. with the majority in Holyrood now unthinkably Pro Independence and given a Yes vote all that shit can be very simply side stepped. Electorally (Holyrood) and referendum mandated UDI. Our Parliament negotiates with their Parliament. No need for Scots representation at Westminster and no need for rUK representation at Holyrood. The perfect storm and I cannot see the quality of politician we have in the SNP Government at the moment fumbling that historic opportunity to seal the deal with a democratic declaration of Independence. They must be itching to do it I know I am!
Is Scottish Labour not finished by a YES vote? What policies would they fight on in a UK general election in 2015? It would be idiotic in the extreme to have any position other than a pro-Scottish one while negotiations are going on (and I know that the current leadership have idiocy down to a fine art) and putting Ed Milliband into power would not be accepted by the rUK.
What would their policies be in the Scottish general election of 2016? They’d have to make them up rather quickly, and, as I mentioned in my last post, inheriting their share of British Labour’s debt would cripple them and leave them unable to campaign effectively.
They’ve staked everything on the referendum.
Rev Stu
I think this is a scare story worthy (or unworthy?) of the Bitter Together mob. I am sure the points around Scots MPs in a rUK parliament for a few years would be resolved by the Westminster rMPs. If not then Scots could sort it out themselves via the ballot box in the 2015 election by voting for MPs who would support Independence. You also have to realise that by that time the Labour trough feeders at Westminster who hadn’t been set up in a safe English seat would have seen the light and be looking to future careers in Scotland.
The biggest danger I see is an early GE derailing the Referendum timetable.
Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, Labour will go to the 2016 GE with the usual “keep the Tories out” line. If the referendum returns a “yes” result, then Labour will add a secondary line: “If we win the general election, and have a majority share of the vote in Scotland, we will overturn the result of the referendum.” If it’s in their manifesto, they will consider that enough of a mandate. So far as they are concerned there is no more reason to acknowledge a referendum result from across Scotland, than there was to acknowledge a referendum result from across Aberdeen.
Darling is the one who goes on about uncertainty in every sentence. Perhaps he can clear this one up?
2015 GE I meant, of course!
I reckon a Yes vote of 50.01% or over will be accepted. This is because it would be in the Tories’ own political interests for this to happen. I can’t see a upturn in the economy for at least a few years, and I can’t see an upturn in Conservative fortunes either. Even if they had a small lead over Labour at the time of the referendum (which is looking increasingly unlikely) they would probably still prefer a Yes vote. This is because they could discount 40 Labour MPs getting elected. It would be in the Tories own interests to get as much agreements as possible done before the general election in 2015 in the event of a Yes vote. With a Yes vote and agreements already in place, there would be no reason for the Scottish electorate to vote for the Labour Party in a general election.
I never understood how a majority of ‘Scots constituency’ Westminster MP’s that supported Independence were supposed to go down to Westminster and negotiate Scotland’s Independence anyway. I thought that MP’s were members of Westminster Parliament and not Scots (the Nation) Parliamentary representatives. Was it simply a gentleman’s agreement? Gentlemen in Westminster? How could 40ish MP’s possibly negotiate successfully against 600 odd plus the Lords? What is there to stop a few northern ‘English constituency’ MP’s joining the 40 odd ‘Scots Constituency’ MP’s to negotiate the formation of a ‘greater’ Scotland? What’s to stop the Scots constituency MP’s not for independence refusing to be spoken for by the 40 odd majority? No, the more Independence is becoming a reality to me the more I realise that the mechanism by which our Independence was to be gained was most probably a mirage and for most of the Unions life did not actually exist. This was the genius of the Act of Union and it’s subsequent enactment. It effectively allowed voice of National sentiment but with no apparent way of re attaining nationhood. It gave the appearance of possible democratic decision making to self determination while in fact the Parliamentary structures made that impossible. Until that is, the hubristic idiots of the Labour party took it upon themselves to tinker with (what had been for 300 years) an impossible lock for Scots as well as any other constituent part of the Union to break (peacefully). So Here’s to those idiots at the Labour party, past and present, who just could not believe that their endless and vast constituency votes could be anything other than the sign of the electorates undying personal and party loyalties. Without them (and Holyrood) The UK could have continued on it’s merry way. Thank heavens Tam Dalziel sounded so plummy and was ignored so comprehensively. To Independence.
I agree with Commenter.
An early GE to screw up the referendum is a real possibility.
Jutemam and Commenter, how would you see this coming about? In who’s interests (within the coalition) would an early election be?
@Braco
Not necessarily in any party in the Coaliiton’s interests. Just … “events Dear Boy …”. The Coalition is already fragile and is coming under increasing pressure from the Public, right wing Tories, Eurosceptics and UKIP. I know there is now a “5 year rule” between Parliaments which does not allow for voluntary dissolution except in particular circumstances. But how legally rigorous is it?
Labour, Tory and Libs are just front names that enable the pretence of democracy.
The power in the British state is something altogether different.
One thing labour, the torys and the libdem are all going to have togive serious thought is their standing in Scotland. None of them is currently registered as a political party in Scotland and on a YES vote in 2014 and will not be able to field candidates for the 2016 election.
Interesting choice, continue in the rUK parties or hotfoot it down to the electoral registrar
Commenter and Juteman, yes I can see the threat that an early election would create but I just can’t see a likely route to governmental collapse. The Major government was amazing in that respect, but it just kept on going. Neither Tories or Libdems want to go near the electorate any time soon and I think that includes the right wingers. At heart, I think all politicians are optimists and no matter how bad things seem to be, as long as there is time before the next election, maybe something.. anything will turn up and save the day. In other words, if a politician in power can avoid an election…. they will.
I wouldn’t think the Tories or Libdems would have any part in the decision Braco.
The real power wouldn’t care. Tory, Labour? Same difference.
”There’s an argument that the 2015 UK Parliament should only sit until the day Scotland becomes formally independent, and then dissolve for a new election.”
Seems appropriate. The UK ceases to exist the day Scotland becomes independent. New elections would be in order for the Former Members of the United Kingdom.
Wouldn’t it just be possible that Scots just don’t vote the election? Couldn’t an amendment be made?
To be honest, Rev. If Scotland does win Independence, then I don’t believe the MP’s for Scotland will be allowed to vote in the UK General Election. I know if I was English, then I would be mighty pi$$ed off, with not only Scotland breaking away, but we then have a say by voting in the UK General Election (while England had no say in our Referendum). We could potentially put a Labour government in place, walk away, and thus leave England with a Government that no one voted for (…hmmmm strange that…where have I heard or seen that before).
We can’t have it both ways…
I have no doubt that David Cameron’s advisors may have spotted this potential hic-cup on the horizon, and therefore, I’m guessing (and it is only a guess…nothing else), that quietly, if Scotland does go its own way, then the Scots will not be allowed to vote in the UK Elections.
Ater all…we’ve all thought it. I think it would be very unfair to vote for Independence, but still vote in the UK. I think it opens the door to allow the Unionists to say that most Scots want to remain part of the UK.
So, my answer would be ‘No’ to voting in the UK election. If Scotland wins Independence, then we stay out of the 2015 UK Election. Give the Unionists no possible ammunition at all.
Wullie says:
When Scotland votes YES in 2014 and is on its way to independence I cannot for one moment think that the people of England will tolerate the Scots voting in an election to the Westminster parliament in England. I can only presume that they would be apoplectic with rage at the thought of Scots participating in what they will then see as a purely English election.
Absolutely agree with everything you have said there, Wullie. To be honest, I would feel very guilty, and if I was offered the chance to vote, then I would refuse. I have always voted in elections (even for local and European elections. But this one time – No).
Rev,
Scots would have to bear in mind the scenario outlined in the piece, but also wouldn’t want their parting gift to their English brethren to be a Tory government.
Don’t agree with you on that one, Rev. Everything really south of the Watford Gap, as well as the South East of England has always voted Tory. If we don’t vote in 2015, and half of England votes in a Tory Government again, then that is their choice …and that is not our fault.
In fact, the nightmare scenario is that the Referendum is a ‘No’ vote, and then we get an absolute Tory majority in 2015. Can you imagine the absolute horror of that in Scotland. No one has said that yet !!
However, I believe once Osborne’s welfare cuts dig in during 2013 and 2014, then a lot of folk who are Unionist may turn to Independence when they realise that it doesn’t matter if they vote Labour, Liberal or Tory…they are never, ever going to get their benefits back…ever again. And that is the truth !! A lot may decide to take their chances in a newly Independent Scotland once the truth of it dawns on them…
Having read all comments now, this is what I believe.
If Scotland votes for Independence, then
1. Scottish citizens will not vote in the 2015 General Election.
2. The SNP, one day after the result, will declare Scotland Independent, and then get other nations to recognise the new nation. This will include the UN, the USA, the Commonwealth and the EU. Salmond will want the Independence result confirmed and endorsed very quickly by everyone around the world.
3. Once the 2015 Elections are over (and which …we (the Scots) did NOT vote in it), then whatever new laws are passed by the ‘new’ UK Government in 2015, will not be implemented in Scotland, unless it revolves around the Pound (£).
4. Labour won’t do a damn thing. If we didn’t vote in the 2015 General Election, then they won’t be allowed to overturn our result. Salmond would run screaming to the US, the UN, and the Commonwealth. There would such a stink kicked up, that Labour would be running for the hard hats and the hills. Plus, a new Scotland would already be recognised by the rest of the world at that point, and thirdly, the fury alone from more than half of Scots would be enough. God help the Scottish Labour MP who tries to overturn the 2014 result.
5. Scotland will walk away with most of the oil. A deal will be done to allow England access to some of the oil. Possibly a 70-30 divide (with Scotland taking 70%). For giving England a good portion of the oil, Scotland will be allowed, say, 2 seats on the Bank of England executive board. Keeps the Pound harmonised.
6. Come January 1st 2016, or June 30th 2016 (or even 24th June 2016 (Bannockburn Date)) then Scotland will become truly Independent.
“Having read all comments now, this is what I believe.”
Good analysis, except for one thing – if we end up offering the rUK 30% of the oil, I will personally kick Alex Salmond to death in running shoes, and I’ll have to wait in a VERY long queue to do so.
And finally ….a Merry Christmas to Reverend Stu and everybody else who loves to come to this site. Best wishes to you all !!
Merry Christmas everybody and many thanks to the Reverend for all the hard work in the making of such a great site.
GEHere are my thoughts on this for what they are worth.
Labour have as much chance of winning the 2015 GE as I have and as far as I know I’m not even standing 🙂 Why such a bold statement, well as always it comes back to money. My scenario is that just before the next GE the tories are going to raid the North Sea and if the tories are lucky also the Frackers might be generating cash for a large tax hit (the fracking might not be ready for 2015 but it will be ready in time to buy the 2020 UK GE). This money will be given out to all the hard pressed people of the UK as a consolation for sticking with austerity, this has worked in the past and there is no particular reason to think it wont happen again. The amount of the hit on the North Sea will depend on how the polls are going for the referendud. If the polls show a 50/50 split or slight move to a no vote then the GE will be in 2015. If there is a major shift to Yes next year then the GE will be called early (late 2013, early 2014) and the North Sea will be crippled with the tax raid. Why should Osbourne care about the state of oil fields he is about to lose? My biggest worry about the next election is not just that Labour could somehow win it but that we get a coalition of tories and UKIP in power. Farage has already been making noises about how he wants the negotiations to proceed if he is any power.
I would have thought that the point of a referendum was to show the settled will of the people. I would have thought that, as the results were announced Mr Salmond would declare independence, because that is what we will have determined. It would be insane for him not to. Why would he do anything else? It has been his ambition throughout his political career.
That would be the end of the UK. That very day.
Best wishes to all of you.
Nope, don’t see the SNP declaring independence day after referendum – just too much to negotiate and better to do so from within than without. What I do see is Scotland not voting in the next UK general election and Holyrood being given interim powers and responsibility for day to day running of Scotland while negotations are concluded.
But away from all that, merry xmas everyone, and thanks for the site Rev Stu, looking forward to reading it throughout 2013!
Don Mc,
Err,
Why wouldn’t they do that?
It seems to me transparent that the moment we say ‘Yes’ to independence, then all bets are off.
At that moment in time are we free? Free even to negotiate? Is that not what we are being asked to do? It is a very important point that we are being asked to determine, and our decision ought to be tantamount, I think.
I’d assume that any negotiation would be better if we already knew we were free. That would be where I would like to start from. It is why we must persuade a lot of folk to vote ‘YES’ in 2014
I really hope and expect that we will have overturned the foolishness of Westminster by then, once and for all.
Just saying.
By the way, best wishes for the festivities.
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
“Having read all comments now, this is what I believe.”
Good analysis, except for one thing – if we end up offering the rUK 30% of the oil, I will personally kick Alex Salmond to death in running shoes, and I’ll have to wait in a VERY long queue to do so.
Merry Christmas Rev! Hope you have a good day.
I understand what you are saying, however, I honestly believe that the oil will be negotiated. It’s almost a win-win situation for everyone. England gets some oil. Scotland gets on the BoE Exec Board, and England is happy because Scotland can’t pull any fast stunts with the economy while she sits outside the BoE boardroom – ‘all our ships must sail in the same direction’.
This is just bargaining chips. Scotland has a few too. I honestly believe that Salmond will offer England access to the North Sea Oil Fields, but should oil be found in the North Atlantic side, then this will be Scottish – not British. Why should England share from new fields. the North Sea – yes – because this was being drilled when it was the UK. But any new fields post-indy – they will be Scottish.
There will be other chips on the table too. Scotland does have a good hand. The UK will want to keep some sort of British army. The SAS will exist still, but the armies will be split as well as the navy and airforce. However, both will work hand in hand to protect the isles. Trident will probably be moved, and the costs split, but then we can negotiate on things such as shared embassies and access to other things in trade.
The main thing is Rev – we need to work with England. We can’t take everything. If we get shirty about this, then you would have English companies beng hostile by not trading with us. We have to give and take. I would happily have all of the above if it guarantees good relations with England. And make no bones about it – those folk in England that are ahead of the curve with Scotland, know that England needs Scotland. The ‘Big Brother’ mentality is been shaken here. The ‘Wee Bro’ is suddenly not so wee, not so poor, and not so stupid. We are closer than folk would like to admit. We do have shared values, and in some parts, a shared culture. We have relatives from each others nation in our families. We are not just sister nations – we are twin sisters. Both nations we born at the same time, and we have grown together. Now …we will split, but we will remain very, very close.
Just my view.
Don Mc says:
Nope, don’t see the SNP declaring independence day after referendum
—————-
Don, it’s the first thing that the SNP MUST DO. To not declare would imply that the result is hazy. This opens the door to the Unionists to declare re-counts. Remember back in 2007 when the SNP won the election – Salmond was out on the grass lawn declaring victory. He knew that if he held back, then Labour would be screaming re-counts. It was the same in Florida with Bush, when everyone thought Gore won that state (yes, I know…the whole thing was fixed), but it was Bush who declared victory first …even when there was doubt.
By declaring victory first, you automatically push your opponent into a mind state of absolute defeat. It’s pure psychological. The minute Salmond sees 50.001%, honestly…he will be sprinting faster than Usain Bolt to the front lawn to scream ‘Victory’. He has too. By letting time pass, he casts the shadow of doubt.
I mean think about it. Salmond appears on TV delerious with joy saying Scotland is now an independent nation. Now, we go to Labour HQ in Glasgow to suddenly see Lamont going grey in colour and looking seriously pig sick, while others in the room look like they want to cry. Seriously – Labour will die at that point. It will be a wake there. That is the hammer blow by declaring victory straight away. You get the wheels in motion while your enemy sits there too stunned and paralysed to do anything.
“I understand what you are saying, however, I honestly believe that the oil will be negotiated. It’s almost a win-win situation for everyone. England gets some oil. Scotland gets on the BoE Exec Board, and England is happy because Scotland can’t pull any fast stunts with the economy while she sits outside the BoE boardroom – ’all our ships must sail in the same direction’.”
Bollocks! Over my dead body will the oil be negotiated. Not one inch of Scotland’s territory on land, sea or air will be negotiated away. A pissed off England/rUK annexing Scottish waters will be an act of war, a “deal being done” will also lead to war, civil war. We would win in a war against the rUK/England (though the price would be terrible indeed), there would be NO winners in a civil war. I can not see the Scottish government being so stupid.
There will be NO DEAL.
BTW – May I take this opperchancity to congratulate the Rev on the wonderful job he’s been doing with WoS. You make me laugh sometimes, make me angry, you make me confused (I ken nothing of this love of the football), but more importantly you make me think and reconsider my own beliefs, at times. For that I thank you.
May your keyboard never tire. Here’s to next year.
Merry Solstice, etc.
KOF
If England gets 30% of our oil, do we get 30% of their shale gas, or whatever resources may still lie in English waters yet to be discovered?
A right bunch of chookies we’d look if we gave them 30% of our major asset, then they discovered a huge amount in their own territory two years later.
I’m with RevStu. They’ve had enough of our lifeblood. That’s what this is all about.
Okay…a little clarification here…
First, I never said that we would give part of the North Sea to England. I said we would give them a share of the oil. That means just passing revenue to them – NOT territory.
Second – its that attitude that could see English businesses turning their backs on Scottish ones. We have to work with England – not stick 2 fingers up and them, and tell them to eff off.
If we do that, then I can guarantee you, that England will make life extremely difficult for us – in every way possible.
I’ll be frank here. The choice in the end will be – Independence – share part of the wealth – harmonious relations with England ….or….we can Independence – all the resource – and an enraged and vindictive England who will put the boot into us each possible time.
You can’t have it both ways. Remember that!
“Okay…a little clarification here…
First, I never said that we would give part of the North Sea to England. I said we would give them a share of the oil. That means just passing revenue to them – NOT territory.
Second – its that attitude that could see English businesses turning their backs on Scottish ones. We have to work with England – not stick 2 fingers up and them, and tell them to eff off.
If we do that, then I can guarantee you, that England will make life extremely difficult for us – in every way possible.
I’ll be frank here. The choice in the end will be – Independence – share part of the wealth – harmonious relations with England ….or….we can Independence – all the resource – and an enraged and vindictive England who will put the boot into us each possible time.
You can’t have it both ways. Remember that!”
Nope, not buying this at all. It’s simply our oil, just like if they find vast amounts of shale gas under Blackpool they won’t be bunging us any of the money. As Aplinal suggests, we have all the bargaining chips we need in the form of Trident. I fully expect us to agree to provide a temporary base while they construct a Coulport replacement. That will indeed realistically mean 5-10 years, but in return for that they’ll agree to just about everything we want, so desperately do they want to hang onto it and so bereft of other options are they. I will happily bet you a thousand pounds right now that they won’t get one teacupful of oil that isn’t in their own waters. The idea is absolutely bonkers.
I’m with RevStu. They’ve had enough of our lifeblood. That’s what this is all about.
Wrong…that’s not what this is about.
This is about being governed, and the way of being governed. This is not about who owns what, or who did what. You can’t keep looking for past grievances if we are going to have a Scotland that wants to move on. Ambition and forward thinking; not past grievances.
@JLT
I can’t for the life of me see why we would give them any of our oil. What’s ours is ours and what’s theirs is theirs. They can buy as much as they like, though.
It would be more appropriate for them to give us a cut from the proceeds of the City, seeing as they’ve been misappropriating our resources for years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report
We’ve been a vassal state for far too long. NAE MAIR!
“I said we would give them a share of the oil. That means just passing revenue to them – NOT territory.”That’s even worse. It’s better to placate aggression with bribery, rather than stand up to bullies? If we bribe them, then they won’t bully us, after all we’re too wee, too poor, too stupid, too helpless to to look after ourselves. Is that what you think? That “attitude”? We are not sticking two fingers up at England, we’re just taking what is ours, no more, no less. If the choice is a metaphorical tugging of the forelock to England/rUK, or facing war, then let it be war. I don’t give in to bullies and neither should Scotland.
@KOF
The correct term is “tribute”
NO WAY!
AndrewFraeGovan says:25 December, 2012 at 1:11 pm
@KOFThe correct term is “tribute”NO WAY!
Cheers for that. I knew it was one of those “t” word. 😀
No way indeed.
why give away 30%? The rUK will have their own regional share of 10% is that not enough.
I think there will be some compromise, but it won’t be over the oil. That has been an SNP mantra for too long, and legally, it IS Scotland’s oil. No, I think there will be some form of “medium term” solution over the missiles. The SNP will negotiate a 5-10 year leeway to enable the rUK to build another suitable site. They will not try to disarm them, nor will they force them to leave immediately. that creates far too many difficulties.
There will have to be major deals done over the military anyway, and trident is just another part of that particular Gordian knot.
All the very best of the season to each and everyone.
By God…I have stirred a hornet’s nest here !!!
Look ….when I said 30% way back at the start – it was just an example of what we could do with the oil. As an example, I said that if Scotland intends to keep the Pound, then we will want at least a couple of seats on the BoE Exec Board. We have to there! We need to be there!
To not be there, means Westminster could do whatever it wants, and Scotland would just have to grin and bear it. Personally, that would just be nuts. Independent, but we have no say (or possible control) over what is our monetary system – we can’t have that! So, as an example ….I said that by giving up a % of the oil, we get seats on the BoE board.
In no way, is this being a vassal state, paying tribute, being bullied, going to war etc. At the end of the day, the oil is a highly useful bargaining chip.
And before folk go, ‘but we are still having to bribe our way on to the BoE board’ – Remember this – no other nation in the world sits on another countries Banking Board and gets to have a say. We are probably going to be the only nation in the world in this position. We ARE going to have to ask England to be on that Board, and in turn, they will want something from us!
Another way as Rev and Aplinal both say, is that by keeping trident for a little bit longer, then this could be used as a bargaining chip. It might be the very chip that allows us to get a seat on the BoE board. However, if we go down that route …then personally …I believe the RUK will demand that Trident be kept in Scotland indefinitely. We get a seat at the BoE board, but we are stuck with Trident until RUK decides to get rid of it ….whenever.
But as I said way back at the start, the 30% of oil, and using Trident are nothing more than examples.
If you were to ask me what I truly want, and I seriously mean this – then I would want a Scottish Pound, get rid of all WMD’s, keep the oil (spend half of it in upgrading the nation / bank half of it for future generations), and be the first nation to use 100% green technology at the end of the day, market ourselves silly around the globe and join EFTA – Not the EU.
Sounds great, doesn’t it ….but in reality ….and this is the reason why I said all the other stuff earlier, is that I don’t believe that what I truly dream for, will come to pass. I think we will end up attached to the BoE and the pound, I suspect Trident is going nowhere, and God only knows where we will be in Europe.
Rev,
I will happily bet you a thousand pounds right now that they won’t get one teacupful of oil that isn’t in their own waters. The idea is absolutely bonkers.
To be honest, you did tempt me on this (LOL). I agree with you that they shouldn’t get a drop of the oil, but this is Westminster – the place of the dark arts and insidious conniving plots.
Rev …I say this jestingly, but it wouln’t surprise me if Westminster tried to move the maritime border lines all the way up to Norway to suit themselves, or they dug a shaft from Newcastle at a 15% angle all the way underground into the Scottish oil fields!!
In fact …it would NOT surprise me in the least if they tried to put a puppet regime in place up here post-indy!!! After all, they did it Persia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt …and …well, when you think about it ….half of the Empire, which means half of the World !!! (and I am still jesting when I say this last bit, before someone jumps on me !!)
Yes, Westminster …a wonderful and enlightened building that wishes for free thinking, and to lead the way by being a beacon of light to the rest of the world….
@JLT
Haha, maybe not a hornet’s nest. but a lot of people who want to forge a new future for their country. 🙂
Just one final thought about the BoE committee/board/policy group ior whatever it will be called in future. On the assumption that Westminster agreed, the Scot’s representatives will STILL be outvoted by something like 7-2, or 9-2 (I think there are 9/11 members?) So in reality how much influence does it get? Also, by being on the board it in effect legitimises their decisions. No, I don’t buy it.
I suspect that what will happen is that Westminster will initially try the hardball approach, and the threat over Trident will deflate that particular balloon. I would rather Scotland had its own currency (Scot’s pound – we already have them, so why have another) fixed to the pound-Sterling (or pound-London ;-0) at least as an interim measure, probably linked in time frame to the removal of Trident.
That 5-10 years will enable us to start to reconfigure our economy, by having close to 100&% renewable energy (thus all petro-based products can be sold on) I would hope that we have a Government owned oil company (see Norway) as we certainly have the expertise, and can begin to grow the oil fund as well as support our social policies.
Voting YES is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, the media/BBC want us NOT to engage our brains. The task of Independence supporters is to ensure that everyone we know is encouraged to think for themselves, ask questions, and seek answers away from the ‘established’ media outlets. As they used to say on the X-files, “The truth is out there”.
Merry Christmas Aplinal,
On the assumption that Westminster agreed, the Scot’s representatives will STILL be outvoted by something like 7-2, or 9-2 (I think there are 9/11 members?) So in reality how much influence does it get? Also, by being on the board it in effect legitimises their decisions. No, I don’t buy it.
I do agree with you on all of the above. To be honest, I would just have a ‘Bank of Scotland’.
The Western Currencies are all mince these day anyway, so if we had to start again, would our credit rating really be that bad? – it certainly wouldn’t be any worse than the rest. There is no way we would be a BB+ or BBB. I suspect a rating of AA or A+ (at worst). Britain is going to lose its AAA anyway, and drop down to AA (Standard and Poors). If we were independent with only a £100 Billion deficit, then I can’t see why, with everything that we have, and could potentially have, why we wouldn’t get a AA rating to begin with. If rUK with its £1 Trilion deficit is about to get a AA rating, then we certainly should be looking at AA.
One funny aspect if we are looking at the BoE (which I didn’t mention before) is that as much as we may / possibly have to concede something to get on that board, the flip side to not being on that board is that the BoE would be watching Scotland like a hawk. They would be paranoid like hell.
Can you imagine us still using the Pound, but not being on that board – And then say we do something nuts like ….sell oil at $90 a barrel when it should be $160 (I’m messing here – there is no way we would do this !!). The Pound would crash through the floor. Without us in the room to explain our actions, the BoE would get more than pelters from the rUK and the rest of the World. So, the other argument is …can the BoE really afford to have Scotland outside the boardroom. In my previous posts, I argued a case for getting on it (30% of oil revenues). Whether we stick with the Pound, or go our own way (who knows what will happen with the economy, Europe, etc over the next 2 years), but if we do decide to remain with the UK Pound, then it may be in the BoE interests that they have us in that room just so they know what we are getting up to (and at that point …we are back to the UK controlling us again, you could say!!!).
For me, I would just go for it and have a Bank of Scotland. It certainly removes a lot from the negotiations. If we don’t stick with the UK pound, then we don’t need to negotiate on oil, trident, the military, etc.
Personally, by having a ‘Bank of Scotland’ …it would certainly make our lives easier. Margo MacDonald believes this to be the case…
In terms of oil and gas post independence, the only agreement on the table will be for security of supply. Scotland only uses ~10% of production domestically; the rUK will want a deal that the remainder keeps heading south to stock up forecourts, keep turbines spinning and houses warm. If it didn’t, the rUK economy would be in tatters within a week. Rioting would follow as people fought over the last loaf of bread in the supermarket. At the same time, Scotland would be losing huge volumes of revenue; ok not lost as the oil would still be there, but not coming into the coffers. Ergo, in nobody’s interest that things should not continue on as normal, albeit with revenues jumping off at Waverley rather than King’s Cross. Westminster has had it’s share of the revenues; that of probably half the reserves in Scottish waters. It will continue to enjoy these until such time as Scots decide they wish them to go to Holyrood in 2014. Unless that is, Westminster wishes to hand over 30% of revenues from the city of London that or maybe a section of the Channel tunnel, M25… Na, that would be silly.
Also worth noting that the rUK is broke; will most likely see its credit rating downgraded next year, making that credit card bill even bigger than it already is. At that point, the brown stuff will really impact the fan and the idea of the UK being a secure place financially for Scotland will vanish like Scotch mist on a sunny morning (rare as those are in these parts).
The rUK is in no position to pick a fight with a newly independent Scotland; it would make a perilous economic situation even worse. It would also be stupid for Scotland to be awkward too; e.g. by asking trident to be removed first thing in the morning. Add in the EU, UN watching and….
No no no, best both sides work it out amicably and focus on getting economies back on track. Dave et al. gave up some time ago and are preparing for it. Looks like Ed is two now with his ‘One [English] Nation’ moves (there is just no way this stuff is intended for Scotland). Clegg? All he cares about is keeping at least a few seats in the next rUK GE lest his party be wiped of the electoral map. Will be doing deals with the Tories on this.
Scottish Skier,
The rUK is in no position to pick a fight with a newly independent Scotland; it would make a perilous economic situation even worse. It would also be stupid for Scotland to be awkward too
This was the point of my original argument. Scotland has to keep good relations with England. We have too!! If we don’t, then not only do we have a very aggrieved England who would make trading very awkward, but it could potentially cause problems for Scottish Businesses, because English companies would turn their backs on us out of spite. It could be slightly ruinous for both nations; hence, a % of revenues to England to stabilise them, while the Scots get seats on the Bank of England. As I said …it was just an example, and just a theory. But the idea is to create a sense of harmony and goodwill.
As to the economy in the future …who knows? I suspect Western Governments will have Bonds ready to be used to buy capital in the event on a run on all economies and banks again. I’m guessing people who have cash may be offered Bonds in exchange for capital in their accounts. The bonds cannot be cashed for several years, but they will grow. Therefore, when the time comes to trade them (hopefully, in better times), then the Bond holder will get a profit on the original bond. It is the only way I can see Banks and Governments laying their hands on money …either that, or they are going to steal it from folks accounts and claim it as property of the state. But, that then leads to riots and civil unrest. This scenario will only be played out should we get a domino effect from say Spain and Italy financially collapsing (forget Greece …it’s gone).
But to return to the moment – whether Osborne’s great plan of hammering benefits, will slow the rate of interest on the debt, and then begin to eat into that debt remains to be seen (I’m led to believe that a third of our economy is being used to pay benefits – therefore, in Osborne’s eyes, if he takes benefits away, then I’m guessing he is hoping that the debt can be hammered down.
Whether it will work, remains to be seen, but the misery for millions will be felt).
Which leads us back to Scotland. Either scenario looks seriously grim. If we want Scotland to use the Pound, then that is what we are looking at. Personally, a step into the unknown might actually be the best solution. We have our own Bank of Scotland, and go our own way.
Clegg? All he cares about is keeping at least a few seats in the next rUK GE lest his party be wiped of the electoral map.
They’re gone, mate. Liberals are finished as a party. When Clegg lied about tuition fees, and then made the coalition deal with the Tories, then that was the moment that the Libs slowly and fatally poisoned themselves into the history books.
Future elections in England will be between the Tories, Labour and UKIP. A couple of interesting angles on this; first. the Tories will be bricking it from UKIP. Two, what are Labour really going to promote that is different from the other two. And three, will Labour ditch Europe like the other two.
Three Parties; all blue, all right-wing, no real social policies. It really is becoming US style politics…
And seriously …Scottish Unionists; do they really, really want to be a part of that ????
@JLT. I understand the argument for reaching an agreement on oil however one must also consider whether Scotland will be entitled to the same %age of taxation from activities in the City of London. Don’t forget that we have always been told that it is the City of London (square mile) that keeps the UK afloat and that there is not much oil left anyway. If this is true why should we negotiate away our oil revenues without getting an equal %age of City taxation. Let us take Westminister at their word and negotiate on that basis. We can have our geographic share of oil entirely, and they can have their city profits and geographic share of oil entirely. Surely this would not cause a problem UNLESS officials in Westminister are deceiving the electorate as to the true state of UK finances.
Just because it’s called the Bank of England, that doesn’t mean it belongs exclusively to England. The BoE is a UK asset and will be divided like all such UK assets. We don’t have to give up 30% of our oil as tribute (and it would be tribute) for a seat on the board of what is already 9% ours. If there are eleven seats one of them is ours by right of ownership.
I don’t know why some people seem to believe the English are nasty and vindictive. You’d think the reputation for fair play was some sort of lie.
Xander / Holebender
Both of your statements are true. I can’t disagree with them.
Holebender
I don’t know why some people seem to believe the English are nasty and vindictive. You’d think the reputation for fair play was some sort of lie.
Mate, I can’t quite work out if this a bit of tongue in cheek!! (LOL) I am assuming that your being sincere here and it is not some sort of dry wit. I have no problem with the English at all. I have a good number of friends who are English, as do we all. 99% of the English might be a bit baffled as to why we want independence (they honestly do feel hurt by it all, but once the reasons are explained, that it is Westminster – NOT the English people themselves that we want away from). That is why I would look to keep good relations with them. It is not the English who have caused this – it is greedy MP’s who are looking after themselves, and what angers me more is, that a good few of them are ours. I’m dying to see them pull the same shit in an Indy Scotland. If they do, then a quick trial, and jail them immediately, and that will cut out the corruption up here!! You never know, it might just be the pointer that the English people require for their parliament too!!