March 16, 2005
Ian McLean's cost of independence
Labour are evidently delighted with an analysis by Ian McLean suggesting that an independent Scotland would be between 4.4 billion and 8 billion pounds worse off than at present. His article was in a book entitled ‘Scotland 2020’, published by Demos.
Cost of independence arguments depend on whatever assumptions are being made, especially about about North Sea oil, and in any case the McLean text is not up on the Demos website. However it’s curious that ‘Scotland 2020’ is not a publication that deals with economics. It’s all about literary, cultural aspirations. It’s subtitle is ‘Hopeful stories for a northern nation’.
thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=232732005
UPDATE 23 March 2005
Ian McLean’s article entitled ‘Scotland after Barnett: Towards fiscal autonomy’ is now available as part of a pdf of ‘Scotland 2020’, pp 134-148. Most of the article is devoted to a discussion of the Barnett Formula and ‘fiscal federalism’. Thanks to John Craig of Demos for the link.
www.demos.co.uk/catalogue/scotland2020book
Posted by Simon Holledge at 12:57 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
March 10, 2005
Salmond on independence
Following Alex Salmond’s ITN News interview yesterday, the heading in the Scotsman is ‘Salmond: “Independence not popular” ‘, and both Labour and the Tories have seized on his remarks to imply that the SNP have at last realized the futility of independence.
Of course it’s not as simple as that. What Salmond was candidly admitting was that many people in Scotland seem to be in favour of increased powers for Holyrood, but remain unconvinced of the case for independence.
This may not represent a paradox so much as a debate that has yet to happen. How many people have a conception of what independence would mean in the 21st century? Or have an idea of the processes involved and of the new relationships it would create?
Perhaps the SNP should be working on a ‘road map’ that explains exactly what powers would be taken up by an independent Scottish government?
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=261592005
Posted by Simon Holledge at 04:26 PM | TrackBack
September 24, 2004
Independence 2: Wendy Alexander on fiscal autonomy
Wendy Alexander (Labour MSP for Paisley North) has linked up Alex Salmond Vs. Elis-Thomas on independence (September 21: Independence I: Inevitability) with the Hallwood/MacDonald paper (with her introduction) from Fraser of Allander (September 16: ‘Fiscal Federalism in Scotland’). Perhaps it’s understandable that she would want to to get a bit more mileage out of her involvement with the latter.
Alexander’s argument appears to be this:
- The SNP is arguing for fiscal autonomy which doesn’t exist in any other federal or devolved country in the world (as confirmed by Hallwood and MacDonald).
- The SNP is frightened to argue for independence, instead it is presenting fiscal autonomy as a viable option for a devolved Scotland, spuriously claiming that more financial powers will bring economic growth.
This is convoluted.
The SNP believe devolution is inadequate. They want Holyrood to have more powers. Naturally they want Scotland to have more control over the money. They have a policy objective of independence. This is straightforward, no?
If, as Alexander suggests, fiscal autonomy is tantamount to independence (although I have some doubts about that) I don’t see why this should pose any problems for the SNP - or Scotland.
news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=324&id=1108842004
Posted by Simon Holledge at 12:18 AM
September 21, 2004
Independence I: Inevitability
Alex Salmond recently described independence “as inevitable as anything can be in politics”, a neat turn of phrase (BBC One’s Breakfast with Frost).
Meanwhile, Lord Elis-Thomas, presiding officer of the Welsh Assembly and former leader of Plaid Cymru, has been saying there is no longer any room for independence parties in post-devolution Britain. “You have this improbable allegiance of some people to something called independence… . Not since the seventh century was this ever a real political project, and yet there are still people who pursue the goal of Welsh independence and Scottish independence as if this were the real issue.”
Leaving aside Lord Elis-Thomas’s history (was he misquoted? was he just referring to Wales?) who is likely to be right?
My own view is that more independence will be inevitable if (a) political parties can demonstrate that Scotland has a distinct national interest, and (b) existing devolved powers are handled at least as competently as they were by London before devolution.
It is up to the SNP to explain and propagandize the former, while maintaining pressure on the Scottish Executive to perform the latter. This shouldn’t be too difficult. I am optimistic about Scotland precisely because I am pessimistic about England. Short of a Liberal Democrat British government, I don’t see any real reform coming out of Westminster: no constitutional reform, no progress on Europe, no new foreign policy, and piecemeal and only moderately-successful action on public services. England will remain what it is now, a low productivity backwater of Europe, with enormous pretentions and not a lot to show for them.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3628868.stm
news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1090592004
[This is the first of a series of posts addressing the subject of Scottish independence.]
Posted by Simon Holledge at 02:19 PM | Comments (2)