Having just spent a pleasant week in Englandshire, a sad truth has become apparent. In general, the English people I don’t like – for example: Jeremy Clarkson, Melanie Phillips and Richard Littlejohn – want Scotland to go. They’ve had enough of our sponging ways, our chippiness, our ingratitude. I have actually heard Paxman tutting over the pipes (OK, that one I understand).
Conversely, the English people I love – my generally lefty associates – tend to be anxious about independence and to want us to stay for their sake. We’re like the chaperone who can sometimes stop the Tories’ hands going too far up their public sector.
Frustrating as it is to know you’ll vote in a way that alarms your friends and delights your enemies, both sides have misunderstood the current situation and, I believe, failed to grasp the true consequences of Scottish independence for the rest of the UK.
Columnists on the Mail and Telegraph really think they’re paying taxes to prop up some kind of Fidelista fantasy in Edinburgh, and that renewables are a massive waste of money. When independence comes they will wait in vain by the door for their resulting dividend cheque.
Conversely, the idea amongst the English left that Scotland has played some kind of progressive role in the UK is a bit of a myth.
Look at the representatives we’ve sent to Westminster lately: Labour’s most tribal dinosaurs, Nats without a shred of interest in what happens south of the border, the odd patrician Tory, and some equally patrician Liberals who’ve resolutely blown in the wind.
You won’t miss them. We won’t miss them either.
The social union will largely survive independence, too, we can reassure them. Sure, it won’t be quite the same, but the English tuition fees regime will prove more divisive than a border, ending as it does the post-war borderless student boom which helped to stir the UK up. And if Scotland elects post-independence governments which are genuinely progressive to succeed the current centre-right SNP administration, we will show very clearly what a practical alternative to the three soggy flavours of Toryism currently vying for office could look like in England.
Once free tuition for Scots is paid for entirely by Scots taxpayers, it’ll be a much more persuasive example down south. If we get rid of nuclear weapons from Scottish soil it will be an inspiration to anti-nuclear campaigners across the rUK. If we move away from the anti-immigration consensus and thrive socially and economically, that’ll be one in the eye for the three UK parties that have espoused it. We can close down coal and gas and nuclear, go genuinely 100% renewable, and show how successful a truly sustainable economy can be.
In short, a pluralist and genuinely democratic independent Scotland, if that’s what we get offered, could be just the boost the left across the rUK needs, and a profound disappointment to those wish us gone.
#1 by Doug Daniel on March 20, 2012 - 10:42 am
Excellent article James. This is exactly why we need the Scottish Greens to have more prominence in the debate, to show that it’s not just the SNP saying these sort of things. I expect we’ll see unionists rubbishing the idea that Scotland can lead the way for the rest of the UK by showing that there IS an alternative, but the things you mention – free tuition, more progressive immigration policies and moving to 100% renewable energy – are clearly hallmarks of a progressive nation, and are all viable, so I’m not sure what they base their ridicule on.
(Although obviously I disagree about the centre-right jibe at the SNP, but I don’t think we’ll ever agree about that one…)
#2 by Indy on March 20, 2012 - 11:20 am
And once you have your non-nuclear progressive Scotland you will – of course -remember to thank the centre right tartan Tory maniacs in the SNP for actually making it happen lol.
#3 by James on March 20, 2012 - 11:33 am
If it’s left to the SNP, there’s no way an independent Scotland will be progressive. I’m relying on the post-indy public for that, not Alex Salmond.
#4 by Indy on March 20, 2012 - 12:07 pm
Yeah but if it wa left to the Greens or indeed any other party Scotland would never be indepedent. That’s my point. But just a wee jokey one.
#5 by Robert Blake on March 21, 2012 - 12:42 am
Quoting the sun support for the SNP as proof of anything is meaningless.
Murdoch does not lead public opinion, he follows it, so his papers tend to support either the party he thinks will win, or who are against people he has the hump with
I can’t help but notice that the SNP policies regarding health and welfare seem somewhat progressive, whereas the Greens seemed to have been cosying up to New Labour, who are anything but
#6 by James on March 21, 2012 - 1:19 pm
Murdoch specifically supported the SNP because they’re cutting harder and faster even than George Osborne. Fact.
And what nonsense. Welfare is reserved and if the SNP have more progressive policies there, they’re not sharing them with the public. On health, yes, the SNP reversed a hospital privatisation, which Greens supported and which Labour had facilitated. To be honest, there’s not much between Labour and the SNP on these issues: Labour are slightly better on transport re-regulation, presumably because Brian Souter got his money’s worth, and the SNP are slightly better on education/health – but even there, John Swinney admitted to the Finance Committee in 2007 that his preferred NPD model is “part of the family of public-private partnerships, but PPP is a generic family term for all such approaches.”
#7 by Hugh Jarse on March 20, 2012 - 11:41 am
Growing tired of your spin and your continuing assumption that the electorate will vote for Separation. It’s certainly not my experience when talking to people on the doorstep. Even Nat voters tell me they won’t vote favour of Separation. In the invests of balance can you not write up a likely ‘what if’ scenario – ie. No Vote. This would be a litmus test for your page – do you genuinely want to discuss possible future outcomes or are you simply part of the Nat spin machine – sadly I suspect it’s the latter. Saint.
#8 by James on March 20, 2012 - 11:44 am
I’m not a Nat. And we’ve frequently had pieces here from the other perspective: not least because two out of four editors here are against independence.
#9 by Indy on March 20, 2012 - 12:09 pm
Not at all surprised to hear that. I wouldn’t vote for separation myself.
But of course that isn’t what we’ll be voting on.
#10 by Commenter on March 20, 2012 - 12:23 pm
Indy, please capitalise it – more scary: Separation.
See what I mean?
#11 by Allan on March 20, 2012 - 6:47 pm
No, we won’t. Economic policy run by either Frankfurt or London, foriegn policy run by Brussels, tax policy run for the benefit of rich companies and a priviledged head of state picked by succession. Not really seperating from much are we…
#12 by GMcM on March 20, 2012 - 11:46 am
James,
Its just my opinion here but I don’t see your argument, which seems to echo Alex Salmond’s on a ‘progressive beacon’, squaring up entirely.
We currently have policies in place in Scotland that are different to policies enacted throughout the rUK. The idea that policies will only be seen as viable across rUK because of independence is highly questionable. I don’t believe we can carry on with the SNP’s policy on HE funding regardless of separation or not, however we do have examples where Scotland has led the way and show the potential of devolution.
Some of the policies to be brought in by Holyrood have later been implemented across the UK. Examples of this would be fox hunting ban and the smoking in public places ban. Scotland has brought in free personal care for the elderly and Westminster are looking at different ways to provide a similar service across the rUK.
What I’m saying is that we are a progressive beacon while remaining part of the UK. Separation would not suddenly make us a beacon, if anything I think it would undermine our progressive impact on our neighbours as they would be less likely to pay attention to what we do.
As part of the UK, other nations can look at what we do and say: ‘well if they can do it, so can we.’ If we were separate it would be easier for regressives to say that we are able to do those things but they can’t.
I also believe, and again this is just my opinion, that we are more likely to achieve high percentages of renewable energy provision by staying in the UK. Currently the cost of wind (onshore and offshore) and tidal energy per MWh is over £200. rUK would be in a position, post-independence, where it could choose where to buy it’s energy to achieve its own renewable targets. It could buy from countries such as Spain, Bulgaria and (I think) Slovakia. Spanish renewable energy is the dearest of the three and comes in nearer £80/MWh. That £200 figure includes the money required to subsidise the industry and make it viable – so rUK would have to choose to continue to pay this subsidy to a foreign country to share the energy market or would buy cheaper alternatives to meet its targets.
This would undermine the renewables industry in Scotland and also damage the viability of the sector. Scotland would be in no position to complain as rUK would be a separate country working in her own best interests. What duty would rUK have to Scotland’s renewables industry?
A final question would then be: if we have dwindling oil and gas, a weaker renewables sector, no new nuclear power stations – how can we fund our current progressive policies (and so-called progressive policies) and expand on them?
#13 by James on March 20, 2012 - 11:58 am
Gerard, I agree up to a point – your examples on fox-hunting and the smoking ban are correct. Neither costs the taxpayers much directly though, just a little on enforcement, and the changes I’m talking about are less persuasive down south where the lie that it’s all English taxes paying for them has such wide credence. And it really does.
Also, your generation costs are way out. Onshore wind is about £90/MWh.
#14 by GMcM on March 20, 2012 - 1:09 pm
You’re right and I shouldn’t have included onshore. It was also Austria I meant (I don’t know why I was thinking Slovakia?!)
I get what you’re saying, about the tired argument of one country subsidising the other, however is it not incumbant upon us to use facts to show that at different times over the history of the union ALL parts of the UK have put in more and got back less and put in less than it got back?
This is the true picture and deciding to give up on shining a light on this reality and instead opt to destroy a union that helps each component part when times are tough is wrong and the opposite of progressive. It is not progressive to give up, especially when your argument is honourable. Progressives from all corners of the UK have made the UK a better, fairer place. It may not be what we want at this moment in time but I feel it is correct to work together now, as the progressives of the past did, to move us closer to the fairer society we want and deserve. Cutting and running to benefit one part of the UK to the detriment of the rest is in no way progressive.
The SNP are disingenuous when they point to 4/5 previous years being a surplus. Look at the bigger picture. Look at the relationship between the countries when things have been tough here but not in the rUK and vice-versa. Independence would not create a progressive rUK and I believe would undermine any chance of a progressive Scotland.
Yes the fight will be hard to create the progressive society many of us crave but is it not worth striving to create that society for the majority of people on the island by working together rather than dividing and undermining each other?
I hope you don’t mind me posting this link but I feel it might give one side of the argument on the viability of the renewable sector post-independence and answer questions some people might have:
http://www.mercadosemi.co.uk/component/content/article/56-submission-to-the-energy-and-climate-change-committee
#15 by Ron Preedy on March 20, 2012 - 1:20 pm
‘made the UK a better, fairer place’? This is parroting Miliband’s and Cameron’s fairy tales, and is demonstrably false. A more inequal, debt-ridden place, possibly …
#16 by GMcM on March 20, 2012 - 1:43 pm
Did devolution not make the UK fairer? Some would say it still has some kinks to work out but I would say devolution did make the UK fairer.
Did the welfare state?
Did the NHS?
Did giving working class men and then all women the vote make the UK fairer?
All fo these things were achieved by the dedication of people who fought for a fairer country to live in. This is not to say Scotland could not have achieved this one her own but that we, along with progressive thinkers from across the UK, made these changes to our society and made the UK a fairer place.
You seem to be thining that because we do not live in the society we want at present that somehow the UK is unfair. I believe it is this view that is ‘demonstrably false’.
#17 by Doug Daniel on March 20, 2012 - 2:14 pm
“Did giving working class men and then all women the vote make the UK fairer?”
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus. You’re really grasping at straws if you’re going back this far.
And like many things, this only works if you are assuming that an independent Scotland would not have been capable of making such a change. In fact, I would suggest you need the UK to have been the only example of a state doing this in order to prove that the union provided a unique condition for Scotland to follow such a progressive policy.
Why are all your examples of progressive policies from the first half of the 20th century? Is it because the UK has not been a progressive entity for decades?
#18 by GMcM on March 20, 2012 - 2:53 pm
I didn’t feel the need to use any modern examples as James has already highlighted those. 😉
The point I’m making is that throughout the 20th Century we have achieved progressive political victories as a part of the UK. If you had read my comment you will see that I said this doesn’t mean Scotland could not have delivered each of these policies.
The post made the argument that we are unable to advance progressive politics as part of the UK. I have shown that this is not true; we have achieved throughout the 20th century as a part of the UK and therefore the argument doesn’t hold much water.
The question I think needs to be:
What can we achieve in Scotland from a progressive point of view that we can’t as the UK?
Not: what achievements have we had as a part of the UK that Scotland couldn’t do on her own?
I also didn’t say the UK was unique in delivering progressive policies for Scotland. Again I am making the point that we have not been prevented from implementing these reforms to society by being part of the UK. You are the one saying we cannot deliver progressive change when the facts show we can and we have.
Going back to giving the vote to those who were excluded from democracy; did it not make the country fairer? The point is we have been able to affect change in a progressive manner for quite some time.
I am not afraid of history and I think we should learn from it at every opportunity. The nationalist agenda right now is to forget the successes of the past and point to the failures of the Tories at present. This is to create a myth surrounding our progressive opportunities. It diesn’t stack up. History shows we can affect change across the UK when we co-operate; even if I accept the charge that due to the Tories we can see no progress across the UK at present, I know, because history tells us, that we can still create the change we seek.
You are using the dangerous ideology of one party, along with smoke and mirrors to shroud the successes of the past, to tell a story of hardship for Scotland, to make Scots feel that we have never achieved any progressive victories and independence is the only solution.
Unfortunately history (even modern history) does not back up that story.
#19 by Doug Daniel on March 20, 2012 - 3:37 pm
I think you’re confusing yourself here, to be honest. You say we should learn from history, yet you are completely ignoring the reality of the past 30 years. The thing about history is that it should inform your decisions, but not dictate them. The UK may have done some good things in the past, but when was the last time something as great as the creation of the NHS happened in the UK? The few progressive policies over the last 30 years are overshadowed by regressive policies, and the fact that the UK is currently the 4th most unequal society in the developed world, which happened under the UK’s version of a progressive government.
You are ignoring context. You are ignoring how these progressive policies of the distant past came about. We live in a devolved UK now, where rUK is going in the opposite direction from Scotland in things like the NHS and education. Your harking back to voting reforms in the early 20th century are a stark contrast to the realities in the UK now – have our PR elections brought about similar change in Westminster? No, and this generation’s opportunity to do so has been missed thanks to a Lib Dem fudge.
“I am not afraid of history and I think we should learn from it at every opportunity. The nationalist agenda right now is to forget the successes of the past and point to the failures of the Tories at present.”
Scotland learned from the past. We said the Tories never change, and we’ve been proven right. We don’t just point to current Tories failures, we can point to past failures too, although then we get accused of going over ancient history by people like Alistair Darling.
I’ll tell you what, here’s a perfect example of why Westminster will never be progressive: their complete failures in electoral reform. As long as Westminster remains stuck in 19th century traditions like FPTP and having an unelected upper chamber, they don’t stand a chance of joining the rest of Europe in the 21st century. How can a parliament filled with old Etonians and Oxbridge PPE graduates possibly become progressive? It is all geared towards the elite governing the hoi palloi.
#20 by Doug Daniel on March 20, 2012 - 12:14 pm
“Some of the policies to be brought in by Holyrood have later been implemented across the UK. Examples of this would be fox hunting ban and the smoking in public places ban. Scotland has brought in free personal care for the elderly and Westminster are looking at different ways to provide a similar service across the rUK.”
There’s a vital point that you’re missing here, G. Scotland has only been able to lead the way in these policies because we had the powers to do so. But how can we lead a progressive vision of welfare and benefits, for instance, if we do not have the power to do so? Same for nuclear disarmament, we can’t make Scotland a non-nuclear country without the power over our own defences. And how do we try to bring the UK out of the 20th century imperial mindset without the power to say “this is how Scotland does diplomacy”?
It goes back to what the SNP’s current line is: we’ve managed good things with a little independence, but we can do so much more with full independence. Even some form of Devo Whatever will not allow us to lead the way in progressive policies in a whole host of areas. Besides, with Westminster holding the purse strings, it’s only a matter of time before our progressive policies are put at risk thanks to cuts to public spending in England (why would they bother privatising parts of the NHS etc unless it is to allow public spending cuts?) leading to cuts to the block grant.
Finally, “What duty would rUK have to Scotland’s renewables industry?” This only works if you assume we are basing our renewables future solely on selling energy to England. But we’re clearly gearing towards providing energy throughout the EU, hence the talk of “25% of the EU’s renewable potential” rather than whatever percentage of the British Isles’ renewable potential.
#21 by GMcM on March 20, 2012 - 1:15 pm
DD – Scots, Welsh, English and Irish all worked together to bring about the welfare state and the NHS. We didn’t just create a beacon out of one country but made the entire island a progressive beacon. Yes there are improvements to be made but do you honestly believe that the UK, which allowed the progressives from every corner to create these progressive governmental functions, is unable to foster such co-operation now and in future to modernise the welfare state et al into the progressively fit-for-purpose instiutions we need for the 21st century and beyond?
If you think it was possible to bring about these changes in the past – why do you feel it would be impossible now?
If it is still possible now – why do we need to separate the countries to achieve progressive policies?
#22 by James on March 20, 2012 - 1:21 pm
Gerard, the moments of progress at Westminster in my lifetime have been few and many have been minor at best. The ones you cite were made more than sixty years ago. Devolution, minimum wage, FOI, Channel 4, and (best of all) the Northern Irish peace process. I do not believe Westminster is capable of anything better than minor tweaks now, with the odd exception, and I certainly can’t see a state I’m proud to live in developing from the paid-for undemocratic Westminster model.
#23 by GMcM on March 20, 2012 - 1:52 pm
James you make my point for me by showing the progressive achievements from the last 10-15 years. We are still making progress.
My question is: what makes you believe that Scotland separating from rUK would make Scotland a progressive country? What barriers to a progressive UK would be removed if we were independent?
We have achieved in the distant and not so distant past – what stops us now that didn’t stop us then?
Finally: what makes you believe that our politics would change after separation to create a progressive Scotland?
I think we would remain just as far from a truly progressive Scotland as we find ourselves from a truly progressive UK at present.
#24 by James on March 20, 2012 - 1:53 pm
I already cited devolution! But do you need me to cite the massive negatives driven by Westminster over that period? ID cards, war, corruption, privatisation etc?
#25 by GMcM on March 20, 2012 - 2:18 pm
So an independent Scotland would have no corruption, would be involved in no military action, would re-nationalise everything that was privatised?
Yes there are problems in the British system but they are problems throughout the British system and not just reserved to England. We would have the same problems in Scotland.
I just don’t get the idea that we can end corruption in Scotland, yet we can’t do it across the UK. Privatisation is still happening in Scotland and is being driven by Holyrood not Westminster.
The idea seems to be that Scotland is fundamentally different from the rUK. The latest social attitude survey showed the countries outlooks are closer than ever. If we really were so different then maybe I would agree that we stood a better chance of ending corruption etc in Scotland alone, but it is not the case.
#26 by Doug Daniel on March 20, 2012 - 1:48 pm
But it’s not possible now. I don’t understand how you can think that if you’ve been paying attention to UK politics for the past 30 years or so. The Tories started privatising things, then New Labour came in and carried on the job, and now the Tories are back to finish off what they started. Everything’s for sale. But this is not what Scotland wants.
It’s ironic that unionists often try to paint the SNP as idealists walking about with their head in the clouds, thinking that independence will magically solve everything and turn Scotland into a land of milk and honey. Maybe that was even true once upon a time. But nationalists are the realists now. There is simply no evidence to suggest that Westminster is capable of progressive politics, and those like yourself who think we can magically force a complete U-turn in ideology in Westminster are completely oblivious to reality.
Holyrood and Westminster are pulling in completely opposite directions, and we’re very close to reaching the point where the wheels come off. Westminster – regardless of who is in government – has been a slave to the market, selling off public services in the name of “reform” or “modernisation”. Holyrood, on the other hand, is committed to keeping public services public, and seeks reform by doing things better and more thoughtfully, rather than by passing responsibility onto the private sector. But look at the changes Westminster is making to English public services, and then consider what this will mean for the block grant. It doesn’t work.
So we’re left with two options: take control of the purse strings ourselves, or follow the ideology of Westminster. It really is that simple.
Devolution is like a dog lead: the dog can try to lead you in a certain direction, but he’s still on a lead, and you still have the power to jerk him back onto your path. When the reality of England’s public spending cuts hit our block grant, devolution will feel like a choke chain.
#27 by Jeff on March 20, 2012 - 1:51 pm
Good analogy.
#28 by GMcM on March 20, 2012 - 2:03 pm
You haven’t detailled at all why it is not possible now. James actually pointed out a few of the progressive policies delivered in the past 30 years; the period you seem to believe has killed any chance of a progressive UK.
Holyrood and Westminster are not pulling in completely opposite directions. There may be some policy areas where we differ but we are not pulling apart as you suggest. I have given evidence of progressive successes yet you claim there is no evidence to suggest Westminster can achieve what it has?
Where is your evidence to show that Westminster cannot achieve progressive policies?
The regressive policies that we see implememted today are by the Tories not by Westminster per se. It is not the ideology of Westminster but of the party who currently control Westminster. It is a clear ploy by nationalists to paint a picture of Westminster=Tory. This is not true.
It is a rather good analogy, however it depends on whose walking the dog and if they own one of those extendable leads 😀
#29 by Doug Daniel on March 20, 2012 - 2:51 pm
“One swallow doesn’t make a summer”, as the saying goes. Just because there have been a few progressive policies, it doesn’t make up for the fact that Westminster governments of the past 30 years have been almost relentlessly regressive. For all the achievements that Labour try to crow about during their 13 years in office, the simple fact is the UK they left in 2010 was even more unequal than the one they inherited in 1997. For instance, I would not say FOI makes up for the fact that they paved the way for NHS privatisation, especially as the recent efforts to get papers from cabinet meetings discussing devolution show that FOIs can still be blocked if the contents are a bit too tasty.
The biggest progressive policy from a Scottish perspective – devolution – wasn’t even delivered for progressive reasons. Blair didn’t want to go through with it, and we all know Labour’s real reasoning for it: to “kill nationalism stone dead”. You don’t get much more negative than that.
Progressive politics in Westminster is no longer possible because the majority in England have been taken in by neo-liberalism, thus Labour and the Lib Dems have realised they can only get elected by following the “FREE MARKET ROOLZ, OK?” mantra of the Tories. What use is a minimum wage if the costs of living are soaring because of the massive gap between the richest and poorest in society? In this context, the minimum wage is nothing more than a sticking plaster on a crack in the wall.
And how do we know that this will continue? Because Labour’s sole hope for progressive politics – “Red” Ed – says he would do everything the Tories are doing, but just a little bit less severe. “Oooh, £9,000 fees? That’s terrible! We would never do that – we’d just put them up to £6,000.”
Progressive does not mean “the same ideology but using slightly different numbers”.
#30 by Don McC on March 20, 2012 - 5:30 pm
The regressive policies being implemented by the Tories today are much the same regressive policies that New Labour would have followed if they had been re-elected.
Cite Alistair “More severe cuts than Maggie Thatcher” Darling. Cite (No Longer) Red Ed Milliband’s claim that they would implement only a slightly less severe version of Osborne’s cuts.
You seem to believe that the UK was the land of milk and honey and could be again if it wasn’t for those meddling tories. The UK’s reputation as the 4th most unequal country didn’t manifest in the last year or so, it’s been that way for a long time.
Now, whilst Westminster = Tory isn’t exactly true, Westminster = mostly Tory undoubtedly is. The fact the Labour party had to transform itself into New Labour to get elected and subsequently lost as they reverted back (okay, there were other factors too) does go a long way to prove this.
#31 by Iain Menzies on March 20, 2012 - 7:58 pm
which would almost be a case for seperation if it wasnt for the fact that year after year after year the Scottish public voted for that new labour crew.
#32 by Don McC on March 22, 2012 - 6:57 am
Well, did they? The ballot papers show “Scottish Labour”, not “New Labour”. The Scottish Labour party didn’t fully embrace the New Labour project as reams of writings will attest to and both the membership and popular vote of the party has been falling year on year (you may have noticed that they are not in government north or south of the border).
#33 by Iain Menzies on March 20, 2012 - 2:57 pm
depends on the i think your analogy falls into the scotlands ‘too wee, too poor’ catagory…..cos it all depends on the dog. A westie goes where you want it too….the 11 month old Spaniel/collie cross of a pup i have just now goes where i want….so long as i am willing to risk dislocating my shoulder…..
#34 by Commenter on March 20, 2012 - 12:39 pm
It could buy from countries such as Spain, Bulgaria and (I think) Slovakia.
Point one: why could Scotland not do this?
Point two: actually neither Scotland nor the UK could do this – as far as I know it’s technologically unfeasible to buy electricity from the opposite end of Europe.
For the record, I’m not a fan of the SNP’s renewables plan, and haven’t read up on the Greens’ plan. Renewables are expensive, unreliable and a bit of a pipe-dream at the moment, as far as I can see. They would certainly reduce our emissions but mostly by impoverishing us and making industry relocate to where energy is reliable and cheaper.
#35 by GMcM on March 20, 2012 - 1:21 pm
Point one: Scotland could but then there would be no renewable revolution and the green sector would hardly grow at all. The point I’m making is that Scotland has the renewable potential but it requires a large subsidy and currently the weight of that is carried by a large economy. It would be much harder for an independent Scotland to carry that burden while delivering progressive policies.
Point two: I would point you to the link I’ve posted which touches on energy from mainland EU.
I think reliability is key when we talk about energy and that is why I believe in a mixed energy policy (nuclear and renewable). I don’t have a problem with people wanting 100% renewable energy provision and consumption but I am yet to be convinced of the reliability of such a policy.
#36 by Hugh Jarse on March 20, 2012 - 11:49 am
Strange James – I only seem to tune in on Natfest days. The challenge remains though publish an article on the scenario of a No Vote.
#37 by Commenter on March 20, 2012 - 12:41 pm
Hugh, your comment is Separate from the one you’re replying to. In fact, you can reply to comments by mousing over the comment header – a reply button will appear.
#38 by Don Francisco on March 20, 2012 - 12:02 pm
As a Scot living in England myself (14 years), I’d agree with much of what James has said. England is fairly divided on this issue; the Tories would be perfectly comfortable seeing Scotland go, the liberals/left are a lot more nervous about it because the strength of the Tories in the south is such that they could dominate Westminster for a time to come. And James is spot on with how we are viewed by both – neither and good nor as bad. Equally he is right about our MP’s – none stick out in the mind or inspire, though maybe this is true of what politics has become in general rather than specific to Scotland.
Personally I think the problem in England is the total dominance of the South East. All the jobs,money and media are there. Scotland may not exist in that world, but neither does the rest of England, or Wales & NI. And with jobs, money & media comes power – all the parties court broadly the same class of people. It’s stale.
Would an independant Scotland going it’s different way be a good example? Possibly. There’s no guarantee of course that Scotland’s own vested interests won’t corrupt our politics as much they have in Westminster. Neither is there any guarantee that if we did have a successful ‘progressive’ alternative that Westminster would notice, or vested interests (e.g. private education) lobby against it.
I think we in the UK do need an alternative though. In this respect I can see the temptation to choose independance as a possibility of offering that progressive change. What is certainly true is that the UK – Scotland, England, Wales & NI – needs a constitutional shake up.
#39 by Thomas Widmann on March 20, 2012 - 3:28 pm
Much as it might seem counterintuitive, I actually believe Scottish independence would be good for English Labour and English LibDems.
The thing is that political parties tend to adjust their position on the political spectrum to appeal to enough voters to gain a majority. However, if English Labour at the moment try and move right, there’s an outcry in Scotland (and certain other places), so effectively Scotland (which has more than its fair share of Labour MPs) pulls Labour towards a position that makes it hard for them to win a majority of seats in England.
After Scotland leaves (and especially if Wales also leaves a few years later), I’d therefore expect English Labour (and English LibDems) to create an electoral programme that will allow them to win in England.
Likewise, I expect the Tories and the LibDems in Scotland to reposition themselves radically after independence – at the moment, they’re are prevented from doing so by their mother parties.
#40 by Don McC on March 20, 2012 - 6:13 pm
It’s difficult to see this English Labour’s electoral programme being any different from the tories’ one in such a scenario.
But I do agree that it would be safe to vote tory in an independent Scotland.
#41 by Daveinmaryburgh on March 20, 2012 - 1:01 pm
Once again a great article James and I agree with most of what you say, centre right, phufft 🙂
I think that an Independent Scotland will be a great benefit to the rest of these islands and will hopefully give the existing political class a kick up the bum and maybe see that there are alternatives to what they are doing at the moment.
However to do this it will require future Scottish governments to implement alternatives and not take the safe option (although I think that little steps may be required). This will require the Greens, 3rd sector etc pushing their ideas forward and getting a fair shout. Who knows what the political landscape will be I do however hope that it will be radically different to the current one.
#42 by Alex on March 20, 2012 - 1:22 pm
If independence is rejected, the Barnett formula will be reviewed by the UK Govt, which will lead to the block grant to Scotland being slashed. What hope then for Scotland to be progressive in anything? I also doubt the UK Govt’s commitment to renewable energy. Finally, the vast majority of English people I meet think Scotland is leeching of them.
#43 by Doug Daniel on March 20, 2012 - 2:01 pm
Exactly. Even as it stands, we are going to face a massive cut to the block grant because these NHS “reforms” will lead to a massive cut to the NHS budget – there is simply no other explanation for why they are doing them otherwise. The rise in tuition fees was to make up the massive cut to university funding. Then we have whatever privatisations they’re going to be making to the police to look forward to, which will lead to more cuts to an area that makes up the Barnett formula.
Unbelievably, this is the optimistic future for Scotland post-referendum if we vote against independence. The reality is, with our one trump card thrown away, the Tories will go for us. They have nothing to gain in Scotland from trying to win our votes, because we simply won’t play ball. But how much is there to gain in England by saying “we’re cutting the subsidies to Scotland”?
There’s your election-winning Tory strategy for 2016 right there. Scots need to stop being naive and realise this.
#44 by Doug Daniel on March 20, 2012 - 2:06 pm
Obviously I am able to see into the future and can exclusively reveal here that the 2015 Westminster election is to be moved to 2016.
Or it was a typo. Take your pick…
#45 by Iain Menzies on March 20, 2012 - 3:00 pm
Total nonsense, government policy is to increase, and then maintain NHS spending. And that is what’s happening.
#46 by Doug Daniel on March 20, 2012 - 3:13 pm
Aye, in the short term perhaps. Open your eyes man, the Tories are just doing what they always do – reducing the state to cut taxes. If you can’t see where this is going, then you’re fooling yourself.
#47 by Iain Menzies on March 20, 2012 - 4:05 pm
Define always please.
The idea that there is a constant strand of what is tory is nonsense.
You cannot say that the Party of Wellington, Peel, Disraeli, Salisbury, Chamberlain (Joe), Baldwin, Churchill, MacMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and now Cameron have maintained a policy prospectus that is un-changing.
Do tories believe in a big state? No.
Do they believe that its probably not a good idea to borrow hundreds of billions to maintain current spending rather than spending what can be afforded? Yes. Which goes along way to explaining whats going on just now.
You have your own view of what the Tory party is, and that’s fine, its nonsense, but its a free country. Do try to keep your own prejudice in check.
#48 by Doug Daniel on March 20, 2012 - 11:51 pm
Always = in my lifetime, which spans the reigns of Thatcher, Major and Cameron. Long enough to know that they seek to reduce the state by privatising public services, even though previous privatisations demonstrate that their slavish adherence to “the market knows best” is utterly wrong, and that the profit motive does not make public services better or even cheaper, meaning it fails in both its stated aims.
So why continue doing it? Ideology.
There is a massive, massive difference between trying to reduce the amount you spend on public services, and just throwing them to the mercy of the market by selling bits off to private companies. But I’m fairly sure you’ve stated that you’re a Tory voter before, so it’s no surprise you don’t recognise this.
#49 by Iain Menzies on March 21, 2012 - 4:18 pm
Actually my last vote was for the SNP.
And it all depends on what you mean by public services. If you are talking about things like trains and electricity, if you want to renationalise them then thats fine, you can have that view, id like to see you explain why such an argument wouldnt also apply to supermarkets ,assuming you dont want to nationalise Tesco.
And there is plenty evidence that the profit motive produces a better outcome…..you just need to look at the ternds in purchases of cars over the last 50 years to see that.
#50 by Doug Daniel on March 22, 2012 - 11:11 am
Well as it happens, I don’t want to nationalise Tesco, but I would like to put them out of business, and see supermarkets in general replaced with independent retailers trading under the convenience of one roof – a genuine “super” market rather than one-stop-shop, which is what supermarkets really are. There is no reason, for example, why the fish counter in Asda could not be an independent fishmonger who just rents that space.
Tesco and the likes are responsible for the decimation of dairies and farms throughout the country, as well as for encouraging people to accept poor quality food as the norm, and that’s before you even get into their destruction of independent retailers, who provide superior produce but can’t match on price. However, I’ll wait until independence comes before forming my own political party dedicated to the destruction of the large retailers who are solely committed to sucking the country dry of all its wealth.
Currently trying to decide between The House Party, The Pyjama Party and The Itsmai Party. Any other suggestions for silly party names are welcome.
(And naturally these are not, to my knowledge, the views of the SNP, never mind anyone else.)
But to answer the thrust of your point, free market principles only work in a genuine open market. I can choose to shop in Tesco, Asda, Scummies or Sainbury’s, which is why they have to battle for my custom. Who do ScotRail have to battle to get me to take their trains? No one. So it’s not a free market. They get the route, and then are free to shaft commuters for as much money as they can get. That’s why privatisation doesn’t work for things like public transport, and it’s why post-independence I will support whichever party backs rail renationalisation.
One thing at a time, though.
#51 by Thomas Widmann on March 22, 2012 - 11:28 am
(I wanted to reply to your comment further down, but it won’t let me, so here it is instead:)
Your idea about having independent fishmongers etc. within a supermarket is an interesting one. But why only one? In my experience, you get the best price and quality when there’s genuine competition, which you get if there are several fishmongers side by side, within shouting distance.
Personally I’d love to be able to do my shopping in a huge building with a fishmonger aisle, and greengrocer aisle, etc., just like the huge markets that are common in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Russia, etc., but perhaps with the added convenience of having shopping trolleys and paying when you leave the building, rather than at each individual retailer.
#52 by R.G. Bargie on March 20, 2012 - 1:25 pm
“the current centre-right SNP administration,”
Och, don’t talk such cobblers.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
#53 by James on March 20, 2012 - 1:29 pm
That’s just an image without any explanation. The Sun link I pointed to explains why the SNP are centre-right – “And, crucially, they’re tackling the economic crisis head-on by cutting public spending faster than anywhere else in the UK.” The Nats don’t get economically left points in my book for being against Trident and against the Iraq war, good policies though those are. Until you can come up with a single policy which redistributes to the poor, unlike the CT freeze which redistributes to the rich, I’m afraid it’s your cobblers that are showing.
#54 by Doug Daniel on March 20, 2012 - 1:53 pm
But we get socially left points…?
#55 by Allan on March 20, 2012 - 7:11 pm
Ah but the CT freeze at least means that CT is not rising by its usual inflation + rate (not that i’m pro CT, the Green’s LVT or LIT would have been much better than CT). A better description would be a Scottish version of New Labour, with the socially left wing policies married to centre-right economic thinking. Like the policy over Corporation Tax.
#56 by Robert Blake on March 21, 2012 - 12:52 am
CT is fixed between lowest and highest bands.
You cannot raise the highest band without raising the lowest
Many people who count as poor end up paying full CT.
So, you have to freeze CT to stop hurting them
The SNP tried to bring in local Income Tax, but it didn’t pass.
But I imagine you’ll choose to forget that
The Scottish Government are cutting spending, because they have a fixed budget, the block grant. No borrowing powers and they have attempted to use money for job creating projects though I imagine that since they involve construction you’d be against them
#57 by James on March 21, 2012 - 1:16 pm
Sorry, no. Local taxation is entirely devolved. It’s entirely up to the Scottish Parliament, now effectively the SNP, how money is raised for local services. They could simply revalue, add bands at the top, change the ratio, or (now, with an overall majority) they could replace it with a local income tax if they so wished. Although the model they proposed was more a National Salary Tax, one that excluded share income and dividends and generally also favoured the rich, and income tax is easier to avoid than a wealth or asset tax like Land Value Tax or even the current Council Tax, unfair as it is. Besides, the poorest don’t pay Council Tax, but they do rely disproportionately on local services, so cutting those services (which is what the freeze requires) is the most regressive you could possibly be. And the terms are less flexible even than those issued by the Coalition to English local authorities, removing even a figleaf of local control.
There are also a wide range of ways beyond that that the Scottish Government could raise money progressively above the block grant. The UBR is devolved, and could be banded harder to take more money from big business and cut it for small business. Greens proposed that in 2010 but were rebuffed by the SNP, who were determined to cut beyond even the cuts Westminster wishes to see.
And I’m all in favour of useful sustainable construction. Let’s build windfarms and wave power demo plans, let’s reopen railways and invest in cycling infrastructure. Let’s build new publicly funded schools and hospitals as required. Let’s not just throw money away on ever more congested and polluting motorway miles, nor burn it on support for coal-fired power stations.
#58 by Jeff on March 20, 2012 - 1:44 pm
I genuinely believe that the main concern down here in England is one of ‘our Empire is getting even smaller’, which goes without saying is insufficient.
I think that behind that is a lack of understanding of how the full and healthy social union would play out in reality. Most English don’t know what is involved in devolution or what the Scottish Parliament exists for so how there would be any more distance after independence, given the geography will be the same and Six Nations banter etc shall continue apace, is not really very clear.
I fully agree that Scotland can lead the way on lefty issues better as an independent country James, well said.
#59 by Indy on March 20, 2012 - 2:07 pm
Or even non-lefty issues like keeping water in public ownership, keeping the NHS a public service free at the point of need, offering free access to university, that kind of centre right stuff. It is just that the centre right in Scotland is clearly a lot further to the left than the centre right in England.
#60 by Allan on March 20, 2012 - 7:13 pm
Keeping water in public hands is a lefty issue, it’s right of centre manderins and the Tories that would like to see Scottish Water flogged to the higest bidder.
#61 by Indy on March 20, 2012 - 2:50 pm
One small point. Renewable energy is not going to require a subsidy forever. A lot of people just can’t see the wood for the trees here. Basically we in a state of transition from generating energy from fossil fuels to generating energy from renewable resources. That costs extra money because it needs different technology and infrastructure. It’s almost like start-up costs but that won’t be needed forever.
And anyway we don’t have a choice because – even if people deny that man-made climate change is real – the fact is that these sources of energy will run out in the foreseeable future, so it would be bonkers not to start adapting for changed circumstances now. The alternative to renewable energy to meet our future needs is nuclear. I trust no-one is going to argue that nuclear doesn’t need a subsidy?
#62 by Iain Menzies on March 20, 2012 - 3:03 pm
“even if people deny that man-made climate change is real – the fact is that these sources of energy will run out in the foreseeable future”
So…..’It’s Scotlands Oil!’…what’s running out and cant sustain any sensible economic policy then?
#63 by Jeff on March 20, 2012 - 3:33 pm
Scotland can be sitting on a multi-billion pound oil windfall while still accepting of the fact that oil will run out one day. That is not a contradictory position to take, as I am sure you well know.
By the time oil runs out I am confident that Scotland’s renewables potential (25% of Europe’s) will be in full swing.
#64 by Barbarian on March 20, 2012 - 7:20 pm
I hope you are not including wind turbines, which are simply useless when they are most urgently needed.
#65 by Doug Daniel on March 20, 2012 - 11:54 pm
Energy is most urgently needed on calm days?
#66 by Iain Menzies on March 21, 2012 - 4:19 pm
electricity need by people on cold days when they a) dont want to go out and b) tends not to be all that windy…..
#67 by Indy on March 20, 2012 - 5:09 pm
Not beyond the next 50 or 60 years no. You and I will probably both be dead then but we still need to look ahead.
And that’s why independence now is rather a good idea.
Gives us the chance to put economy onto a better footing for when the oil does run out. That is something that, even with the best will in the world, the UK Govt is not going to prioritise.
The Scottish economy will never be a priority for any UK Government – not an anti-UK statement just obvious. Scotland is but a small part of the UK as a whole. You ought to think about that side of the equation too.
As it is, however, we have vast renewable energy potential. Question is who has the drive to make the most of that – UK or Scottish Government? I suggest the answer is obvious.
#68 by Doug Daniel on March 20, 2012 - 3:15 pm
“A lot of people just can’t see the wood for the trees here”
I feel “can’t see the wind turbine for the nuclear reactor” would be a more suitable metaphor here…
#69 by Iain Menzies on March 20, 2012 - 4:07 pm
but a reactor takes up so much less space….
#70 by Tearlach on March 20, 2012 - 4:25 pm
Couple of points here – to think that the rUK will flounce off and buy their electrity elsewhere following independence is just fanciful.
Certain elements may want to, but they will not have the wires. Having the ability to transmit electricity over long distances takes time and money – lots of both. Decades and multi billions.
Currently Scotland and England are busy establishing a new sort of off-shore national grid, designed to bring power from Scotland to England. The contracts for the West Coast “boot strap” an HVDC line from Hunterston to the Wirral has just been let, and the East coast equivalent – from Torness to Teeside – will be let next year. They will be ready in 20014-16, and have been five years in the planning. Within Scotland off-shore links to Hunterson from the Argyll off-shore wind farms are in planning now (1.5GW), and in the North links from Caithness/Orkney (wave and tidal – 800MW) Shetland (on-shore wind – 700MW) and the big Moray Firth wind farms – 2GW – will all be brought into Peterhead. The Forth wind farms (4GW) will feed into Torness. All planned for 2018-20. And all having been in design for at least five years.
So to say a grumpy rUK after Scottish independence can just go and buy its power from “Spain, Bulgaria and (I think) Slovakia†is barking. Just show me where the wires are that will bring all this to England by 2016?
Second point – Renewables are expensive – Nuclear is cheap.
Well consider this. The UK currently spend just over £1B annually on supporting the Renewables through ROCs (Renewable Obligation certificates). The Nuclear Decommissioning Agency – the UK body responsible for cleaning up old closed nuclear sites has an annual budget of £2.2B.
Yes – that’s right. The UK is spending more than twice as much cleaning up old Magnox and Research reactors in Cumbria and Caithness as on supporting renewables. Interestingly the former is funded through utility bills and the latter through general taxation. Funny that eh?
#71 by Angus McLellan on March 20, 2012 - 5:33 pm
But exporting power from renewables is very much a second-best solution. Ideally what you’d want to do is use the power to drive other industries here. Iceland uses geothermal for aluminium refining. A Pentland Firth tidal scheme would be close to deep-water anchorages at Scapa Flow or Invergordon which would seem to be good sites for similar power-intensive industrial complexes.
#72 by Indy on March 20, 2012 - 8:18 pm
Second best solution to what? We are going to end up with the capacity to generate much much more energy than we can use so why not export it?
As I understand it the main argument about exporting electricity is that it is wasteful, you lose a lot in the transition.
But how important is that really when the energy is renewable? We are never going to run out of it, it’s going to be a source of energy in perpetuity and it is clean. Hell you can keep the lights on as long as you want, play your music as loud as you like, everyone could have their own son et lumiere show in the back garden of an evening. OK maybe I am getting a bit carried away there.
#73 by Tearlach on March 21, 2012 - 1:29 pm
High Voltage DC sub-sea lines are significantly more efficient than on-shore AC. Over 600Km losses are only a few percentage points. That’s why new HCDC links are being built all over the world – to transmit renewable energy to urban locations. Its a lot cheaper to do that than re-locate very energy intensive industries.
#74 by Angus McLellan on March 22, 2012 - 1:21 am
Solution to the question of what to do with the energy. It’s not that it is wasteful, it’s that in a world of rising power costs tidal power should be relatively cheap and that’s a competitive advantage. Of course fracking might turn out to be safe and easy, so maybe it won’t.
#75 by Tearlach on March 22, 2012 - 9:30 pm
Tidal power cheap? Ouch, its bum clenching expensive at present, which is why it gets 5 ROCs and Off-shore wind gets 2. And it will be for the next ten years, until testing and innovation gets through the system.
But thats not to say that we should not be doing it – quite the opposite. Scotland has a 3-5 year lead over the rest of the world in wave and tidal, and if we hold our nerve will be a key player in marine renewables after 2020. And gas – from fracking or otherwise – is still an CO2 polluter.
#76 by GMcM on March 20, 2012 - 3:03 pm
A good wee debate there. Throroughly enjoyed it but it’s not getting the work done so I bid you all farewell.
#77 by Home Rule for England on March 21, 2012 - 2:51 pm
“Once free tuition for Scots is paid for entirely by Scots taxpayers”
And don’t forget that once Scotland is out of the UK then under EU rules it will be unable to discriminate against students resident in England.
#78 by James on March 21, 2012 - 3:06 pm
A genuine problem. But I suspect a more generous grants system for domestic students that more than covers a notional tuition fee would be fine.
Pingback: Scottish Independence: Life, Independence and Everything | National Collective
#79 by Dave on March 22, 2012 - 1:45 am
James is spot on (disclosure: I’m an English friend of his, but that’s not the reason I agree).
The main block on change in the UK has been the unholy alliance of the London media, bureaucracy and political establishment. The latter promote a narrowness of what constitutes political action that the former two are very happy to go along with. The upshot is that you get a deadened consensus of what is acceptable, which soon becomes all that is possible; politics as making the acceptable necessary, rather than the necessary acceptable.
Scottish independence will fundamentally transform that. That there is a place with which England shares a border (Ireland doesn’t count for this; we talk about the British Isles, but only one island counts) where they do things differently will profoundly change what is possible, and so what can become acceptable and necessary.
There’s also the hope that following Scottish independence, the North will find its political voice to match its cultural one. Its political representatives (mainly Labour) wedded to the unitary state as the means by which the new jerusalem would be built, leaving its identity expressed as cultural and social only.
But as England starts to be articulated, the England of the north would be different from that of the south – a fault line long subsumed beneath the general avoidance of talking about England – and find a means to map its cultural difference onto its different political needs.
#80 by marcus on March 24, 2012 - 3:52 pm
Hi Just thought you may like to know that I am all in favour of Scottish/welsh independence, as an Englishman I want a new separate secular independent English parliament and the complete devolution of the British Parliament. For three hundred years these British blue bloods have took us to their genocidel wars all over the world killing and maiming tens of millions of innocent people for their profit. Cameron as the epitome of Brutishness, fifth cousin to her Majesty the Queen albeit twice removed and the great-great-great-great-great-grandson of King William IV of England the Hanoverian line that signed the treaty of union along with the Scottish king.
Pingback: Scottish Independence: Life, Independence and Everything - National Collective - For Scotland