Aidan, James, Jeff & Kirsty are super-delighted to welcome a new member to the team this morning – Natalie McGarry. Natalie’s an SNP activist, having recently graced our tellies with her first class speech at conference against NATO membership, and she’s been blogging here since September last year. Oh, and if you’d got £10 on her being our new member with Twitter pseudo-bookie Ross McCafferty last night you’d be holding £50 now. Over to Natalie..
I am a centrist. Centre left, but certainly not as left as some of the people I meet with everyday, or come across in politics or in the wonderful and diverse fabric of Yes Scotland. Sure, I am anti-nuclear, anti-NATO, anti-war (is that left?), pro-free health and education and a realistic living wage and many other ideological points of principle of those on the left, but… And there is a but: I do believe in some degree of entrepreneurism which I suppose is a bit capitalist. I’d like to see renationalisation of many public services but not sure how that is either entirely possible or practicable, or even the most responsible use of taxpayers’ money in the short term. I also want to see a huge review of the benefits system too. Before you gasp in horror, I don’t want a Toryesque victimisation of the most vulnerable in society, or changes made too quickly, but I think we have to be realistic about the size of our welfare bill and the number of persons who are reliant on benefit.
I spent a couple of years working with unemployed parents, mainly single parents; young women left, literally, holding the baby. Some of these were very young, had left school with no qualifications, no confidence, no means to support themselves, and without a tradition of working in their families; sometimes for two previous generations. It isn’t my intention to provoke a furious discourse on worklessness, and second/third generation unemployment, beyond saying that there needs to be a completely different approach, early on, to providing children from this background with opportunity and aspiration and support.
There requires a complete change in the collective mindset in order to increase work rates in the most vulnerable in society and others with a history of long-term worklessness. This won’t happen through victimisation like current Tory cuts, and it won’t happen overnight. However, it does need to happen. Benefit levels are only just sustainable, but it shouldn’t just be about sustainability, but about what is best for our society and for the people in it, and that is giving people the tools, aspiration, confidence and support to succeed. If that has a knock on effect on work rates, then that can only be welcomed; and provides an opportunity to look at how we apply benefits.
A number of things have happened recently to concentrate the mind: Johann Lamont’s much despaired of but somewhat misunderstood speech on universalism; Ruth Davidson’s ill-considered claim that only 12% of the population in Scotland are net contributors; the IFS report and Patrick Harvie’s contribution to the debate in the Daily Record earlier this week. Inherent in what both Ruth and Johann had to say is a glimmer of a point, and I acknowledge that a sharp dose of realism is required.
Neither the methodology nor the catalyst of the referendum to contextualise this were either welcome or particularly subtle, though. Whilst it is irrefutable that the referendum brings with it a sharper examination of the realities of Scottish funding we should welcome only the honest discussion of where we are now, and if we want to contrast that, we should contrast it only with our relative position to the rest of the UK. Anything else is just speculation, backed up with little fact and is dishonest – on both sides. If, like Ruth Davidson, you give figures only in isolation, it is exceptionally misleading; the size of the public sector in Scotland and rUK is relatively comparable. The value of any point is undermined by the use of figures in isolation to suppress aspiration because of a perception of relative underperformance, or by the other side to suggest an unsupportable case for optimism. What was important in what Johann and Ruth tried to raise was the need to prioritise our spending; how best to do that, and where our revenue stems from.
The IFS report produced on Monday was seized upon by those in both the pro and anti-independence camps. I choose to specifically not mention Yes Scotland or ‘Better Together’ as I have not yet read their response. My frame of reference to the response is therefore that of the SNP and the Labour Party in the form of the rhetoric of Stewart Hosie MP and Ken McIntosh MSP on Scotland Tonight and Newsnight Scotland. Both performances were fairly predictable the first time, but by the second time, with the same sound bites, they had lost my attention. Clearly the onus is on Newsnight Scotland to provoke a different discussion from the one that Scotland Tonight had not 20 minutes before and they consistently fail to do this. After all, with a limited audience, interest capture is key. That said, perhaps that is the fault of political parties for not putting forward different voices for these two programmes. I am sure you could find other politicians to talk just as competently, but maybe with a different point, or a different slant. The narrowness of the political commentariat in Scottish politics is a particular irk of mine, BBC in particular, but I have managed to get ridiculously off topic…
I clearly cannot do justice with a full synopsis here. Instead I will pull some of the salient facts which will be seized upon by both sides. This section on fiscal balance is particularly apposite:
- Without oil and gas revenues or, equivalently, assigning them on a population basis, there has been a bigger gap between spending and tax receipts in Scotland in recent years than in the UK as a whole;
- With a geographic assignment of oil and gas revenues, on the other hand, the gap between revenues and spending in Scotland and in the UK has been similar, indeed somewhat smaller in Scotland;
- Over recent years, tax revenues from the North Sea, if allocated on a geographic basis, would have slightly more than paid for the additional public spending per head that currently occurs in Scotland relative to the UK as a whole.
Thus far, I see nothing that generates much to be surprised or excited about. This is hardly new information. Indeed it is already available in the public spectrum through GERS reports. Clearly the higher levels of public spending in Scotland are offset by oil revenues. This shouldn’t be a difficulty, right? It is “our oil”, right? The benefit of Scottish oil should be that we can afford higher levels of public spending, right? Well, yes, I do agree that the oil is in Scottish territorial waters and that this is governed by international law, but I have only the most tenuous experience of international public and private law from a number of Honours modules at university. I certainly wouldn’t assert my opinion has any authority, even if that seems like the correct position.
Nonetheless, we proceed, as did the IFS report, on the basis that the above position is correct despite some unsubstantiated havering on the issue by Ken McIntosh. Perhaps the biggest area of contention was the “volatility” of oil prices, with associated statistics to support this assertion. Beyond the volatility was this, which seemed, to me, to found the main crux of Ken McIntosh’s argument,
“Like the UK as a whole, and most other developed nations, an independent Scotland would face some tough long term choices in the face of spending pressures created by demographic change. If, as is likely, oil and gas revenues fall over the long run then the fiscal challenge facing Scotland will be greater than that facing the UK.”
It is easy to simply skim over the references to the UK as a whole or those of other developed nations to leave Scotland isolated and struggling with long term fiscal challenges without oil. Ignoring even the predictions that a fall in oil revenues and reference to finite resource is framed in the context of the mid to long-term (i.e. 20 years and beyond), it seems that this has been seized upon to by the No campaign. From what I can ascertain their argument is predicated on the basis that the gap between revenues raised and public spending, without oil to offset it, demonstrates the lack of certainty which independence will give us, and that without the UK to bail us out, and without our oil revenue, we would be in penury.
There are a number of problems with this position, although I mention only two which I thought were poorly tackled during these debates:
- Without the oil revenues to offset the gap in maintaining the Scottish block grant, or any similar funding initiative, the same onus would fall to the UK as would fall to an independent Scotland. Either Scotland becomes dependent for handouts from the rUK as part of the union in the long term, or the UK has to focus on the economy and public sector, and work rates and tax revenue raised in Scotland to offset this. Or Scotland becomes independent, whilst oil revenues continue, and like the rUK would be obliged to, it would have to do same; provide innovation and focus to grow economy and contributions. It seems a stark choice, dependence on the UK – which is not a position any country would enjoy – and rely on the UK to grow the Scottish GDP as part of the UK, or put trust that an independent Scotland would focus more effort to develop new, green, and innovative industry to do so.
- It is easy to predict that oil revenue will run out. It is not possible to say when, but it is not an infinite resource, so it will run out. It is reasonably foreseeable for the IFS to predict UK borrowing to be £75bn at the point of the referendum in autumn 2014. This is all based on fact; however it is ridiculous to try to apply narrow parameters to revenue streams when looking at the mid to long term. It is not accurate or responsible to do so and to make any predictions either way. If anything should prove a cautionary tale about the inevitability of boom and bust and the inability to correctly interpret the future, it is the worldwide economic crash of 2008.
It is quite depressing that the focus of any discussion on the merits and demerits of independence falls to fist-fighting on the economy in the first place. The economy is as volatile as the oil price. And equally depressing is the focus on oil price as a crutch for sustainability. The only plus is that discussion on a future without oil is that it provokes welcome discussion about our reliance on it and opportunity to promote and research greener methods of transport in the very short term.
Scotland currently pays its way in the UK. I see no reason it couldn’t continue to do so as an independent country like many other comparable countries in the world. I make no predictions of a financial windfall or of penury. That is irresponsible. I agree with Patrick Harvie that there are simply too many uncertainties to make gleeful or dire predictions either way.
Patrick Harvie made an excellent interjection earlier this week in the Daily Record. He said,
“Whether Scotland votes Yes or No, we will face uncertainties. Both sides should be honest about that.
The SNP plan to join Europe but keep using the pound as our currency might work. In the short term, it might even be the best option available. The SNP are wrong to offer it as a guarantee and the Labour party are wrong to dismiss it out of hand.
But the wider truth is nobody really knows what state Europe itself will be in by 2014, or whether the UK Government will even be holding a referendum about pulling out.
Instead of bland assertions, we need to focus on the kind of society we want and how government need to work to achieve it.
I want a more equal society, a greener environment, a fairer economy and politics that let people in to participate instead of holding power within the political “club”.
That’s why I find the opportunities of independence so attractive and that’s why I want to be honest about the risks, too, and find ways to overcome them, instead of hiding them.”
I might not agree with everything Patrick says and his uncompromising positions on certain issues, but I agree wholeheartedly with everything he says above.
We do not have current access to any assertion which is of much legitimacy either way on Scotland’s standing in Europe after independence, despite the best efforts on both sides to cite opinions from notable European scholars etc. We all know where the only factual opinion can be sought, and yet no one seems to want to pre-empt independence to find out.
The position of the Tory right and the pressure of UKIP could seal the deal on a UK referendum, who knows. After all, UKIP secured 14.3% of the vote in the recent Corby by-election. Jonathan Mackie eloquently wrote on his blog “Jie not Jay” about the effect of the rise of the Tory right. It is well worth a read. It is reasonable to expect that the pressure from the right could induce a referendum: what is not as easily divined is how the UK would vote. Uncertainty in the UK.
There is inevitability that people will want some degree of security; a few facts in which they can put their faith in on independence, but we must be careful not to bog down discussion of the kind of country we want to be in facts and counter-facts, opinions and counter-opinions.
Independence is an opportunity, an opportunity to review every decision we have made and those which were made on our behalf; to shape a country reflective of the ideals we share as a society; a veritable blank slate to write a constitution with the input of our country’s citizens. We might start with the hangover of our share of national debt, but with a desire to build a better, more prosperous society, that isn’t a millstone, it is a cautionary tale. I think it is a pretty unique and exciting opportunity.
#1 by HenBroon on November 21, 2012 - 10:49 am
An excellent read and one I wish I could have written, especially the ” unsubstantiated havering” describing oor wee Ken. I have no idea what kind of changes are taking place with him as he has grown the hairy caterpillar on his top lip, perhaps it is so we cannot see when he is telling his usual porkies. Keep it up good work.
PS Qatar seems to be getting along just fine with these pesky volatile hydrocarbons forming 70% of their economy. 1.7 million people, with the highest living standards on earth!
A significant part of Qatar’s surpluses have been invested abroad through the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) whose aim is to strengthen the country’s economy by diversifying into new areas and reducing Qatar’s reliance on hydrocarbons revenue. The QIA, headed by the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor Al Thani, has a number of subsidiaries including Qatari Diar, which was set up in 2004 to invest in real estate projects both in Qatar and abroad.
Now where have we heard that idea before?
#2 by Braco on November 21, 2012 - 11:36 am
‘a few facts in which they can put their faith in on independence, but we must be careful not to bog down discussion of the kind of country we want to be in facts and counter-facts, opinions and counter-opinions.’
I would agree with the above but can see no way to achieve it with the current tactics/strategy being used by the ‘Better No’ Campaign, the various unionist parties and their media friends. Assertions of opinion as fact must be countered somehow or we lose. Could you expand on your ideas of how to achieve this against a political adversary intent on this technique as their main weapon. Unfortunately I only see things getting worse as the polls become tighter and the fight heats up. I feel the open positive discussion about Scotland’s future that you, I and a large part of the electorate crave is in fact ‘Better No’s’ worst nightmare and so unfortunately will not happen. I hope that the ‘Yes’ Campaign will be wide enough to be able to have that type of positive discussion on alternative possible futures with the Scots electorate directly. Very enjoyable first blog, many thanks Natalie.
Mod team, is their a reason that my last comment in the previous thread is still ‘awaiting moderation’ ?
#3 by JPJ2 on November 21, 2012 - 12:09 pm
With the recent IFS report we have received confirmation of what was blindingly obvious to all bar those with a unionist agenda-Scotland’s current economic position is better than the UK as a whole.
However, I must tell you, that in my decades of living in England I have never met anyone (except, interestingly, foreigners) who did not believe that Scotland was subsidised to a vast degree by the UK (“England”)
There is currently an opportunity for Scotland to use the modest improved economic position year on year, gained by full accesss to the oil, for probably 40 plus years of independence, to prepare for the period after oil does truly run out.
If Scotland does not declare independence, be very afraid of how Westminster will treat Scotland when the oil does eventually fade away-the population of England believes we are heavily subsidised now when it is untrue. They will not be grateful for a Scottish excess economic contribution in which they do not believe.
They do not recognise the reality of the current economic position, aided and abetted by Scottish unionists who forgot that one of the consequences of trying to persuade the Scots that Scotland was not viable, was that they found a much more receptive audience in England.
Beware the future treatment of Scotland if Scotland votes “no”.
#4 by Allan on November 21, 2012 - 2:47 pm
I already blogged about this in March, while we should beware of Flashman, Gideon et all if we vote “No”, we should also be alert even if we vote “yes”…
http://humbug3.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/after-referendum.html
#5 by Duncan Mc Lean on November 21, 2012 - 1:21 pm
Congrats and an interesting first piece. I’ll be claiming my £50 along with everyone else.
The IFS report does bear further examination – not for what it tells us about the future, which is not much given the narrowness of its parameters – but about the past.
It demonstrates the scale of opportunity that has been lost to Scotland under UK management, not just in the oil revenue foregone but also in the failure to grow Scotland’s onshore economy relative to the UK over that period. This is why there is such a degree of disbelief among foreign visitors. They can’t believe that an advanced industrial economy that wins the watch of finding oil still suffers relative decline. That is the legacy of Scottish Labour hegemony in Scotland over that period and it is a shameful one. And the UK Government has the cheek to appoint one of the chief apologists for that, Brian Wilson, as a development ambassador for Scotland. They don’t do irony.
Hard facts are going to have to come out over the next two years, both about how we have been performing to date and about our potential. We are beginning to witness the virulent attacks on the Scottish Government in an attempt to undermine their credibility as a reliable source.
We should not be giving unionist arguments the oxygen of publicity unless they have clear justification. In that context, the notion of using ‘population share’ of oil revenues should be comprehensively rebuffed, not repeated as though valid. Do they want to keep a share of our agriculture? fisheries? manufacture? if not, why credit a population share of oil as worth mentioning except to deride.
We are already going to have a fight with them over the McLeish 6,000 sq miles, let us not pretend that they have a valid claim to that or to any other part of Scotland or its continental shelf post-independence.
#6 by Braco on November 21, 2012 - 1:38 pm
A very good point Duncan.
#7 by Allan on November 21, 2012 - 2:44 pm
A couple of points…
1) It’s not depressing at all that “any discussion on the merits and demerits of independence falls to fist-fighting on the economy in the first place.” I have long argued that THE battleground for this campaign will be the economy. It is an area where the SNP do have winnable arguments, but they really need to put their ecconomic arguments out there instead of obsessing about “Day 1” of Independence – which is the root of the travails surrounding NATO, The EU & currency.
As an example one of my colleagues put out a link to the Crone Report from the mid 70’s and found that a lot of people had never heard of this report ( I can’t remember which post I had linked it to but I was aware of it).
Having said that, one facet of the economy that the SNP have been awfuly quiet has been with regard to the current issue of rising gas & electricity prices. Nothing has been said with regard to the consumer rights side of the economy & maybe the SNP are missing a trick here.
2) Both Ruth Davidson & Johann Lamont have stumbled upon something with their “We cannot go on like this” speeches. However, through poor political strategy, both flunked this argument. Lamont for example should have been attacking the SNP from the Left (with regard to Local Authority financing) and was unwise to bring up Means Testing (http://humbug3.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/yes-whatever-happened-to-labour.html).
However there is also an element of the SNP not exactly being honest with regard to what will happen to benefits post Independence. Yes, this will be a decision for the first post Independence Scottish Government, but there really needs to be some ideas on what will hapen during the transition period.
3) “Independence is an opportunity, an opportunity to review every decision we have made and those which were made on our behalf” – Very true, which makes the SNP’s policy with regard to the EU and retaining Mrs Windsor (or rather the institution of) as head of state much more perplexing
Lastly, congrats on joining the team Natalie & for the interesting post.
#8 by Andrew on November 22, 2012 - 12:41 am
Totally agreed on your main point. The economy has to be the battleground. YouGov’s polling has found that 52% believe Independence will make them worse off with only 23% saying they would be better off, the polls wont budge as long as this is the case.
#9 by steve on November 21, 2012 - 8:53 pm
Please be careful when saying we spend too much on welfare. Some other countries spend twice as much as us as a proportion of their gdp. Twice. That means, if we wanted to, we could double all benefits and state pension payments and it could still be affordable (if we massively increased taxes if course!) As with the universal benefits debate, it’s not just about affordability, it’s also about priorities.
#10 by Gavin Hamilton on November 22, 2012 - 1:39 am
Great first post Natalie.
I was pleased to see the IFS report because this is not a black and white debate and there is a lot to discuss both in terms of the challenges facing our economy and the opportunities for the future.
I think Lamont and Davidson both made an important point about making decisions about finite resources and picking priorities. Ironically I thought Lamont did so from the left and introduced old fashioned class conflict. Davidson was rather Romney-esque and may be exposing a streak of disturbing radicalism that is currently bubbling under in the Conservative party of an idealistic desire to dismantle what they see as an ‘entitlement state’.
Finite resources and economic challenges – that is the challenge. Indy or no Indy. We face a huge deficit, a global financial crisis which has delivered chronic low growth and a drag on our economy from the Euro land.
In Scotland -we face some structural problems. If we go the Indy route we would, as it stand,s have too high a proportion of our GDP relying on oil and gas to be healthy. This is also a volatile commodity in terms of its price and therefore tax stream. We also probably have too much of our employment in the public sector – nothing wrong with the public sector it just needs a private sector to underpin it = so we need to grow our private sector.
Renewables, while important is only a small part of the answer.
Yes its about opportunities for the future but we should be breaking it down now and thinking what do we need to do to stimulate and develop the economy we need and which industry sectors can we grow and which need supported.
I guess its what we used to call trade and industry policies.
I see this as vital an area for thinking as how to bring social justice. I think there is a dearth of thinking on this issue and in my opinion it is currently a weakness of the SNP corner.
Its not a black and white issue and its about challenges and opportunities as you say – Indy or no Indy.
The thing about the IFS report is it allows us to give some serious thinking to break it all down.
The hitherto shallow stat trading of the Indy debate does a big question a dis-service.
#11 by Braco on November 22, 2012 - 10:17 am
All very well, but if no Independence, where will the power come from to enact these ‘trade and industry policies’ specific to Scotland’s particular economic needs. It’s precisely the experience of the UK’s ‘trade and industry policies’ and their contradiction to Scottish interests that, since the 80’s, have continuously driven me intellectually towards independence as the only solution. Ravenscraig’s treatment was the catalyst for me to start the journey but now it can be seen that, even from the early days (McCrone report etc.), the industrial and social needs of Scotland play little or no part in the UK’s ‘trade and industry policies’ save as a source of funding to implement what are in most cases policies against the democratic will of the Scottish electorate. That is (and has been) the case under both Tory and Labour administrations. I am genuinely interested in how you see your ideas coming about without independence. Jam tomorrow?
#12 by Gavin Hamilton on November 22, 2012 - 12:18 pm
Well, a lot of these issues are British wide issues or even Europe wide issues – or indeed Global.
Decentralisation can help but sometimes fragmentation will not help.
There are similarities between the economy of NW England and S Wales – and in terms of financial services there are links to what is happening in London and in Leeds.
These challenges and opportunities face us if we go Indy or if we don’t. Indy is not in itself a solution or necessarily a catalyst. The Jam point is a cliche in the current argument and can be applied to both sides of the argument.
Different solutions for different industries.
I think your argument about Scotland just being a source of funding for policies not in our interest is a bit of a nationalist myth.
The world economy is changing
– long term slow growth of advanced economies
– strengthening of emerging economies esp in the far east and in China
– a reduced reliance on the US as an engine for global economic growth.
– growing importance of large reserves from Asian economies and oil exporters financing western deficits – esp US ones.
All this means our economy needs to adapt. The nature of work and goods and services are changing. Adapting to this is vital.
Its not about Indy. That might help focus some issues but with others we may be more effective doing this as part of a more diverse and flexible economy.
I don’t think the solutions will come from post war big projects. I don’t see big semi planned projects like Iron and Steel, or Chrysler cars at Linwood, or the Corpach Mill or Motorola.
The key is probably having an open and adaptable economy and supporting small business growth and in turn small businesses becoming bigger businesses.
We have to adapt to the goods and services that are viable for a western economy.
Whether we are Indy or not in that respect is probably not that relevant.
My own hunch is that being part of a bigger economy allowing for pooled risk and which is more diverse will be better for us than Indy.
If we get the decentralisation right we can be more focused on different needs – both within UK and indeed within Scotland.
There is nothing here that changes my mind that effective decentralisation within the UK – which is part of the EU is the best way forward.
The big issues we face are about the world economy moving East and the way work is changing. The change
#13 by Braco on November 22, 2012 - 1:37 pm
Again I agree with much of what you say. Just show me where in the past the interests of this diversified Scottish economy have been served by the UK’s macro economic policies. After all it is under UK management that our economy has become out of balance. Industry left to wither with the service sector, banking and oil being given prominence. The heavy industries seem now to be captured by arms production and jobs dependent on ministry of defense contracts instead of diversifying into servicing the oil industry and the burgeoning renewable industries (as well as criuse/ferry/mearchant shipping). This work was and still is being lost to our competitors in high wage countries such as Finland and Scandinavia. The world is interdependent as you say but that just makes it even more important that what control we do have is used to it’s utmost to the advantage of our people and their economy (just as every other country does what it can for it’s economy within the limitations of global commerce GATT etc.). So I ask you again, please explain to me the mechanism that is being offered by the UK Parties at Westminster to allow for what both you and I agree is required for the health of the Scottish economy? I see no offers of substantial decentralisation being made, quite the contrary, with the insistence on a single question. If you don’t like the ‘jam tomorrow’ short hand please show me the mechanisms within the UK to allow the needs of the Scottish economy to be paramount.
#14 by Gavin Hamilton on November 22, 2012 - 2:17 pm
I see.
In terms of decentralisation we have a Scottish Parliament not 14 years old yet.
We have an extension of powers on the table in the Scotland Act – admittedly overtaken by events somewhat.
And I think, as a result we have other offers on the table – from Devo Plus and Lib Dems and we will have from Labour.
The most likely outcome is that one of these will be enacted after Indy falls – and remember the SNP were not the driving force for delivering any of the decentalisation we have actually enacted. (My memory is they were involved in the 70s but that fell – they kept at arms length in the 90s though they did join in the ref campaign.
The interesting thing about this debate is I think it could tease out a serious discussion of the issues the 21st century economy faces and the possible policy directions.
I feel we are a little side lined by a constitutional question that is unlikely to happen – and in my view won’t in itself deliver anything here.
I’m not hearing any serious ideation from the nationalist side about what needs to be done – poss because they need to argue we are a net contributor to the UK and not admit any structural weaknesses in Scotland’s economy. And on the No side they are pre-occupied with developing indy ref arguments rather than developing serious thinking on the issues that face our society and economy.
That is not a sign of weakness it is simply the state we find ourselves in today.
#15 by Braco on November 22, 2012 - 3:41 pm
Well Gavin I think believing that the SNP has had no influence on the Unionist parties movement towards devolution and more decentralisation is a wee bit delusional. From 1974’s 11 Mps (and more importantly their many more second places in Labour constituencies) right through to the panic induced formation of the Calman commission after victory in 2007 and its weak recommendations in the form of the Scotland Bill update, which you rightly consider to be overtaken by events. What events would they be, if not the SNP’s electoral victories? As Salmond liked to put it and I paraphrase, ‘The devolution bus runs on SNP petrol’. You claim, ‘And I think, as a result we have other offers on the table – from Devo Plus and Lib Dems and we will have from Labour.’ I see no offers on the table. I see a YES/NO referendum being run by an SNP administration. The YES/NO element of which was a red line for the Unionist coalition and Labour opposition. Calman and the changes to the Scotland bill were made without recourse to a referendum so why can these ‘offers’ not just be enacted so that the electorate can make a choice between two actual alternatives. Anything else I am afraid is just going to be seen by myself and many others as hollow promises of ‘jam tomorrow’. On your other point, I am afraid that you are asking too much to expect the parties to form their manifestos for 2015/16 prior to the referendum result. The Pro Independence parties and Unionist parties will have to adapt their policies to the constitutional situation that the Scots electorate deem most appropriate. These are radically different political landscapes. So sorry but I still see no mechanism identified by you, within the UK, to allow the Scots particular economic requirements to be treated as paramount and therefor I still see Independence as the only solution.