INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

Scottish Devolution

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#161 Post by Lifelinking » December 28th, 2013, 1:49 am

Latest post of the previous page:

I agree Lewist, the later posts about the referendum might better be split to a separate thread about Independence. I very much hope we can bring that New Year in a newly remade country and will in my own small way be working towards that end.
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#162 Post by Nick » December 28th, 2013, 10:15 am

Lifelinking wrote:Rowena Mason wrote an interesting piece in the Guardian yesterday about how much people have become disengaged from the political process.
Indeed there are some interesting perspectives in the article (and a couple less so...) but I wonder if it is a much more general evolution of society. As we have become collectively richer, we have become more independent. We have less to do with our neighbours, and we don't always live close to work colleagues, and we don't band together for social and political activities.

For instance, in times past, people planned events long in advance; now they wait till the last minute to see what's on telly or if something beter comes along. In electoral terms, people know that individually their vote won't count, and have lost the sense of collective action.

OTOH, technology has allowed people to express themselves politically through Avaaz or Change or other such outlets, which has reduced traditional political groups.

I think these forces are pretty irreversible. The best hope for increased participation is to make voting easier, and nudge people to vote. A pop-up on your computer to remind you to vote, say, which requires some action (even a "no thanks" option) before it stops popping back, might be an idea. Similarly, an alternative to a trip to the polling station would make a big difference (though elctoral fraud must be watched).

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#163 Post by Lifelinking » December 28th, 2013, 7:26 pm

Thanks for the response Nick, while I see the sense in the points you make, I see them as being only a small part of a bigger picture.
As we have become collectively richer,
I wonder who you are talking about, where and over what time period? Certainly some people have become a very great deal richer, even during a period of 'austerity'.
We have less to do with our neighbours, and we don't always live close to work colleagues, and we don't band together for social and political activities.
These are very good points, although I think the latter point about people not banding together for social and political activities may be different in different parts of the UK. I suspect the dominance of left of centre political parties in Scotland over the past decades has had much to do with the fact that people in Scotland are much more comfortable with collectivism. Furthermore, there is wider evidence of people still being very active, despite being more atomised in the sense of not having the same connections with neighbours or work colleagues, through 'communities of choice'. For example people that choose to volunteer or campaign for an organisation such as the BHA or Greenpeace etc.
technology has allowed people to express themselves politically through Avaaz or Change or other such outlets, which has reduced traditional political groups.
Yes, this is another good point. People are able to 'express themselves' spontaneously with a click of a survey button or a social media campaign. Social change needs much more than this however. Noam Chomsky commented on this when he described the way that history has been airbrushed to suggest that the campaign against Vietnam was all about 'spontaneous' student riots when there had actually been eight years of dedicated and committed hard work from people in the anti-war movement.
I think these forces are pretty irreversible. The best hope for increased participation is to make voting easier, and nudge people to vote. A pop-up on your computer to remind you to vote, say, which requires some action (even a "no thanks" option) before it stops popping back, might be an idea. Similarly, an alternative to a trip to the polling station would make a big difference (though elctoral fraud must be watched).
Interesting, but what you describe isn't actually participative democracy. It is just adding technological gizmos to make representative democracy easier. The technology could be used to allow participation where it would enable people to actually take part in debates, express a different experience or opinion or challenge the veracity of assumptions being made by politicians.

I do disagree with you that these forces are 'pretty irreversible', and believe that the processes of re-engaging people with their politics will be best achieved by enabling people to more fairly and effectively self-determine their futures.
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#164 Post by Nick » December 29th, 2013, 12:04 pm

Lifelinking wrote:Thanks for the response Nick, while I see the sense in the points you make, I see them as being only a small part of a bigger picture.
As we have become collectively richer,
I wonder who you are talking about, where and over what time period? Certainly some people have become a very great deal richer, even during a period of 'austerity'.
I am talking about the population in general over a period of a generation, say, during which we have seen a marked decline in democratic participation.

Over such a period incomes in general have increased, as evidenced by higher levels of car ownership, central heating, holiday and leisure expenditure and many many other indicators. For some hard stats. from the ONS, have a look here.
We have less to do with our neighbours, and we don't always live close to work colleagues, and we don't band together for social and political activities.
From 1955 to 2012, average, inflation adjusted gdp per head increased from £1,688 to £5,698 per annum, well over 300%. Even allowing for variable distributions over that period, standards of living for the great mass of people have clearly gone up substantially.
These are very good points, although I think the latter point about people not banding together for social and political activities may be different in different parts of the UK. I suspect the dominance of left of centre political parties in Scotland over the past decades has had much to do with the fact that people in Scotland are much more comfortable with collectivism.
Alternatively, given the much higher level of public expenditure and public sector employment in Scotland, the average canny Scot may just be guided by greed self-interest. :wink:

You may well be right about geographical variations. I wonder, purely speculatively, if someone in the crowded South East, having struggled home through dire traffic, is less inclined to go out again that someone whose journey to work is much shorter and less stressful. Likewise, part of the increase in "wealth" is the product of greater specialisation. So shopping is done quickly, travelling by car, in large dollops, in anonymous supermarkets, rather than walking along neighbourly highstreets, bumping into acquaintances. Likewise, the increasing diversity and bustle of major and growing cities leads to a decrease in contact, as the risk of finding oneself talking to someone you can't understand, or a nutter, seems to grow.

Furthermore, as people perceive themselves to be increasingly time poor, but richer, they are less and less inclined to undertake collective activities. For example, years ago, local groups would raise funds by asking members to bake a cake, say. But today, most would rather just shell out a fiver, and stay at home watching the footie.
Furthermore, there is wider evidence of people still being very active, despite being more atomised in the sense of not having the same connections with neighbours or work colleagues, through 'communities of choice'. For example people that choose to volunteer or campaign for an organisation such as the BHA or Greenpeace etc.
This is true, but I think that supports my suggestion that such activities have supplanted activities allied to the major political parties. Just look at TH, for example. No party political promotion at all (thank goodness). (Except for the Tories being called vile.)
I think these forces are pretty irreversible. The best hope for increased participation is to make voting easier, and nudge people to vote. A pop-up on your computer to remind you to vote, say, which requires some action (even a "no thanks" option) before it stops popping back, might be an idea. Similarly, an alternative to a trip to the polling station would make a big difference (though elctoral fraud must be watched).
Interesting, but what you describe isn't actually participative democracy. It is just adding technological gizmos to make representative democracy easier. The technology could be used to allow participation where it would enable people to actually take part in debates, express a different experience or opinion or challenge the veracity of assumptions being made by politicians.

I do disagree with you that these forces are 'pretty irreversible', and believe that the processes of re-engaging people with their politics will be best achieved by enabling people to more fairly and effectively self-determine their futures.
Hmmm... I think most people think that party politics is not the way to determine their futures. In many ways, people are much better informed than previously, but change also seems to be faster. There is no party political stance one can take to HS2, for example. And how many people actually want to go to political meetings? Precious few. According to Tony Benn's Diaries (which I am reading at the moment), a couple of years ago the AGM of Unite, one of the biggest unions in the country, attracted only 30 or 40 members. And for many, they are pleased to see the reduction in the hijacking of democratic intruments by the energetic, driven and loony. ISTM that people aer choosing competence and professionalism over democratic control. They don't care that they don't have a democratic voice in the directorship of their local electricity supplier, but boy! do they holler if the lights go out!

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#165 Post by Altfish » February 7th, 2014, 11:06 pm

Good to see Cameron boosting the pro-Independence Campaign. :hilarity:

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#166 Post by Altfish » February 12th, 2014, 8:26 am

Osborne wading in to help the 'Yes' vote today...when will they learn

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#167 Post by Nick » February 16th, 2014, 4:11 pm

Oh dear. All three major UK party leaders have said that Scotland can't keep the pouind if they leave the UK, and now Borroso has said that it will be very difficult if not impossible for Scotland to join the EU....

Are the wheels starting to come off the SNP bandwagon....?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#168 Post by Dave B » February 16th, 2014, 5:24 pm

And there was me only wondering if Phil the Greek would lose his job as Duke of Edinburgh! Hardly seems an issue now :D
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
getreal
Posts: 4354
Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#169 Post by getreal » February 17th, 2014, 8:09 am

Excuse my ignorance, but since when was Sterling the property of England? Surely it's a currency shared by England, scotlamd and Northern Ireland?


Or have I missed something?
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#170 Post by Dave B » February 17th, 2014, 8:46 am

Getreal, I think that Scotland can continue to use the £ as other countries use the US$, or it could start its own currency pegged to the £. But that it has no automatic right to a currency union with England. In fact such a union would make Scotland liable to changes in England needed by its economic situation, they would not have complete independence over their own economy.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#171 Post by Alan H » February 17th, 2014, 10:17 am

getreal wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but since when was Sterling the property of England? Surely it's a currency shared by England, scotlamd and Northern Ireland?


Or have I missed something?
An interesting question! I would assume it's in some way 'owned' by the Bank of England and that it would need some pretty hefty legislation to wrest control of it from the BofE and, ultimately, England. If there are two possibilities: Scotland becomes independent and takes the pound with it, leaving England to find something else, or Scotland becomes independent and left to find its own currency, then I suspect I know which is ever-so-slightly more likely!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#172 Post by Gottard » February 17th, 2014, 10:21 am

A comment from an independent ousider:
Scotland can freely decide to continue using the Pound in the same way as -in theory - any other currency. Sure the English Central Bank can decide that Scotland cannot sit as a member but this is a minor consequence as the newborn Country would have time to set up their own currency system or, more likely, have time to gain EU membership and use the Euro at a later time. A factor of some commercial importance: do note that Ireland is part of the €-area.
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#173 Post by Dave B » February 17th, 2014, 11:36 am

Alan H wrote:
getreal wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but since when was Sterling the property of England? Surely it's a currency shared by England, scotlamd and Northern Ireland?


Or have I missed something?
An interesting question! I would assume it's in some way 'owned' by the Bank of England and that it would need some pretty hefty legislation to wrest control of it from the BofE and, ultimately, England. If there are two possibilities: Scotland becomes independent and takes the pound with it, leaving England to find something else, or Scotland becomes independent and left to find its own currency, then I suspect I know which is ever-so-slightly more likely!
[My bold]
Is that even possible?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#174 Post by Alan H » February 17th, 2014, 11:42 am

Dave B wrote:
Alan H wrote:
getreal wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but since when was Sterling the property of England? Surely it's a currency shared by England, scotlamd and Northern Ireland?


Or have I missed something?
An interesting question! I would assume it's in some way 'owned' by the Bank of England and that it would need some pretty hefty legislation to wrest control of it from the BofE and, ultimately, England. If there are two possibilities: Scotland becomes independent and takes the pound with it, leaving England to find something else, or Scotland becomes independent and left to find its own currency, then I suspect I know which is ever-so-slightly more likely!
[My bold]
Is that even possible?
I'm sure anything would be possible - all it requires is Scotland to move the BoE 400 miles north and re-name it to the BoS...Ah!

Anyway, I said that to try to show what I see as the only two options and that one would be improbable in the extreme. Perhaps all those clever people could find an interim compromise solution until Scotland decided?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#175 Post by Dave B » February 17th, 2014, 11:47 am

Perhaps they could make the haggis a currency?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#176 Post by Alan H » February 17th, 2014, 12:06 pm

Ah! Scotland's new currency has already been unveiled:
2014-02-17_12h05_37.png
2014-02-17_12h05_37.png (522.42 KiB) Viewed 3129 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#177 Post by Nick » February 17th, 2014, 1:36 pm

:pointlaugh:
getreal wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but since when was Sterling the property of England? Surely it's a currency shared by England, scotlamd and Northern Ireland?


Or have I missed something?
According to (IIRC) the Constitutional Committee of the House of Lords (stuffed with retired law lords), which I was watching this morning (how sad am I?) sterling belongs to the United Kingdom, so if Scotland leaves the United Kingdom, it also leaves the sterling area.

I doesn't necessarily mean they can't use sterling (plenty of countries use the US dollar, for example,) but they couldn't "print it" or set interest rates etc. so they would have no control over their own currency. Hardly independence.....

There is also the slight difficulty if Scotland wants to join the EU. There ought to be no problem (despite Spain) as Scotland is already fully compliant with EU legislation etc., but EU law states that a new member, which Scotland would be, must adopt the Euro (which is utterly stupid), which must be preceded by shadowing the Euro for 2 years. There is no way the UK would do that, for a million good reasons, so Scotland would be left with the perils of launching a new currency, with the higher interest rates that implies, and then completely losing contrrol of it currency to the EU, where it would be just one of 18 nations, none of whom would listen to the particular problems of Scotalnd as closely as their most immediate neighbour, the UK. That's not much independence either....

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#178 Post by Nick » February 17th, 2014, 1:50 pm

Gottard wrote: A factor of some commercial importance: do note that Ireland is part of the €-area.
Are you saying that is a good thing or a bad thing? And note, Northern Ireland uses sterling, it is the (Southern) Irish Republic which uses the Euro. Which hardly did them much good in the credit crash, did it?

lewist
Posts: 4402
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 8:53 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#179 Post by lewist » February 17th, 2014, 1:55 pm

None of this can be settled until after the referendum. At the moment we have the worst posturing by the noes that we have seen so far. Who will be in power in England (or the ewkay) after the 2015 election? How can any of these people predict how the new government then will decide to act? They simply don't have that authority.

Similarly, Alex Salmond doesn't really have the authority to give chapter and verse, given we would have to have an election too and he might not be it. We might have Alistair Darling as our leader, ( :sad2: ) whatever we might call him in the governing body, whatever we call that.
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Scottish Devolution

#180 Post by Alan H » February 17th, 2014, 2:00 pm

lewist wrote:None of this can be settled until after the referendum.
If, for some reason, the €/£ rules weren't currently known, or it was left to the whim of, say, Barbaso, then they might have an excuse. But if these rules are currently in place, then, unless they are changed, Salmond and his cronies will have to state what they will do.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Scottish Devolution

#181 Post by Nick » February 17th, 2014, 2:02 pm

Alan H wrote:
lewist wrote:None of this can be settled until after the referendum.
If, for some reason, the €/£ rules weren't currently known, or it was left to the whim of, say, Barbaso, then they might have an excuse. But if these rules are currently in place, then, unless they are changed, Salmond and his cronies will have to state what they will do.
Indeed, Alan. And discussions of likely outcomes from the diffenert options is surely fundamental to helping voters decide whether to vote in favour of separation or not.

Post Reply