Scotland: No pretty woman

17 Responses to Scotland: No pretty woman

1. rich says:

   8 May 2015 at 20:26

   Don’t forget that 1 million of the No voters in the referendum didn’t come to vote in the general election. They will only vote if there is the risk that the snp could really endup governing. The general election wasn’t about independence so these people didn’t feel the need to vote (which was rather unfortunate).
2. TinyCO2 says:

   9 May 2015 at 10:41

   But you’re not an equal partner.
   Let that sink in for a second.
   The whole population of Scotland equal 3 million less than London alone. 6 million if you count the commuters. 7 million if you add the tourists.
   That doesn’t make you unimportant but it certainly doesn’t make you more important either. Like with Europe, if you decide that the house rules are not for you then you can leave. Sure, you can have a go at changing the rules but just like Cameron’s plans to try and change the EU, it’s unlikely to happen, especially if you’re not really sure what it is you want.
   I watched my parents have much the same relationship as England and Scotland. As Dad was the main bread winner Mum resented his easy ability to get what he wanted. It never occurred to her that the reason she didn’t get what she wanted was because either what she asked for was impossible or she just never had a specific want that could be addressed. She wasn’t short of money. She just wanted things to be better. Sound familiar? What exactly is it that Scotland wants, apart from more money? It’s already in charge of several areas including the NHS and education. I hear it wants to set its own taxes, do you really think they intend to make Scotland more business friendly without using English taxes to fund it? I know they dreamt of an oil tax bonanza but with falling oil production, prices and an allergy to fracking, where are future revenues coming from? The English will not agree to pay alimony.
   Time and again my Mum threatened to leave, to the point where he wouldn’t do anything to stop her. But she didn’t want to leave she just wanted him to wave a magic wand and make her feel better. But the problem was hers, not his and he couldn’t fix what she wouldn’t admit was a problem. She felt inferior because she was inferior. Despite great talents and a great personality, she lacked drive. She wasn’t good at decision making and terrible at prioritising. She allowed him to dominate her because making her own way would have been harder work. Had she been forced to go it alone, she’d have done fine, probably even better than sticking with him in ever increasing resentment. And for all he tended to ignore her grievances, he really did love her, much as England really cares for Scotland. But we won’t bend over backwards to keep you.
   The UK will face the same question about leaving the security of the EU as Scotland faced and will face about leaving the UK. If, we think ‘I know it will be really tough and financially dangerous but we really feel that we can go it alone, so long as we work hard and have a vision of what we’ll be one day’ then I think we should go. If on the other hand we bang on about how mean the EU is and they won’t let us do stuff and if we left we’d be rolling in the money, then leaving would be a horrible flop. The Scottish referendum was all about how horrible being in the UK was and nothing about how you were going to become a new force to be reckoned with.
   I knew that moving Oxbridge was an example but the answer applies to any forced move of an industry or institution. You can attract them in but you can’t force them unless they’re wholly controlled by government types who have no vested interest in the thing staying put. Which is why some government services are out of London and some haven’t. Business makes it’s own mind up and if it’s missing from your area it’s because somewhere else is more attractive. Waving money at them will only work if a) the money’s good enough and b) they think the money will last.
   Incidentally, before the financial crash, certain countries had built up neat little banking schemes whereby they offered low taxes and attractive interest rates. However these schemes were not backed by anything, so when the worst happened the money vanished, leaving investors with nothing. It will be a very long time before a small country can build up that kind of scheme unless they have the gold, to back it up. At one point Scotland, Ireland and an other, were talking about breaking away and forming a union. Where would Scotland be now if they’d done that ten, twenty years ago? Ireland has knuckled down to pay its debts, Iceland walked away from them. England would have never had Gordon Brown as PM, Alistair Darling in charge of the money, etc.
3. TinyCO2 says:

   9 May 2015 at 12:04

   Something to watch for – if London encourages Scotland to start taking responsibility for things like Passports, car taxing etc and at the same time starts building somewhere for the nuclear fleet, you can be assured that they intend to make splitting as quick and as painless as possible. I don’t think they thought the last vote would have been as close but now expect the next vote to be a YES. They’ll be thinking in terms of a quickie, no blame divorce so that it does both countries the least financial damage. However, I don’t think this will happen becuase Cameron genuinely doesn’t want Scotland to go, but Westminster will think twice about moving departments north of the border becuase they won’t want it stranded in a split. This will look like England is keeping hold of the goodies.
   I suspect that there will be another Scottish referendum either as part of the EU referendum or soon if we vote to leave. I really have no idea if we will vote to leave but I suspect that like Scotland the UK will not be brave/stupid enough to go it alone.
4. A C Osborn says:

   9 May 2015 at 14:48

   Sorry, but the SNP landslide is totally meaningless to the UK and the sooner Cameron realises it and tells the SNP to take a hike the better.
   Why you think the Scots are hard done by Westminster I just don’t know, try living in the midlands or northern England or Wales.
   You are just lucky that your “Independence” vote was not also given to the English, because you would have been long gone by now.
   You are trying to be the “Tail wagging the Dog”.
   Why you think you should be able to dictate terms to 60+ million people I don’t know either, but push too hard and you will be totally alone and I don’t think you will actually like it.
5. TinyCO2 says:

   10 May 2015 at 12:50

   No, I think he needs to start a national discussion how different regions can start to flourish. That would start with education and include cheap energy, good transport and promoting business.
   Mike, I love that the SNP want to take life and London by the horns but hate that that drive is directed at ending austerity, throwing money at the NHS and windmills. Those are the perks of success not rights of the failed. I hear the same whining from the other UK regions as I do from Scotland. Most often the moaning is from city centres where the majority of public money is spent… That even includes London! Look at all the red constituencies.
   If Scotland was to go it alone, don’t you think one place will rise above the others? Don’t you think the outlying areas will moan that they’re not getting their share? And even in the best served city, there will be a hard core of people moaning that the rich are looking after their buddies and screwing the poor.
   Osbourne has started the ball rolling. He realises that London’s success can be repeated but nobody has yet worked out how.
6. anng says:

   12 May 2015 at 11:50

   “we decided that the present Union was not treating us fairly:”
   How does having more money per person and more political powers become ‘not fair’?
   The Scottish has powers which cannot be overridden by the UK Government in Westminster.
   However, the equivalent powers in England have been determined by Scottish MPs voting against the Government e.g. the English NHS. It actually happened.
   I’m not sure whether any Welsh MPs joined them. However, whatever mess they make of their own Health Service, we will still assist as necessary e.g. providing ambulances for Wales.
7. roger in florida says:

   15 May 2015 at 15:19

   I think it may be instructive to “lift the rock” or “draw the veil” if you prefer and take a look at what is really going on here. IMHO what we have is a battle of politicians; the welfare of the Scots, or of the English, is of only peripheral concern, this is a battle between Holyrood and Whitehall. Alex Salmond is “The man who would be king”, he will use any grievance he can find, and if he can find none he will create some, Sturgeon is a sideshow. Whitehall is a little baffled and irritated by the situation, in their minds Scotland is of little importance. However they have one huge vulnerability; the UK holds one of the five permanent seats on the UN Security Council, this is Whitehall’s route to world influence, it opens doors to all the world institutions, it assures the Whitehall political and bureaucratic elite of influence and relevance in world affairs. It is extremely valuable to all citizens of the UK. Now would England retain that seat were the UK to break up? If Whitehall were sure that the answer is yes, then Scotland would be dumped in a minute. However there are powerful voices in the UN who see this situation as unjust, they don’t like the British and they particularly don’t like the English, I am thinking of the Islamic group of 67 or so nations, India, Brazil and the whole south American group, and the EU. It is almost certain that there would be huge pressure to restructure the Security Council and very likely England would not retain the seat. If that happened as a result of this Scottish whining and grudge mongering Scotland will never be forgiven by Whitehall, forget about ever resurrecting the Union if independence turns out to be a disaster, as it will. Scots would be wise to ignore the xenophobic Glasgow losers and listen to such as The Duke of Buccleuch.
8. Scottish-Sceptic says:

   15 May 2015 at 16:31

   let’s use a very simple example of how the system favours those in the SE. A while back I was interested in writing a book. I needed to do some research with some old manuscripts. I discovered they were in the British library – and then I discovered that realistically the cost would be around £200 for travel, hotel, food, etc. It would also take around three days (two days travel, making a whole day available) I was probably going to need a couple of dozen visits – and given how speculative it was – I couldn’t afford to throw that much money at the project.
   When I lived in Watford (near London) the cost would only have been around £20. I could literally have popped into the train been there in an hour and back the same day.
   I then realised why so many people who did that kind of research lived in London. I also realised why so few people doing that research lived in Scotland. And then I realised that if the British Library were moved completely to Scotland – it would create many many direct and indirect jobs.
   Then I started counting up how many similar institutions I were in London and how many in Scotland – I’ve yet to find one “British” institution in Scotland and it took no time to count over 20 around London.
   The problem isn’t just the immediate jobs. Once one company sets up, it tends to create a cluster because an area then have the right kind of staff for other companies. So, even though the direct influence of all this public money can be relatively small, the effect of bringing in other companies will multiply the effect perhaps 10x or 100x (that’s higher than is normally quoted by an order of magnitude, but if you count both the clustering effect plus the important role in nurturing start companies, and the relative economic advantage – I think 100 jobs for each person directly interfacing with these government establishments is not unreasonable.)
   But then it gets worse – because once you have a clustering effect – you get community who start demanding that other government institutions MUST be in the same area. So, not only do you get the effect of one institution, but that then is used to justify refusing to let other parts of the UK get other government institutions.
   This is why even if we have the most incompetent government in the Western world, the simple fact that the government spending will suddenly switch to Edinburgh (not Scotland but yet again the capital will get the Lion’s share) – that means those within a couple of hours journey from the capital will inevitably see a boost to their economy.
   But the fact is that at the present rate of progress, and given the adverse reaction of the English establishment during and after the referendum vote, Scotland is on course for independence.
   And to be honest – how that affects England will be none of our concern. Scotland doesn’t
   But in the end it all boils down to one simple thing: if England wants to keep Scotland in the Union, they have to make the Union work for Scotland – they have to make being part of the UK better for us than being outside.
   Or as someone once said: “It’s the economy stupid”.
9. anng says:

   15 May 2015 at 19:17

   I’m reminded of my objections to hs2. If you’re going to spend huge ammounts of money on a new rail line you should use it to inter-connect the north and scotland to each other and great big new ports for modern container ships rather than connecting a few isolated midlands and scottish towns to an already overcrowded london. If you still insist it’ll cut down on plane use, go to Edinburgh as quickley as you can, go up the east coast, avoiding huge environmental damage to the middle of england, and helping london city airport not to be so conjested with commuters from Edinburgh. There are huge numbers of Scots working in London.
   Anyway, it’ll take so long to build that alternative coping mechanisms will have been found.
   And the British Library will have loads more stuff on micrfilm by then. Hopefully.
10. roger in florida says:

    15 May 2015 at 20:14

    Well we can certainly agree on one thing: Scotland is headed for independence. As for having the Union work for Scotland, you are going to find out how disunion works for you, and it is not going to be pleasant. How many “British” institutions will there be in an independent Scotland? Scotland has less than 10% of the UK population and only one population center of over 500,000 inhabitants. London is the driver of the whole UK economy, providing about 70% of British GDP and has been the most significant urban center since at least Roman times. You can talk of the natural genius of the Scottish people all you like but the simple fact is that Britain is a
    de-industrialized economy, that is, it is post technical, and not because of Thatcher. A classic example is shipbuilding; while Clydeside has been kept busy for a decade or so building a pair of worthless barges, Cunard had QM2 built in France, despite the desire of Cunard to have such a prestige vessel built in Britain.
    I sympathize with Scottish nationalism, and wish you all well. I hope you can avoid the tragedy wrought on my native England, but what is happening is a train wreck.
    Good luck and best regards.
11. Scottish-Sceptic says:

    16 May 2015 at 08:18

    Your attitude is typical of people in England who think they are doing a favour to Scots by taking all our money and spending it through London government on London institutions.
    What you are trying to argue is that we can’t be better with a smaller cake – but at the moment all we do is send our money to London and then London government spends it in the SE … then perhaps the SE economy spreads it around England … then eventually after the SE takes the cream, the rest of England takes the milk, we in Scotland are left with the dregs of the economy and are supposed to be thankful.
    So you are arguing that waiting for the economic benefit to slowly trickle out of London giving us the dross of the economy is somehow better than having our money spent in Scotland.
    The simple fact is that although a Scottish economy would be smaller, that government spending will be in Scotland and then it will be London getting the dregs of the Scottish economy not the other way around.
    … please don’t equate “spending” with welfare – the London allowence is welfare to the rich and boosts the SE. In contrast, most other welfare payments undermine the economy and do nothing to build economic growth.
12. anng says:

    16 May 2015 at 15:03

    You need to have a full look on how the figures work out & not just believe the rubbish you get told by SNP.
13. TinyCO2 says:

    17 May 2015 at 11:56

    Yes, I’m not sure who has had what.
    A lot of the money made in the UK goes to things shared equally between us whether we want them or not. Membership of the UN, the EU, aid money, loan repayments, benefits, the army, interpol, etc. I’m not sure how each region’s income over say the last 100 years would compare to the spending. I know that due to the high price of oil, the last few years of Scottish income would have been very high, but there were lean years too. As I asked at the Energy Matters site, the official figures are hard to divide up into oil tax at rig, at company head quarters, at the refinery and at the pump. Not all of those would be Scotland’s in the event of a split. How much does the Barnett formula compensate for that and if the SNP’s figures only go back say 5 years, are you sure that they are adding in the lean years? If parts of the UK say ‘the money made here is our money’, then you might get ever more fracturing from the whole. London may become a city state. The Orkneys and Shetland may join with the Scottish East coast and be rolling in money. And everone else would flounder. One of the reasons not to stay in Europe is its plans to form one country. Imagine how annoying it would be to have to travel to Belguim or Rome for your research and for your taxes to be paying the Romanians to stay at home on benefits rather than struggle over here? How angry would the French or the people of Sicily be to see London flourish on what they felt were their taxes?
    Yes, I’d like to see stuff move out of London but not to give each and every region the same share. I accept that Warrington is a cultural desert. I know that we don’t have enough people to justify a proper theatre or a serious museum so how do we make places relevant without artificially plonking some attraction there and hoping people will turn up? The answer may well be to digitise things and make sure the servers are not in London. It’s the ‘green’ solution. Bring things to the people not the other way round. Maybe it could be free to non Londoners, since they don’t have access to the originals? Or the more remote you are, the cheaper it gets? Maybe you would need to join the local library to access the stuff though a private network to prevent non resident people benefiting?
    Mabe we can’t all have a theatre but perhaps we could have quality recordings shown at our local cinema? Regional spending could be on writers. I know we have something similar with Youtube and TV but Youtube is too unscripted and TV is too glossy and just does not offer enough variety. The emphasis should be on getting people to go regularly rather than paying a lot for a one a off event. I don’t know maybe three recorded shows equals one live one?
    What about virtual galleries? Maybe with an emphasis on unknown artists? eg I went to the Affordable Art Fair and had more fun than most art museums I’ve been to. I’d rather see a briliant watercolour by Joe Bloggs than a Tracy Emin’s unmade bed, although some would want to see that too. I’ve been to exhibitions at the British Museum but in virtual reality I could pick up the objects and look at them from all angles. I could read all the suplimentary signs without being jostled by the next person. The temptation would be to put it all online but then people stay at home. They look at what they’re interested in and don’t have their minds opened by seeing things they would normally flick over. They don’t buy the book or the knick knacks or the sweets. By giving each town a media centre it would bring people in and give them a more realistic experience.
    The existing museums and theatres should become centres for developing new work, whether it’s collaborative research or sourcing and selling new artists. It would be a way to link people hundreds of miles apart.
    Just ideas. The secret to breaking London’s dominance is to think up a way to compete.
14. anng says:

    17 May 2015 at 12:16

    I’ve been looking at places like Institute of Economic Affairs which analyses the current situation e.g.
    http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/healthcare-in-scotland-careful-what-you-wish-for-%E2%80%98yes%E2%80%99-campaigners
    I can see the problems that need to be addressed (which are also required for North England) although I don’t think the current devolution ideas cover them. They need slow negotiated trial and error e.g. trials such as moving some of the Royal Armoury Museum to Leeds. I understand that it hasn’t been a great success. On the other hand, Manchester has some really good institutions – including an excellent Library. The Arts are getting hit rather badly by cuts because they can’t attract audiences even when they’re subsidised. I understand English National Opera (which is purely touring) has some novel ways of getting youngsters into seats. More of that is required.
15. anng says:

    18 May 2015 at 10:33

    More info on economics of Scottish Independence can be found at the Institute for Fiscal Studies e.g. http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn135.pdf
    which has this quote:-
    Spending in Scotland
     Public spending per head is about £1,200 a year higher in Scotland than in the UK as a whole (about £11,800 against £10,600 in 2010-11), and is higher across most areas of government activity. This is despite the fact that household disposable income per head in Scotland is very similar to the UK average;
16. TinyCO2 says:

    18 May 2015 at 12:25

    I think that concentrating on one city at a time is more effective, but at the same time there would be a cat fight between cities that thought they deserved it first.
17. Sienna says:

    28 May 2015 at 14:06

    Moving away from English is pretty obvious decision that says, even screams – Here we are, now, bring it on!

Comments are closed.