When will indyref2 happen?

[GNU_Linux]

Critising neo-liberalism while stanning for current year Labour is some take.

[git-intae-thum]

Just now, Jedi said:

By handing the Tory-lite SNP the keys to the kingdom? to enact their said austerity aiming, low tax, big business agenda?

You could say the same for Labour since Neil Kinnocks time tbh........anyway that SNP you describe ain't likely to be around for very long post independence.

[Guest Jedi]

18 minutes ago, GNU_Linux said:

Critising neo-liberalism while stanning for current year Labour is some take.

They are all neo-liberal now, just slightly different versions of it....Labour being a 'softer example', with some more left leaning policies, the SNP-centre right, and the Tories now, for them, further to the right.

A lot of folk prefer the Centre-right SNP when presented with these choices as they are regarded as a 'means to an end/the only option to deliver Independence, and then we can make our own choices..'..I get it. 

Others would prefer to see Labour replace the Tories at Westminster, as despite also being 'ne0-liberal' to the extent that they are hardly 'tearing down the system', at least implement some measures of redistribution.

Still others of course, will always be Tories no matter how far to the right they move on the economy as they have of late, or their dreams of sending more people to Rwanda etc.

So, yes, all are working under a neo-liberal system, just different shades of one.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Jedi

[Guest Jedi]

2 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

You could say the same for Labour since Neil Kinnocks time tbh........anyway that SNP you describe ain't likely to be around for very long post independence.

Don't disagree about Labour since Kinnock's time (aside from the Corbyn years), as having moved much more to the centre. 

I really hope you are right about the present day SNP and that they would be replaced by something better, post-Independence, as self-determination for Scotland which is able to harness views from a much wider spectrum and also work to benefit the community as a whole, is exactly what we need.

I would love to see an Independent (proper) 'Labour' party, the Greens having influence, maybe a left wing grouping which splits off from the SNP corporatists post-Independence. Lots of work to do there yet though.

[renton]

21 hours ago, Jedi said:

I think that the UK will oust the Tories the next time around, and then make different policy choices.

Have now read 'Building a New Scotland' policy paper. Admittedly a lot of good ideas in there- focus on a 'greener economy' with the proposed £20 billion of investment from an oil fund to provide funding for hydrogen, solar, wind and wave power, insulating homes, and creating green jobs in the process while lowering energy bills and aiming for net zero.....all good. (and all left wing) Admittedly the same as Labour's 'Green New Deal' but all good.

I like the immigration proposals, to tailor this to suit Scotland's needs, makes sense, and yes, is (rightly) more open than the UK model.

Setting a decent minimum (and living) wage-good

Legislate to end hire and fire, end zero hours contracts, have workers represented on company boards, guarantee sick pay for all, Fair Pay Commission......all good (and also all Labour policy as well).

Then we have the retention of sterling, the admission of the B of E continuing to set interest rates etc...(and yes, the eventual move to a Scottish currency 'or' the Euro). An awful lot of talk about stringent fiscal rules on borrowing and public investment, (and keeping these low as a starting point), as well as many mentions of encouraging innovators and...there it is again 'entrepreneurs'. Then we come to 'Scotland must be a dynamic hub for foreign direct investment'

Like I say, it a decent starting point for discussion, (and in fairness it provides a lot of answers on borders, currency, finance, and more....not sure its for the 'casual' reader though), with further papers to come....it is certainly better than the Growth Commission (although largely retaining its fiscal model), and yes, there is a lot of good there on a Green Economy, workers rights, and immigration.

Does it make a fair case for Independence (as the SNP see it)?....absolutely....and is it in the territory Labour are proposing for the UK? (Brexit aside)...pretty much.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Jedi said:

By handing the Tory-lite SNP the keys to the kingdom? to enact their said austerity aiming, low tax, big business agenda?

Make your bloody mind up.

[Guest Jedi]

11 minutes ago, renton said:

 

Make your bloody mind up.

I did, by pointing to the areas of the paper which I thought were 'good', and then continuing to have concerns in its later sections about the stringent fiscal rules, (code for austerity), low public investment, and the low tax regime to attract all these entrepreneurs.

It is centre-right economically (and no different to a George Osbourne budget strategy), while by aiming to grow a green economy it is more 'left' in tone, though presumably a lot of the funding for the green economy would come from private investors.

[Boo Khaki]

2 hours ago, sophia said:

You may recall Donald Dewar acting in the national interest and ensuring we have a best practice voting system.

He did this against his party interest

Hmm... 

I'd agree that technically this is correct enough. Certainly after the first few SG elections a FPTP would have seen Labour dominate the make-up of Holyrood, however I'd contend that at the time of it's conception Dewar and Labour were so certain of their continued dominance of Scots politics that they saw De Hondt as a means of ensuring that no matter the prevailing wind, even in times where their popularity had wavered somewhat, they would still be in governance in Scotland due to the absolute need for coalitions that comes with the De Hondt system.

So yes, on the face of it it was magnanimous, but in reality I think it was far more cynical, calculated, sleekit, and self-serving.

[renton]

8 minutes ago, Jedi said:

I did, by pointing to the areas of the paper which I thought were 'good', and then continuing to have concerns in its later sections about the stringent fiscal rules, (code for austerity), low public investment, and the low tax regime to attract all these entrepreneurs.

It is centre-right economically (and no different to a George Osbourne budget strategy), while by aiming to grow a green economy it is more 'left' in tone, though presumably a lot of the funding for the green economy would come from private investors.

You say "economically" but any number of the measures in that paper speak to a left leaning outlook. Is it centre right in terms of monetary policy? Definitely. Are Labour Centre right on the same issues? Absolutely.

Its really hard to look at the Scottish Government, which owns an airport and a shipyard in addition to nationalised health services, railways and water utilities as well as everything Labour are proposing about early life opportunities, from nursery hours to school meals, the SNP has already done. Yet somehow sneer at them for low public investment. 

You think if Starmer were PM now he wouldn't be looking at departmental cuts? His priorities might differ from whoever comes in as PM for the Tories but he'd be pursuing the exact same monetarist policies as the markets demand.

 

[Guest Jedi]

@renton All fair points. Yes, with the Tories insane borrowing practices of late, (some of them to try and fund tax cuts for the wealthiest)and the debt to GDP ratio for the UK now at  over 100%, (and in fairness quite a bit of it also caused by Covid). Labour would certainly not come in with a blank cheque. They would in contrast to the Tories borrow to invest, but I don't disagree that 'tough' choices on some spending areas would result as well.

Its not so much the public spending cuts which go through under Holyrood now (and yes, there have been investments in health, education, social security, transport etc), but rather the monetary policies which are proposed for an iScotland which are centre-right, and focused on cutting public spending. They are right to aim for the green economy, but with oil currently bringing in £1 billion a year the £20 billion oil fund would clearly require a lot of borrowing as well, with cuts to services to pay for it. The SNP also talk about keeping the market happy (as they would need to do so to 'eventually' float a Scottish currency.

 

Edited October 21, 2022 by Jedi

[sophia]

30 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Hmm... 

I'd agree that technically this is correct enough. Certainly after the first few SG elections a FPTP would have seen Labour dominate the make-up of Holyrood, however I'd contend that at the time of it's conception Dewar and Labour were so certain of their continued dominance of Scots politics that they saw De Hondt as a means of ensuring that no matter the prevailing wind, even in times where their popularity had wavered somewhat, they would still be in governance in Scotland due to the absolute need for coalitions that comes with the De Hondt system.

So yes, on the face of it it was magnanimous, but in reality I think it was far more cynical, calculated, sleekit, and self-serving.

I'll give you that that Dewar tried but failed to forecast future but I refuse, totally refuse to accept a Labour, a Labour politician, being cynical, calculated, sleekit, and self-serving.

[Guest Jedi]

1 minute ago, sophia said:

I'll give you that that Dewar tried but failed to forecast future but I refuse, totally refuse to accept a Labour, a Labour politician, being cynical, calculated, sleekit, and self-serving.

Very good 

[renton]

2 minutes ago, Jedi said:

@renton All fair points. Yes, with the Tories insane borrowing practices of late, (some of them to try and fund tax cuts for the wealthiest)and the debt to GDP ratio for the UK now at  over 100%, (and in fairness quite a bit of it also caused by Covid). Labour would certainly not come in with a blank cheque. They would in contrast to the Tories borrow to invest, but I don't disagree that 'tough' choices on some spending areas would result as well.

Its not so much the public spending cuts which go through under Holyrood now (and yes, there have been investments in health, education, social security, transport etc), but rather the monetary policies which are proposed for an iScotland which are centre-right, and focused on cutting public spending. They are right to aim for the green economy, but with oil currently bring in £1 billion a year the £20 billion oil fund would clearly require a lot of borrowing as well, with cuts to services to pay for it. The SNP also talk about keeping the market happy (as they would need to do so to 'eventually' float a Scottish currency.

 

Of course they need to keep the bloody markets happy. If Truss proved anything, it's that you can't just waltz off to your ideological happy place and expect everyone to follow (Robin McAlpine would be as piss poor a politician as Truss proved to be)

If we assume, as a practical issue that Scotland, as an independent nation is not likely to diverge hugely from the UK in a time frame of at least a couple of years then Sterling works, so long as there is a solid plan for moving to a Scottish currency. How quickly that could be achieved depends on part on how debt negotiations with the rUK go. 

The issue with any paper is that is at best out of date by the time it becomes a live issue if not utterly redundant. ScotGov wants to keep Sterling for some window long enough to stabilise a Scot currency. Ideally that would be done within a framework where Scotland was part of the UK but transitioning to Indy. Yet they can't commit to that until negotiations happen.

It's like hanging onto a branch with one gloved hand while taking the glove off and not losing grip. 

[Guest Jedi]

@renton All good points again. Clearly you would want sterling to be the currency of use for as short a time as possible, in order to remove B of E control of interest rates for instance. At the same time building up sufficient reserves of both sterling and foreign currency for a Scottish Central Bank, and being able to make it a lender of last resort for the Scot govt (rather than Scottish commercial banks) Borrowing would indeed need to be low for a fair period so as not to spook the markets on the introduction of a Scottish currency, which does involve these 'tough' financial choices, and makes the Green Energy proposal likely to take some time to establish. 

[GTee]

Jedi. Percentage wise how many countries on the planet are self governing? How many countries on the planet have their own currency? It's absurd that Scotland, a modern democratic Western country, with an embarrassment of natural resources and educated/skilled population can't be self governing. Whether it should be, who knows. But you kind of come across as a Too wee, Too poor, Too stupid voter. Probably why noone can be arsed with your point of view.

Wrote this last night when boozy. No offense. Vote for independence, then we'll vote Labour

 

 

[Clown Job]

It’s funny seeing them claim Boris Johnson has a public mandate to return while also saying Nicola Sturgeon does not

The UK is absolutely rotten to its core 

[Aufc]

It’s funny seeing them claim Boris Johnson has a public mandate to return while also saying Nicola Sturgeon does not
The UK is absolutely rotten to its core 

Surely boris coming back is the best thing that can happen as it will surely finally finish the tories

[Guest Jedi]

10 hours ago, GTee said:

Jedi. Percentage wise how many countries on the planet are self governing? How many countries on the planet have their own currency? It's absurd that Scotland, a modern democratic Western country, with an embarrassment of natural resources and educated/skilled population can't be self governing. Whether it should be, who knows. But you kind of come across as a Too wee, Too poor, Too stupid voter. Probably why noone can be arsed with your point of view.

Wrote this last night when boozy. No offense. Vote for independence, then we'll vote Labour

 

 

No worries..(and glad to hear you voting Labour post-Independence ). .Even David Cameron said that Scotland 'could' be Independent. I neither deny that it could, and indeed want to see it happen. Indeed I also said that I thought there were a lot of decent ideas in the current paper, with some financial caveats. At the same time I am keen for the Yes campaign to be open to a variety of view of what Scotland could be, just as it was in 2014. As others have said, many times, Independence is not, and should not be 'the SNP'. Unfortunately with a small cadre around the leader of that party at the moment calling all the shots, other voices are being closed out. There is still time, prior to a Ref or indeed a GE to energise the campaign again, but as long as it is 'only' the SNP's (leadership that is) vision, which is presented to the public, I fear that the energy we saw in 2014 could be dampened down a bit.

Agree that Boris coming back could finish the Tories for a long time, as an electoral force....which is course a good thing for everybody.

[Kenneth840]

18 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

This assumes the SNP will remain intact post independence. Given it is effectively a collective of political and economic views that is united by one major issue, I find it unlikely it will last any significant period after the resolution of that issue.

I would also suggest many SNP voters vote for them just now as they are the only realistic current means to achieve independence. Once that is achieved who knows where their vote would go.

Presumably though much of an SNP legacy vote would go to a social democrat party, therefore making progressive socially democratic government in Scotland in a distinct possibility. 

It is the tragedy of labour in Scotland that their leadership has placed a higher priority on pursuing a policy of tory-lite UK nationalism.

 

I read somewhere that the party that wins Independence goes on to rule for a number of years after.  

 

[Kenneth840]

22 hours ago, DublinMagyar said:

On 20/10/2022 at 23:49, Jedi said:

I'm not saying its 'okay' for either....what I wouldn't want to see is an Independent Scotland simply making the same fiscal choices as Westminster (under the Tories) does.
In 2014 there was so much energy in the Yes campaign because it contained a variety of voices as to what the country could look like.
I don't disagree that Independence isn't just about the SNP (and it shouldn't be),..or indeed that you can 'vote for whoever you like in an iScotland),.... but over the past few years it has moved much more in their direction, and I don't hear many competing narratives now from more working class orientated groups. 
For Yes to win, I still reckon that it needs to become much broader and engage with these movements again. So many people were energized not just by Independence, but by politics in 2014, which was brilliant. That was as a result of feeling like they could hear from different views of what Independence could mean, and taking part in community groups up and down the country.
If the SNP set out the kind of prospectus, which they have adopted under the current leadership (not the 2014 version), I fear that, if there is a Ref next year, that it could result in a narrow No win, and that I think quite honestly would be both a great shame and a massive opportunity missed to really start to shape Scotland as a nation which can make different, and better choices than Westminster. As long as the fiscal outlooks of either London or Edinburgh aren't that different, you are only swapping 'dependence' on one hand, to see the same sort of policies as before implemented.

And WTF are Scottish Labour offering to bring to the table in an independent Scotland?

Scottish Labour are offering nothing.  That is the problem.

In contrast the SNP are trying their best to prevent an Independent Scotland. 

[Kenneth840]

On reflection, on reading the SNP economic disaster for Scotland, It is making me lean towards voting no.

I do not want an Independent Scotland that is using the SNP plan for a future Scotland. 

How did it come to this, making a 100% pro Independence supporter question its views.  Is this deliberate? I think so. 

If they keep this, I will vote no.