That’s a challenge, too, for those wanting separation. Lurking devils emerge from the detail of debts and assets, divided monarchy, European relations or the custody of those ever-so-sensitive, Trident-tipped submarines. A relationship three centuries old would take some divorcing. Can the marriage be reinvigorated or should it be brought to an end? Understanding how divorce would happen, developing that beginner’s guide to separation, should now inform the political and popular decision.
Presenter: Chris Bowlby
From last night’s BBC Radio 4 "Analysis" programme, "The Beginner's Guide to Separation"(hat-tip for the alert to Beano).
Bowlby was the Beeb’s man in Czechsolvakia at the time of the Velvet Divorce, which, despite the propaganda propagated by the UK’s separatist factions, did not go at all smoothly; Slovakia has spawned two extremely xenophobic and downright racist governments in the short-time since the split and Czech politics presently remains in a chaotic state.
Anyway....have a listen here, most interesting part for me was this again from Bowlby:
A senior SNP source has told Analysis that an independent Scotland might even decide not to apply for EU membership preferring instead to defend its isheries and mineral rights on its own, making individual deals with the EU, as does Norway.
Now, that would be a "most courageous policy" (to use Sir Humphrey's memorable phrase!).
Bowlby’s summary is right, the responsibility is now on those who want to rip the United Kingdom apart to inform us how exactly all those "lurking devils" would be dealt with.
Unionists, on the other hand, should be sitting back and welcoming this increasing debate on the Union- we have nothing whatsoever to fear from a closer examination of the economic, political and social consequences of the splitting up of our nation.
The programme will be repeated Sunday night
13 comments:
"That’s a challenge, too, for those wanting separation. Lurking devils emerge from the detail of debts and assets,"
Divided roughly in proportion, negotiations where things can't be moved etc.
"divided monarchy,"
Not really problematic and has been done in the past. Queen keeps her castles, unless there is a vote to become a Republic at some point in the future. Perhaps the Monarch will get a second coronation as Queen of Scots.
"European relations"
Up to the individual states as sovereign entities.
"or the custody of those ever-so-sensitive, Trident-tipped submarines."
Either Scotland takes it share and removes the nukes it doesn't like, or England compensates for them.
Look, no where near as difficult as thought.
"Divided roughly in proportion, negotiations where things can't be moved etc."
Including the UK's national debt?
Per Capita? Of course. If there are assets that can't easily be divided, then perhaps some of that debt can come off.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting anything other.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting anything other.
The SNP not really suggesting anything at the minute, that's the problem. The interest on the national debt, to a large extent, is financed by the City of London, through buying govt stocks etc. In event of separation why should it think about financing the Scottish state's debt? Maybe it would be a good risk, but the problem is that the Scottish (not to mention the Irish and Welsh nationalists) never give realistic, believable long term strategies about how they would cope economically in the event of the UK falling apart.
I actually agree with a lot of your first comment re the monarchy, trident etc- these ae the psycological factors which won't have that much impact on people's everyday life...but the economic question is the key and it's the one on which the separatists deliver the most unconvincing answers.
"The SNP not really suggesting anything at the minute, that's the problem."
I am almost certain you are wrong on that and share of National debt is covered in the White Paper they produced.
"The interest on the national debt, to a large extent, is financed by the City of London, through buying govt stocks etc. In event of separation why should it think about financing the Scottish state's debt?"
Govt stocks and the like have a rather wider remit than that. In any case, there is no particular reason to believe that Scotland would be likely to default on those bonds. If the City of London did not buy them, American or Chinese investors would.
"Maybe it would be a good risk, but the problem is that the Scottish (not to mention the Irish and Welsh nationalists) never give realistic, believable long term strategies about how they would cope economically in the event of the UK falling apart."
Actually, I think the SNP's White Paper is at least as believable as the alternatives offered by Unionist opposition.
Personally, I reckon it is likely Scottish independence would necessitate a reduction in the size of Government in the short term. Some of that will come easily - you're taking away a layer of government and bureaucracy after all, and some could probably be managed by pulling in investment and bond issues etc but there would also be some probably pain and that pain would most likely be in spending cuts. I don't believe it would be catastrophic, however.
But in the first instance not everyone will believe that a bad thing, and in the second in the medium to long run I have no doubt Scotland would perform better outside the Union.
In Irish terms, a similar story. The subvention here amounts to around £5 billion. The Republic is rich enough now that even that figure is painful but not catastrophic. There are three options for the future
1. The Republic economy grows faster than the North's. In this case the subvention becomes less significant.
2. The North grows faster than the Republic. In this case the size of the subvention will decrease.
3. Things stay roughly as they are.
Again, that £5 billion would need to come down. the good news is that it has to come down anyway; we have an economy with the public sector accounting for over 70%. It's unsustainable and it's going to change either way. I also believe Ireland would get more goodwill, investment and money than Scotland in the event of reunification, and that Belfast in particular (and probably Derry too) would have a lot to gain from a move to a more business friendly environment.
But again, likely to be some short term pain and I see no problem being up front about it. Ironically Unionism would probably be much happier with the out workings of it.
"I actually agree with a lot of your first comment re the monarchy, trident etc- these are the psycological factors which won't have that much impact on people's everyday life...but the economic question is the key and it's the one on which the separatists deliver the most unconvincing answers."
Really, because I find Unionists insistence that we always must be dependent, that we can't stand on our own two feet and how we/'d be fucked without England to be not only unconvincing but also undignified.
The issue cuts deeper though. Does a country reflect its citizens and their will? What kind of country do you want to be and can you achieve it with present arrangements?
I am almost certain you are wrong on that and share of National debt is covered in the White Paper they produced.
In the White paper from earlier this year they merely said "it’s up for debate", I covered their most recent pronouncements on the subject here: (http://unionistlite.blogspot.com/2007/11/financing-of-independence.html)
which amounted to basically "the priorities will have to be sorted out later". Despite Salmond’s silly statement at the party conference (ie post independence Scotland would be the third richest country in Europe), they’re pushing the economic argument onto the back seat at the minute...provoking the English to the extent where they’re responsible for breaking up the Union, not the Scots is their present medium/long term focus.
Actually, I think the SNP's White Paper is at least as believable as the alternatives offered by Unionist opposition.
What alternatives?
The Scottish unionists make their Ulster counterparts look competent and politically savvy- Salmond is running rings round them. One small example, why keep scurrying frightened from his Independence referendum? Call his bluff and bury Scottish independence for a generation...but that would require far too much thinking outside the box and that quality is in very short supply in the Unionist political establishment, I’m afraid.
But in the first instance not everyone will believe that a bad thing, and in the second in the medium to long run I have no doubt Scotland would perform better outside the Union.
The key questions (if the SNP are going to persuade a majority to vote for independence) are:
6 months, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years...after independence will I be economically better or worse off than today?
As as I said earlier, those questions are still "up for debate", but I’d guess that for the short-term after independence the average punter will not be better off...and as much as those of us who are politically committed would wish it to be different, the average punter only thinks short-term.
On the most basic level, would I sacrifice my job, pension for the Union (never mind a United Ireland) in return for the vague promise that 5 or 10 years down the line my country’s economic structure will be much stronger? Not a definite “yes” on that one.
The Republic is rich enough now that even that figure is painful but not catastrophic.
Including those in Northern Ireland, there are 2,072,000 taxpayers on the island of Ireland.
Irish taxpayers would therefore need to pay the euro equivalent of 2413.12 GBP per head annually to keep up that 5 billion support. I’ll make a guess and say that the rumblings of discontent at that figure would not be confined to the Unionist community nor north of the (no longer existant) border
“It's unsustainable and it's going to change either way”
It’s only unsustainable if Westminster or, in the case of a United Ireland, the Dail, refuses to keep paying that 5 billion. It’s certainly not healthy that we have a 70% public sector, but do you see much movement up at Stormont to reduce that figure, or many civil servants or quangoists volunteering to take redundancy to sort it out? The crude truth is that HMG is prepared to keep paying the bribe to ensure that we maintain some kind of social stability, if it goes, then there has to be some very carefully thought out alternatives to ensure that the whole shebang doesn’t go belly-up. Again, I don’t see much evidence of heavy thinking on that matter at Westminster...so, in summary, no, I don’t think it’s going to change soon.
But again, likely to be some short term pain and I see no problem being up front about it. Ironically Unionism would probably be much happier with the out workings of it.
I’d really welcome something similar to Salmond’s National Conversation here, put all the cards on the table, what does any of us to lose with an honest appraisal of the various options? But Irish Unionism’s mindset is constantly on defence mode and instead of putting the onus on SF, SDLP, Fianna Fail etc to prove how United Ireland would work they still waste their time “demanding” Royal Commissions etc.
“Really, because I find Unionists insistence that we always must be dependent, that we can't stand on our own two feet and how we/'d be fucked without England to be not only unconvincing but also undignified.”
We'd be donald-ducked without the SE of England...as would be Merseyside, the North-east, Cornwall, Cumbria etc etc.
Any decent family (or nation) pools its resources and makes sure that all its members get by…the South of Italy is dependent on the north, the east of Germany is dependent on the west, nothing unconvincing about that, nothing undignified.
The issue cuts deeper though. Does a country reflect its citizens and their will? What kind of country do you want to be and can you achieve it with present arrangements?
Good idea for a post...
"What alternatives?"
Sorry, I meant Unionist random figure scare mongering tactics.
"Call his bluff and bury Scottish independence for a generation...but that would require far too much thinking outside the box and that quality is in very short supply in the Unionist political establishment, I’m afraid."
There are a lot of potential outcomes of that could weaken the Union, and the figures were bouncing around all over the show until the "more devolved powers" option tended to be added. Fundamentally it's about a loss of control.
Actually, I'd quite like a referendum here. It's not going to happen within 7-10 years and I'd like to know the lie of the land.
"The key questions (if the SNP are going to persuade a majority to vote for independence) are:
6 months, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years...after independence will I be economically better or worse off than today?"
I think that is futile. 5 years from now? Pick a figure. Labour and Tories can pick another one. I think all you can do is be upfront about short term pain, show how you plan to deal with it it, and how you plan to use those new powers to do things taht you can't know that will make the country better.
As I said, it's only one component. There has to be the vision thing behind it.
"the average punter only thinks short-term."
I'm not so sure about that. I think that people can rationally make that long term decision provided that it is not catastrophic and
"On the most basic level, would I sacrifice my job, pension for the Union (never mind a United Ireland) in return for the vague promise that 5 or 10 years down the line my country’s economic structure will be much stronger? Not a definite “yes” on that one."
There is no reason your pension will be effected. No reason your job will be either, unless it is in parts of the public sector. You might have less to spend in the short term. The government may cut back on some services or sell some assets. The effect may not be hugely severe.
"Irish taxpayers would therefore need to pay the euro equivalent of 2413.12 GBP per head annually to keep up that 5 billion support. I’ll make a guess and say that the rumblings of discontent at that figure would not be confined to the Unionist community nor north of the (no longer existant) border"
The assumption that the entire subvention translates into tax is a non sequitir.
The Republic also is growing at about 5% per year (though, it may well slow very soon) ...or approximately £5 billion.
The Republic could swallow £5 billion in cuts to public services. I don't doubt for a second it would be painful, and there'd be infrastructure projects that simply would not get done, but it would not be catastrophic in the same way as it would have been 20 years ago.
But I don't believe it would be £5 billion even if it occurred next year. A lot of those cuts would be coming form us, and a lot of it needs done either way. I think we'd also pull some transition money from Britain and the EU, and probably drum up some feel good investment. So I'd reckon it would average at closer 2-3 initially.
"The crude truth is that HMG is prepared to keep paying the bribe to ensure that we maintain some kind of social stability, if it goes, then there has to be some very carefully thought out alternatives to ensure that the whole shebang doesn’t go belly-up."
There is some evidence, what with Robinson demanding creative financing projects. I don't believe Westminster will put up with it indefinitely, particularly the Tories. This is an issue for Scotland and we will be caught in the cross fire.
This deal with a little peace bonus, is the best we're ever going to get. We need people to wake up to it.
"We'd be donald-ducked without the SE of England...as would be Merseyside, the North-east, Cornwall, Cumbria etc etc.
Any decent family (or nation) pools its resources and makes sure that all its members get by…the South of Italy is dependent on the north, the east of Germany is dependent on the west, nothing unconvincing about that, nothing undignified."
You assume we cannot be as productive as the South of England. My country men to the South are evidence you are completely wrong. Second, "Northern Ireland" is supposedly a separate country in the way those other examples are not.
While we are dependent we cannot make change. I'd rather live on my own two feet: I don't live with my parents, for a start. The first Republic to claim sovereignty over is the sovereignty of the mind.
I think all you can do is be upfront about short term pain, show how you plan to deal with it it, and how you plan to use those new powers to do things taht you can't know that will make the country better.
OK, I think we agree at least on the need for a referendum (I'd say on the whole 4 partts of the UK) and some evidence of honesty in delivering a short-term plan about what may happen post-independence.
There is no reason your pension will be effected. No reason your job will be either, unless it is in parts of the public sector. You might have less to spend in the short term
I don't rely on the state for my pension and I'm also not working in the public sector, I was making the point that in Scotland (and NI) a hell of a lot of people do...there would be bound to be fears about both job security and pension provision, which in much of the public-sector is very generous. In the event of the referendum would the 70% public-sector turkeys vote for what could turn out to be their Xmas?
You assume we cannot be as productive as the South of England.
The SE of England (the City and now moving into the Home Counties) is one of the top 2 financial centres in the world, the money made there (and the taxes paid by those living in the SE) basically subsidises the rest of the UK. That kind of income cannot be produced per capita in NI, simply because this financial infra-structure is not going to move across the Irish Sea (or north of Carlisle)
My country men to the South are evidence you are completely wrong.
What caused the economic miracle in the ROI, was it really an incredible upturn in productivity of the ROI's workers? What's driving the economic growth now? Again, I don't think it's down to a very high productivity level on the part of the Irish workforce.
While we are dependent we cannot make change.
I don't deny change is needed in the NI economy, but i also think that a change which brought about economic upheaval (which would be inevitable)could push the political situation over the edge again. If change is to take place in as painless a way as possible, then serious financial support will be needed to deal with the more painful results. The UK's in a much better position to deliver that support than the ROI.
"I don't rely on the state for my pension and I'm also not working in the public sector, I was making the point that in Scotland (and NI) a hell of a lot of people do...there would be bound to be fears about both job security and pension provision, which in much of the public-sector is very generous. In the event of the referendum would the 70% public-sector turkeys vote for what could turn out to be their Xmas?"
A lot of this is going to happen anyway. Maybe the referendum won't occur until after it does.
But it isn't that x deficit = x lost jobs. The Nationalist parties simply need to show how they would cope with any deficit - which could be done through a combination of greater efficiency, natural wastage, some borrowing or bind issues, some job losses and some tax rises. There is a lot of scope.
"The SE of England (the City and now moving into the Home Counties) is one of the top 2 financial centres in the world, the money made there (and the taxes paid by those living in the SE) basically subsidises the rest of the UK. That kind of income cannot be produced per capita in NI, simply because this financial infra-structure is not going to move across the Irish Sea (or north of Carlisle)"
To say this is to completely miss the point. Both Dublin and Edinburgh have financial sectors that create a lot of jobs and generate wealth. No, they aren't ever going to match London, but Dublin in particular is pulling in resources and jobs it wouldn't have otherwise got.
Second, I don't believe it's good to be so dependent on one sector, or one area of the country.
"What caused the economic miracle in the ROI, was it really an incredible upturn in productivity of the ROI's workers? What's driving the economic growth now? Again, I don't think it's down to a very high productivity level on the part of the Irish workforce."
It's a factor:
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_1011022.shtml
Though I didn't mean it in the strict economic sense. I meant it as in "we can be as or more successful"
"If change is to take place in as painless a way as possible, then serious financial support will be needed to deal with the more painful results. The UK's in a much better position to deliver that support than the ROI."
No no no no no! I hate doing this, because I am most definitely a Social Democrat, but to quote Reagan "Government is the problem!". At 70+% of GDP dependent on the State sector we need to get off our government money addiction. This will not be solved by more government money.
The Nationalist parties simply need to show how they would cope with any deficit - which could be done through a combination of greater efficiency, natural wastage, some borrowing or bind issues, some job losses and some tax rises
I think "simply" is probably the wrong word there (otherwise they would have already done it), but other than that, I'd agree, no decisions should be made unless all the cards are on the table.
Can't believe you quoted Reagan and you seem to be advocating an almost Thatcheresque (not so> Short-Sharp Economic Shock in that last paragraph!!
The financial support, if it were utilised correctly, wouldn't be required in perpetuity, but as I remarked before I don't know if any of the main players are that motivated to change matters at the minute.
"Can't believe you quoted Reagan and you seem to be advocating an almost Thatcheresque (not so> Short-Sharp Economic Shock in that last paragraph!!"
I don't believe them medicine need be as foul tasting as either Thatcher's or Reagan's. And I'd support people if they gave a plan that said, this will take a little longer but it will be fairer and more compassionate to the people that are affected.
But we can't escape the fact it has to happen. I am a Social Democrat, not a Communist. I am comfortable with a large roles for the state - 45-50% GDP region, if need be, some areas like health Natioanlised (or effectively so) if need be.
But we are way, way past that. And honest Social Democrats should face up to that and its consequences. Because if we don't, the Right will and then there will be "short, sharp shocks".
"The financial support, if it were utilised correctly, wouldn't be required in perpetuity, but as I remarked before I don't know if any of the main players are that motivated to change matters at the minute."
This is a tempting lie. First up, the incentive's in all the devolved institutions are all wrong. No benefits accrue to the devolved institution from cutting spending or cutting taxes. that all flows to central government. So the incentive is spend, spend, spend.
Second, generations of civil servants have been telling us the problem is the private sector is small, not the public is too large. This has been repeatedly proven wrong. In order to allow the private sector some room for growth, the public sector needs to shrink.
We need investment in infrastructure, yes. So we need ongoing commitments to be cut down to allow us to do this while we still have the money. Because this is the best we're going to get. Tough years are ahead. The differential in public spending in various regions is becoming a hot issue in England. Peace buzz will be long gone. And there could well be a Tory government who wants to reign in spending, which will affect the devolved settlements directly in the next round. There could be a perfect storm, and we need to deal with it before we are absolutely forced to.
Helpfully, it's also need to get North and South economies in sync :)
I heard that program and thought it was very good. They pointed to the European Union as one of the problems associated with seperation. I don't see how that would be, considering there is the European Economic Area which provides the 4 freedoms of the EU and other member countries without the interference of any Brussels sort of government.
Kensei
Nothing I can disagree with that last post, other than possibly the methods required and (that last sentence!).
abdul-rahim
It's the SNP who have stressed their European credentials and also how much better (regarding fishing rights, agricultural support etc) they'd be as an independent nation in the EU.
That's why the "rogue" SNPer's opinion re not necessarily re-joining the EU was interesting
Post a Comment