The Political Thread

[Old Tankie]

Thank you, Sir!

[Grugz]

...just don't put the price of whiskey up.

[ZenArcade]

As much as I respect and admire the Scots people the price of their 'whisky' isn't what would sell a no vote for me. A wee jeg of Jameson or Bushmills any day! Z

[Frank]

This is pretty much my own analysis, but 'it really doesn't matter' isn't much of a rallying cry:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettarends/2014/09/12/would-scottish-independence-destroy-britain/

Most of What You're Hearing About Scottish Independence Is Wrong


Scottish independence would change almost nothing. It would have little long-term effect on the economy, or on the Scottish budget. Currently, Scotland is a largely self-governing nation of five million people within the European Union. If Scotland votes for independence, within a couple of years it will be... er... a largely self-governing nation of five million people within the European Union.

The Queen of England and Scotland would remain the Queen of England and Scotland. There would be no "iron curtain" at the border.

Most of what is being written about this issue is nonsense. The predictions of doom and gloom are sheer rubbish. The Scottish economy would be bigger than that of New Zealand. A few big banks have warned that they would move their headquarters from Edinburgh to London. In the event, there's a good chance they might reconsider. But even if not, so what? The "banks" wouldn't leave, just their headquarters.

A study conducted on behalf of the House of Lords found that an independent Scotland would keep about 90% of Britain's North Sea oil. That is money that would be forfeited by the British government. On the other hand, the British government would no longer have to spend extra money on Scotland. Guess what? The two numbers have almost completely matched for years. There would be little net effect.

Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister and the leader of the campaign for Scottish independence, has created a needless row about the currency an independent Scotland would use. Indeed, if he loses next week's vote it may be because of his foolish decision to make this an issue. Salmond wants to keep the English, or British, pound. Politicians south of the border say he wouldn't be able to. It was a foolish boast. He would have been much better off saying Scotland would have its own pound, and that it would simply peg that pound to the English one. In due course there is no particular reason Scotland couldn't adopt the euro if it wanted.

The main effect of Scottish independence, in fact, would be on England. Scotland is overwhelmingly left-wing when it comes to voting for the British parliament. David Cameron's Conservative party has just one member from north of the border. Nearly all Scottish MPs are Labour or Scottish Nationalist, a party that on most issues is well to the left of Labour.

Remove Scotland from the equation, and British politics ceases to be such a two-horse race. The Conservatives hold a substantial edge in the rest of the country. The main effect of Scottish independence, therefore, would be to deal a devastating blow to the British Labour Party, and almost certainly secure the Conservatives in power in Westminster for a generation.

[JamesC]

As much as I respect and admire the Scots people the price of their 'whisky' isn't what would sell a no vote for me. A wee jeg of Jameson or Bushmills any day! Z

Spraking of whisky, I'm pretty sure that the majority of grain used in its production is grown in East Anglia so prices could change on both sides of the border!

[ZenArcade]

Interesting article sauchie. Shades of doom prevail! The arguments and observations are well thought and reasoned, but at heart they are argument and observation, we none of us are prescient. The Scots need to be brave and sieze this chance. Z

[Dog Deever]

The whisky industry has been complaining about high taxation on whisky for years- it is possible that the price would go down should whatever government we get decide to reduce the levy.
Most of the price of a bottle of whisky is tax.
Which goes to Westminster.
...

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Most of the price of a bottle of whisky is tax.
Which goes to Westminster.
...

Aye, but I've heard the closest economic analogue to an Independant Scotland would be Denmark.

It's about a tenner a pint in Copenhagen.

[Dog Deever]

Aye, but I've heard the closest economic analogue to an Independant Scotland would be Denmark.

It's about a tenner a pint in Copenhagen.

Who's gonnae order a pint of whisky? 

Hysterical speculation- at the moment I reckon things won't change too much and it will depend on the shape of any government that gets elected- that will be for the parties to thrash out over the next year to prepare for the election. Prices are dictated by the market not by a countries independent/ dependent status.

[Dog Deever]

double post- sue me.
After 'reading some stuff' on 'the internet' it appears that Scandanavia's expensive alcohol  is due to very heavy taxation. There appears to be a move to 'protect people's health' by forcing prices up- something which has been happening over here too.

[ZenArcade]

A pint of whiskey sounds pretty good. The market dictates prices of course, but with alcohol, cigarettes etc they are subject to 'sin' taxes. This is of course a major revenue stream for many governments. The problem I have with this is it screws me going to the pub for a pint or a whiskey in a social context but encourages drinking at home which I think isn't a good thing. Z

[JOE SOAP]

http://www.gregpalast.com/scotland-should-declare-its-independence-from-alex-salmond/

Scotland Should Declare Its Independence From Alex Salmond

By Greg Palast for Reader Supported News
Sunday, 14. September 2014

I mean, what's the bloody point? Why pretend to declare your independence only to chain yourself to a coin with a British snout on it and simultaneously beg to become a colony of Angela Merkel's Fifth Reich, aka the European Union?

I realize that, as an American and an economist, I carry into this debate a double dollop of disrespect from Scottish readers. But, with thousands of miles of salt water separating me equally from London and Edinburgh, I think I can see clearly what you miss from having your head inside the fish bowl.

There are two overwhelming and undeniable advantages for Scotland to declare its sovereign independence: to end both Scotland's damaging enchainment to the British pound and the debilitating tyranny of European Union membership.

Yet, weirdly, inexplicably and inexcusably, Alex Salmond promises to throw away the two most valuable benefits of national self-determination.

First, the pound. In all the hoo-hah over whether Scotland can keep the coin with the Queen's schnozzola on it, no one seems to have asked, Why in the world would Scotland want this foreign coinage?

The Bank of England's singular task at this moment is to figure out how to counteract the disastrous macroeconomic consequences of George Osborne's austerity fixations and the bleating demands of City bankers. The only time when the Bank of England gives any consideration to Scotland's economy is when a BOE governor checks the little gauge which tells them how much of Scotland's oil they have left to spend.

Why should the interest rates, exchange rates and monetary supply of a resource nation like Scotland be subject to the needs and whimsies of the rusting realm to your south? According to the well-accepted theory of Optimum Currency Areas, Scotland would be best off adopting the Canadian dollar, also a damp, salmon-choked oil exporter or, better yet, the Vietnamese dong.

No nation controls its economic destiny until it controls its currency--a concept easier to understand if you read it in Greek.

And Scotland's own coin, backed by taxing power over its oil extractors, would undoubtedly be stronger than sterling and more flexible alone. Control over its own currency will enable Scotland to cut interest rates when local manufacturing falters while the Bank of England is raising rates to fight a speculative bubble in The City.

To give you a head start, my daughter has designed your new currency (above).

Second, why this pathological need to remain subjugated by the European Union? Is there some extraordinarily wise legislation crafted by the solons of the European Parliament? Does Scotland need the guiding hand of Angela Merkel, Marie LePen and the Italian premier du jour? Does Scotland fear a sudden shortage of Bulgarian plumbers?

The USA trades with Europe without giving Lithuania veto power over trade terms. And as Swiss nationals will tell you, a lack of an EU passport will not cause you to be strip-searched on your way to the Costa del Sol. Disadvantages of EU membership: loss of control over terms of trade, and policies of industrial regulation, immigration and environmental control. And sorry, Mr. Salmond, you will indeed have to join the euro, at which point, Germany's finance minister will draft your budgets.

So that is my question to my friends north of Hadrian's wall. Why demand your independence from Britain only to insist on keeping your shackles? If you too find attachment to your chains nonsensical, then shouldn't your first referendum be a vote to declare Scottish independence from Alex Salmond?

[Dog Deever]

Alex Salmond is actually the only democratically elected leader with a majority in Britain. How that makes him some sort of 'dictator' is beyond me.

Also- as has been continuously repeated throughout the campaign- THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE SNP OR PARTY POLITICS.
The time for that will be on the first election. The Yes campaign is a broad spectrum popular movement, and it is not about independence from everything, it is about independence from the United Kingdom.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that?

[Frank]

The Yes campaign is a broad spectrum popular movement

It's generally accepted that the huge swing towards YES in recent weeks has been a result of disaffected Labour party voters. From one of the best pieces of journalism I've read during the campaign:

Polling evidence suggests most Labour voters will reject independence. But privately, Labour activists know that between one in two, and one in three, of their traditional voters have already decided to vote yes.

I asked one, an old friend I hadn't seen for at least 10 years, why he'd be voting yes. "I changed my mind quite a while ago. For me it's about the way Britain has gone - the extremes of wealth and poverty that people down south seem comfortable with, the dominance of the privately educated people in all walks of life, the rise of UKIP, the talk of leaving the EU and a Labour Party that I don't really recognise any more".

He is not alone. Social attitudes surveys reveal that Scottish public opinion, on any given question, is not very different to opinion elsewhere in the UK. The Scots do not seem to be more left-wing, issue-by-issue, than anyone else - at least not by very much.

Why, then, do the Scots vote so differently? Why is it that the central Edinburgh constituency that I live in returns a Labour MP dependably at every general election? When I moved here in the 1970s and 80s, it was a Tory seat and Edinburgh was mostly a Tory city.

What is happening in Scotland is a revolt against what is perceived to be the growing inequality of British society - the apparent retreat from the ideals of social mobility, from the social justice agenda that characterised post-war Britain from the 40s to the 80s. The need for independence is the desire that private endeavour and reward should be connected in some way to the greater public good.

There is clearly an appeal to some Labour voters that an independent Scotland could be a fairer, more just society; it is striking to me how often that is articulated by yes campaigners, much more than talk of the flag, or national identity.

One view is that the long-term direction of travel is clear and that independence will, one day, happen in a series of increments. Privately, Labour activists concede that that is something that they will need to address in the years ahead if they win.

There is another view that says 2014 is the high water mark of the independence aspiration that has been bubbling since the 1980s.

"It's your generation of Labour voters, Allan," one young Labour activist told me, implying that this disloyalty to Labour is largely confined to those with adult memories of the Thatcher years. "It's not my generation.

When next will the Nationalists' stars align so perfectly - an SNP majority at Holyrood, a Tory-led government at Westminster, the generation that came of age during the difficult and polarising Thatcher premiership still active and still angry?" he said.

"The pro-independence Labour vote," another activist said, "is middle-aged, scunnered, and male." This, he said, is its last chance.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8699/index.html

[Dudley]

This is pretty much my own analysis, but 'it really doesn't matter' isn't much of a rallying cry:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettarends/2014/09/12/would-scottish-independence-destroy-britain/

Most of What You're Hearing About Scottish Independence Is Wrong


Scottish independence would change almost nothing. It would have little long-term effect on the economy, or on the Scottish budget. Currently, Scotland is a largely self-governing nation of five million people within the European Union. If Scotland votes for independence, within a couple of years it will be... er... a largely self-governing nation of five million people within the European Union.

Anyone who thinks that Scotland will have an easy time entering the EU has been paying absolutely no attention to Spanish politics or to the hoops that new candidate countries have had to jump through.  Scotland's trajectory will be like New Zealand's in the 1980's once its preferential trading partnership with Britain was severed.  Yes, like New Zealand, it will probably eventually stabilise (albeit with lower median income levels), but the pain of reaching that outcome will drag on for more than a decade.