Jim Murphy is new Scottish Labour leader.

[FiFi]

There seems little understanding of how devolution works on the Labour side, though.

(Furthermore, I'm still not persuaded the NHS is at all safe from privatisation).

Most Politicians are clueless!
Also, if you're worried about privatisation now, wait 'til the Yanks get their mits on more of our health services and TTIP means we can't prise them loose!

 

[danny la rouge]

Most Politicians are clueless!
Also, if you're worried about privatisation now, wait 'til the Yanks get their mits on more of our health services and TTIP means we can't prise them loose!

TTIP is one of the reasons I'm worried about the NHS.

 

[FiFi]

TTIP is one of the reasons I'm worried about the NHS.

I've worked in the NHS for over 25yrs and I've never been more worried about it's future.

 

[danny la rouge]

I've worked in the NHS for over 25yrs and I've never been more worried about it's future.

I'd have liked that post, but it seemed wrong. It's extremely depressing. I don't trust politicians of any party with the future of the NHS.

 

[William of Walworth]

TTIP is one of the reasons I'm worried about the NHS.

One of my old friends (now based in York as it happens) is heavily involved in online and other campaigns against this.

His pessimistic view is that NO political party anywhere in the UK will be able to resist is implications concerning either the NHS, or public services more generally.

I think he's right. Note my emphasis above on 'NO' though ...

 

[danny la rouge]

One of my old friends (now based in York as it happens) is heavily involved in online and other campaigns against this.

His pessimistic view is that NO political party anywhere in the UK will be able to resist is implications concerning either the NHS, or public services more generally.

I think he's right. Note my emphasis above on 'NO' though ...

I'd agree with your friend. But, tell us, Will, since you were moved to add emphasis to his "no", what do you think are the implications of that?

 

[William of Walworth]

That the SNP would have no greater power over the matter than Labour would.

 

[danny la rouge]

That the SNP would have no greater power over the matter than Labour would.

Is there any particular reason you thought I needed to hear that emphasis?

 

[William of Walworth]

Not you particularly tbf. Apols if that looked exclusively aimed at you.

But my (outsider) opinion is that the SNP are undercriticised on here by many.

Just because they're successsfully sticking the boot into Labour politically and polling-wise atm, doesn't mean they're any less establishment-colluding, or any more willing/able to resist things like TTIP**.

**(Nearly posted that as 'TITP' but my opposition to ultra-corporate festivals has already been covered on Urban elsewhere )

I doubt you'd disagree with the above too much.

 

[danny la rouge]

Not you particularly tbf. Apols if that looked exclusively aimed at you.

But my (outsider) opinion is that the SNP are undercriticised on here by many.

Cheers for the reply, Will.

I disagree that the SNP are under-criticised. They seem to me to be just as criticised as any other party. (Here is my view on whether socialists should vote SNP in May).

As I said above, I don't trust politicians of any party with the future of the NHS.

However, you may remember me supporting a Yes vote in the referendum. That wasn't because I thought a bunch of suits in Edinburgh were going to be better than a bunch of suits in London, but because I thought the break up of the UK would be an historic moment when the demands of the working class would be given urgency and clout by events. I still believe that to be true. I don't, however, think additional devolution powers will bring those circumstances about, so I'm not motivated to support extra devolution. (Indeed, I think the package on offer - the Smith Report - would be disadvantageous; perhaps disastrously so, and precisely in relation to the ability to cushion ourselves against austerity. There is no party opposing the Smith package, though, so it looks like we'll get it, good for us or not).

 

[JTG]

tbh, I think much of the fallout from the No vote - Murphy's latest bollocks, the so-called additional powers etc - will do nothing to halt the eventual break up of the UK but will make that break up far more bitter and resentful than it needs to be. It's a shame.

 

[danny la rouge]

Mind you, when Ruth Davidson (Scottish Tory leader) says the idea of Alex Salmond as deputy prime minister "scares the bejesus" out of her, it does tempt me to help bring that about, if only just for the devilment...

 

[William of Walworth]

Cheers for the reply, Will.

I disagree that the SNP are under-criticised. They seem to me to be just as criticised as any other party. (Here is my view on whether socialists should vote SNP in May).

As I said above, I don't trust politicians of any party with the future of the NHS.

However, you may remember me supporting a Yes vote in the referendum. That wasn't because I thought a bunch of suits in Edinburgh were going to be better than a bunch of suits in London, but because I thought the break up of the UK would be an historic moment when the demands of the working class would be given urgency and clout by events. I still believe that to be true. I don't, however, think additional devolution powers will bring those circumstances about, so I'm not motivated to support extra devolution. (Indeed, I think the package on offer - the Smith Report - would be disadvantageous; perhaps disastrously so, and precisely in relation to the ability to cushion ourselves against austerity. There is no party opposing the Smith package, though, so it looks like we'll get it, good for us or not).

Just on the Smith package, I guess the reason no party in Scotland is opposing it is because 55% voted No in the referendum and not Yes?

And that one of the reasons for lots of people sticking with No was that a version of devo-max was being advanced. Which is why (I wonder?) that a lot of people in Scottish (establishment) politics see the Smith stuff as the least worst option for now.

 

[danny la rouge]

Just on the Smith package, I guess the reason no party in Scotland is opposing it is because 55% voted No in the referendum and not Yes?

Why does that mean all the parties have to support it? It's not as if it's the only possible devolution package.

And that one of the reasons for lots of people sticking with No was that a version of devo-max was being advanced. Which is why (I wonder?) that a lot of people in Scottish (establishment) politics see the Smith stuff as the least worst option for now.

Well, devo max actually means something in particular, and the No parties themselves (as opposed to the media, including the BBC) were very careful not to use the words "devo max" prior to Sept 18th. Indeed, the No party representatives have been at pains to point out, since the referendum, that devo max was not offered.

Gordon Brown was somewhat different. He said he would stand as a guarantor for what he called "near federalism", something he also referred to as "as close to a federal state as you can be in a country where one nation is 85 per cent of the population". (Scotsman). The other parties let us believe he spoke for them all.

Of course, he could never be a guarantor, he was just a back bench opposition MP. And one who has since announced his resignation as an MP and that he'll "step away from front line politics". (Indy).

So, no guarantor at all.

Nor is Smith "near federalism". It's not even an improvement on the status quo; in fact, it's worse. Here it is, have a look: https://www.smith-commission.scot

My problem with it is not that it's "not enough", but that it would actually make things worse. How? Well, take the much vaunted tax raising powers: we're told "control over bands and rates of income tax" will be devolved. But personal allowances, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, dividend tax will not be. VAT was also a much heralded new power, but actually Holyrood would only get half of the VAT raised in Scotland, and it will be taken back from the block grant.

What Smith gives us is raised expectations that aren't met and, more importantly, worse than no tools to effectively combat Westminster austerity: Not only will the Barnett funding reduce (it's calculated as a percentage of English public spending), the greater share of Holyrood public spending will have to be supported by taxation powers that aren't up to the job. It is, in short, a fiscal trap: only 40% of the budget controlled by the Scottish Parliament will now be supported by a share of UK taxes (and remember that means taxes raised in Scotland collected by the treasury and paid back to Holyrood via the Barnett formula, not a "grant from England"), the rest will have to come from inadequate direct tax raising powers. This means that austerity is going to be far harsher in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK, because of the multiplier effect of the shortfall that'll result from the 60% supposed to be covered by the shoddy tax package.

Now, remember this. The Smith proposals were not on the ballot paper in September. A No vote was not a vote for Smith, since Smith was only published in late November, more than 2 months after the referendum. Are we to be given the chance to vote for or against Smith in a referendum? Nope. What about by voting in the GE for parties that oppose Smith? Nope, they're all signed up. Call that democracy? I don't.

Were we given the chance to choose between Smith and the status quo, I'd choose the status quo. But no such chance is being offered.

 

[William of Walworth]

Lots to digest there , but thanks.

Will get back to this tomorrow.

 

[weepiper]

Mind you, when Ruth Davidson (Scottish Tory leader) says the idea of Alex Salmond as deputy prime minister "scares the bejesus" out of her, it does tempt me to help bring that about, if only just for the devilment...

 

[DexterTCN]

 

[William of Walworth]

danny la rouge Thanks for clarifying some details of the Wilson proposals yesterday, particularly about the discrepancies between what GB promised near referendum day and what Wilson seems to entail in reality. Not sure for now whether or not I agree with you that some is better than none in this instance. (There could be indirect implications for Wales -- my manor! - as well, over time).
But I really do need more thinking time -- have family business to deal with from tomorrow and over the w/e.

Just for now though, a question : has there been any detailed polling in Scotland of reactions to Wilson and related details?

 

[danny la rouge]

danny la rouge Thanks for clarifying some details of the Wilson proposals yesterday, particularly about the discrepancies between what GB promised near referendum day and what Wilson seems to entail in reality. Not sure for now whether or not I agree with you that some is better than none in this instance. (There could be indirect implications for Wales -- my manor! - as well, over time).
But I really do need more thinking time -- have family business to deal with from tomorrow and over the w/e.

Just for now though, a question : has there been any detailed polling in Scotland of reactions to Wilson and related details?

Wilson is going back a while!

Just to be clear, in this instance I think none is better than some, not vice versa. (Specifically I oppose Smith and prefer the status quo).

As for polling, ICM found 63% in Nov 14 wanted full devolution of tax and welfare (Smith falls far short of this), but as far as I know nobody has thought to ask whether people prefer Smith or status quo.

 

[Dogsauce]

Bit of drift from the main topic perhaps, but I wonder if the tories will hang on to their sole Scottish constituency at the GE? They're not that far ahead of Labour, but with Labour haemorrhaging votes to the SNP that'll probably help them - or could some insane swing to SNP oust them? Is there anywhere else where a swing from Labour to SNP might let the vermin in?

 

[Sue]

Bit of drift from the main topic perhaps, but I wonder if the tories will hang on to their sole Scottish constituency at the GE? They're not that far ahead of Labour, but with Labour haemorrhaging votes to the SNP that'll probably help them - or could some insane swing to SNP oust them? Is there anywhere else where a swing from Labour to SNP might let the vermin in?

Think they'll hang onto it.

 

[JTG]

Bit of drift from the main topic perhaps, but I wonder if the tories will hang on to their sole Scottish constituency at the GE? They're not that far ahead of Labour, but with Labour haemorrhaging votes to the SNP that'll probably help them - or could some insane swing to SNP oust them? Is there anywhere else where a swing from Labour to SNP might let the vermin in?

East Renfrewshire used to be the safest Tory seat in Scotland until 1997. 2010 Labour majority was around 10,000 - one J Murphy elected

 

[danny la rouge]

Jim Murphy tells the BBC he's "never been a Unionist", and that we've never been at war with East Asia.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30810362

 

[William of Walworth]

Wilson is going back a while!

Just to be clear, in this instance I think none is better than some, not vice versa. (Specifically I oppose Smith and prefer the status quo).

As for polling, ICM found 63% in Nov 14 wanted full devolution of tax and welfare (Smith falls far short of this), but as far as I know nobody has thought to ask whether people prefer Smith or status quo.

danny la rouge : Been away from this for a while ... just wanted to say that last week I screwed up the wording in my previous post that you quoted. I grasped all along that you thought the status quo was preferable to/less bad than the Smith proposals. My next task is to try and get my head your specific reasons .... "more later" etc.

On polling though, I think some company/organisation in Scotland should do some specific surveys on the 'Smith or nothing' point ASAP.

 

[danny la rouge]

Aye, William of Walworth, it'd be interesting to see whether people are reading Smith and have spotted the drawbacks. I suspect they're just relying on the media etc, who say it's "more powers".

 

[newbie]

What Smith gives us is raised expectations that aren't met and, more importantly, worse than no tools to effectively combat Westminster austerity

are you sure separation from Westminster would insulate you from austerity? I mean, I don't know but the greater you disentangling your oil economy from the rest of us the more exposed you are.


On Sept 18 the Brent crude spot price was 96.8, it's now 46.9. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/xls/PET_PRI_SPT_S1_D.xls

Carney told MPs on the Treasury select committee that falling oil prices would deal a blow to the Scottish economy but that the decline would be offset by the boost to the wider British economy due to the falling petrol prices. “It is net positive for the UK economy,” he said. “It is a negative shock to the Scottish economy, which is substantially mitigated … by the nature of the economic union that exists.”

He was asked about an estimate suggesting the price slide could wipe £6bn off Scottish GDP, but he said the bank had not calculated the hit to Scotland.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/14/oil-price-slump-could-threaten-north-sea-oilfields


I don't know if Carney is playing politics or simply doing his job as an economist but you may have had a very fortunate escape that none of independence, devo max and Smith have happened.

 

[danny la rouge]

are you sure separation from Westminster would insulate you from austerity?

What?

You may remember that in September last year there was a vote on this. The majority voted No. There is therefore no immediate prospect of Scotland pursuing "separation from Westminster". Nor is the he passage of mine that you quote about "separation from Westminster", since that is not currently an option.

The post of mine that you quote is about the devolution proposals put forward by the Smith Commission. All of the parties who had representation in the Scottish Parliament were signed up to the Smith Commission procedure - Tories, Labour, SNP, Lib Dems Greens.

By contrast, I don't support the Smith proposals. My preference would be to retain the status quo, that is the current devolution set up and not go with the Smith proposals. (I have stated this several times in the thread, in as many different ways as I can).

The question you pose therefore has no relevance to the point I was making ("Smith puts us at a disadvantage in comparison to the status quo").

 

[newbie]

Suit yourself. You were in favour of separation not so long ago, and you're now arguing in favour of the status quo. That change of heart appears to be because the "tools to effectively combat Westminster austerity" are not on offer ie you'd take them if they were.

Just as you'd apparently prefer Holyrood to have taxation powers that are 'up to the job', with control over the things you detailed that Smith reserves for Westminster: personal allowances, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, dividend tax? Would you advocate taking those powers if they were on offer?


Or has the collapse of the oil price and with it much of the case for a specifically Scottish economy influenced your thinking at all?

 

[heinous seamus]

I'm currently sitting across the aisle from Jim Murphy on a train. How should one react to this situation!

 

[heinous seamus]

He did that weird thing with his crisps where you rip the packet right open and scoop them off the flat surface.