![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyI have a method I use to find out if someone genuinely believes what they're saying. If I'm talking to someone about politics or economics and they claim to believe something completely unlikely will happen - say, "I think Ed Milliband will be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" - then a good way to cut to the chase is to offer them a tenner on it. I find that the prospect of risking losing money tends to focus the mind. It's worth mentioning this because during the run up to the recent referendum on Scottish independence I spoke to a lot of nationalists who said they thought it'd be a yes but not one - not a single one - would take a cash bet. I thought that indicative in itself.
In the wake of the no vote the talk is of greater devolution for Scotland and the nationalists want it right now. However,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
annwfyn pointed out to me the other day what a lousy deal the Scots are being offered and after thinking about it and chatting it through I agreed, and a couple of people asked me to write up precisely why I think so.
To explain, it's useful to understand why the Yes campaign failed. The simple fact is that in any popular vote, where all else is equal the economic argument will always swing it. You can appeal to the heart as much as you like. You can appeal to the head. But if you don't appeal to the wallet, you will lose. This is why I've been saying for years it was going to be a no; as the Yes camp not only failed to make a serious economic argument but they even seemed not to realise why doing so was important for a long time, instead focusing on stuff like waving banners and carrying out stunts. Stunt campaigning failed to win the PR referendum, so heaven knows why they thought it would swing things this time.
I read the Scotland Future and Blue Book documents, and it was very clear that the Yes economic case of a more prosperous Scotland was perfectly achievable if three things happened:
1) A currency union backed by the bank of England,
2) Oil to remain over $100 a barrel forseeably, and
3) Their entire corporation tax base not upping sticks and decamping to London the morning after victory.
The only problem being that none of those things was going to happen. None. Of. Them. And all the No campaign had to do was point that out. A consistent criticism Yes levelled at No was that they didn't make a positive case for the Union, and they never seemed to twig that the No campaign didn't have to. All they had to do to win was make that whistling noise between their teeth like a plumber about to tell you that fixing your boiler will be expensive, tut a bit and mention pensions, and hey presto No was in the bag. I was surprised by the panicky reaction when a rogue poll result gave the impression it might go the other way, but hey.
The only way to prevent No capitalising on this was for Yes to be honest about the actual consequences of independence; a decade or (more likely) two of economic pain and a drop in standard of living whilst the aftershocks subsided, and to their credit the Yes campaign realised somewhat belatedly their economic argument was full of glaring great big holes and tried to tackle it in the last weeks of the campaign by changing direction and telling the truth. I saw people saying that it didn't matter if they'd have less money as it'd be Scottish people managing it, and that it doesn't matter what currency they would use. The problem with this line is simple: "This is going to make things worse for you for pretty much the rest of your life" has never won a popular vote, and never, ever will.
I mean, jeez, if you left-wing people ever want telling how to win an election, just send me a cheque because, frankly, you're clueless about how to do it yourselves.
Anyway, we can see from the above that in essence the Scots Nationalists picked a fight they couldn't win. I'm happy to admit they did better than I expected but the outcome was never really in doubt and, now they've lost the fight which they picked, they seem to think they're still in a position to make demands and that demand is devomax and they want it now. In short; they're standing there with a bloody nose and demanding an apple by way of apology.
The thing you have to remember is that the nationalists now have no leverage. They've shot their bolt, they're not going to get another vote forseeably if ever and yet the current Prime Minister appears oddly unfussed by the idea of giving them what they want. There's a reason for that. What they want isn't that great.
Despite what the Nationalists would have you believe, Scotland has always punched well above it's weight at Westminster. Despite comprising 8-10% of the population of the United Kingdom, Scottish Constituencies have supplied 23% of Prime Ministers over the last century or so. I don't know how many senior ministers as I can't be fagged to do the research, but I'm confident to assert absent evidence that I reckon the number is similarly disproprotionate.
With devolution came the Barnet Forumula and the West Lothian Question which most people in the rest of the Union either didn't know or care much about, or were happy to accept for the sake of a quiet life. What the referendum has done has highlighted the powers Scotland enjoys which the rest of the union doesn't, and the union now wondering why that is the case - suddenly English Nationalism is awoken in a way I've never seen and that's really bad news for Scotland. The deal which is on the table, in effect, is Scotland gets a whole stack of exciting and whizzy new powers but the commensurate is that Scottish MPs lose all right to vote on matters affecting England or the rest of the Union. No matter how much a staunch nationalist you are you should recoil from this in horror.
It is unthinkable under such an arrangement that any Scottish MP would be Prime Minister or senior cabinet figure ever again. Having no right to vote on matters concerning most of the Union would effectively disbar Scots from senior positions in the wider state. At the same time DevoMax is a false hope. Scotland's economy and population are less than a tenth of the whole. Like it or not, the sheer heft of the rest of the Union will pull Scotland along with it no matter what; she will have little choice but to follow in the wake of the ship of state like a lighter tethered to the back of a galleon. Yeah, you get to wiggle a bit on your course, but the course is set by other people.
To use a business analogy, Scotland is currently both a shareholder and a voting board director in UK PLC. Devomax would turn her into a wholly-owned subsidiary with no board level voting rights. Yeah, you get theoretical control over your affairs, but the lodestone of the rest of the union means you'll end up going along with everyone else on pretty much most things whilst going from a position of disproportionately large influence over that direction to one of very little.
Alex Salmond suggested the other day that if Westminster doesn't deliver DevoMax pronto Scotland would unleash the "Wrath of Khan". He's apparently a Trekkie, and so you'd think he'd have a better grasp of what happens in the film; from memory Khan picks a fight he can't win against Captain James T. Kirk of all people and succeeds only in losing everything he had. Whilst this is a fairly accurate analogy regarding what Salmond has done, I'm not sure this is actually the conclusion he's hoping people will draw.
As Khan admits in the film , strategy has nothing to do with his actions - it's for hates' sake he acts as he does, and that's a lousy reason to do anything.*
If I were Scotland I'd scrap the Scottish Parliament and the devolved powers and commit to Westminster for the simple reason that I've lost the game. Someone asked me the other day how doing so would make things better for them, and the answer to that question is that it's no longer about maximising your winnings, it's about minimising your losses. You had a good position and you lost it by overextending your hand. At such times, the sensible, game-playing move is to fold.
Of course that's not going to happen because a lot of Scots just don't seem to realise how much weaker they've made their position, so I've got another suggestion instead. Don't demand more devolution now. Take your time.
Right now, the fight is just over. The blood is up, emotions are high, and there is a substantial risk that Scotland will be bounced into an arrangement which is not just worse than the one she has now (that is inevitable anyway) but substantially worse than it has to be. Ed Milliband suggested some sort of "Citizens Convention" which would take a couple of years to decide what the new constitutional settlement for the Union would be. Of course this would push it back until after the next election and is nakedly self-serving for Labour but incredibly it's also the right move. Let heads cool and take your time coming up with something which will work and satisfy (as much as people can be satisfied) as many people as possible. Demanding sweets now to make up will not strengthen your position. The long game is your best move.
Depressingly, I've already seen some people suggesting that taking a deal now which would make Scotland's position worse is what they should do as when or if there's ever another referendum it would make it more likely to create a yes vote, and if that's the thinking that then there's really one answer: making other people's lives worse for decades in the hope that after you're dead they'll agree with you isn't patriotism. It isn't even nationalism. It's just being a jerk.
*Salmond lost any respect I might have had for him the moment he quit. He spent the entire indie campaign talking abut how he wanted members of the No campaign in his team to build a united Scotland after he'd won, and he lacked the basic grace to make the same offer he wanted of others after he lost. It's a real indication of the sort of fellow he actually is, sadly.
Oh, and that thing he said about Scotland declaring UDI? Forget it right now. Not going to happen.
In the wake of the no vote the talk is of greater devolution for Scotland and the nationalists want it right now. However,
annwfyn pointed out to me the other day what a lousy deal the Scots are being offered and after thinking about it and chatting it through I agreed, and a couple of people asked me to write up precisely why I think so. To explain, it's useful to understand why the Yes campaign failed. The simple fact is that in any popular vote, where all else is equal the economic argument will always swing it. You can appeal to the heart as much as you like. You can appeal to the head. But if you don't appeal to the wallet, you will lose. This is why I've been saying for years it was going to be a no; as the Yes camp not only failed to make a serious economic argument but they even seemed not to realise why doing so was important for a long time, instead focusing on stuff like waving banners and carrying out stunts. Stunt campaigning failed to win the PR referendum, so heaven knows why they thought it would swing things this time.
I read the Scotland Future and Blue Book documents, and it was very clear that the Yes economic case of a more prosperous Scotland was perfectly achievable if three things happened:
1) A currency union backed by the bank of England,
2) Oil to remain over $100 a barrel forseeably, and
3) Their entire corporation tax base not upping sticks and decamping to London the morning after victory.
The only problem being that none of those things was going to happen. None. Of. Them. And all the No campaign had to do was point that out. A consistent criticism Yes levelled at No was that they didn't make a positive case for the Union, and they never seemed to twig that the No campaign didn't have to. All they had to do to win was make that whistling noise between their teeth like a plumber about to tell you that fixing your boiler will be expensive, tut a bit and mention pensions, and hey presto No was in the bag. I was surprised by the panicky reaction when a rogue poll result gave the impression it might go the other way, but hey.
The only way to prevent No capitalising on this was for Yes to be honest about the actual consequences of independence; a decade or (more likely) two of economic pain and a drop in standard of living whilst the aftershocks subsided, and to their credit the Yes campaign realised somewhat belatedly their economic argument was full of glaring great big holes and tried to tackle it in the last weeks of the campaign by changing direction and telling the truth. I saw people saying that it didn't matter if they'd have less money as it'd be Scottish people managing it, and that it doesn't matter what currency they would use. The problem with this line is simple: "This is going to make things worse for you for pretty much the rest of your life" has never won a popular vote, and never, ever will.
I mean, jeez, if you left-wing people ever want telling how to win an election, just send me a cheque because, frankly, you're clueless about how to do it yourselves.
Anyway, we can see from the above that in essence the Scots Nationalists picked a fight they couldn't win. I'm happy to admit they did better than I expected but the outcome was never really in doubt and, now they've lost the fight which they picked, they seem to think they're still in a position to make demands and that demand is devomax and they want it now. In short; they're standing there with a bloody nose and demanding an apple by way of apology.
The thing you have to remember is that the nationalists now have no leverage. They've shot their bolt, they're not going to get another vote forseeably if ever and yet the current Prime Minister appears oddly unfussed by the idea of giving them what they want. There's a reason for that. What they want isn't that great.
Despite what the Nationalists would have you believe, Scotland has always punched well above it's weight at Westminster. Despite comprising 8-10% of the population of the United Kingdom, Scottish Constituencies have supplied 23% of Prime Ministers over the last century or so. I don't know how many senior ministers as I can't be fagged to do the research, but I'm confident to assert absent evidence that I reckon the number is similarly disproprotionate.
With devolution came the Barnet Forumula and the West Lothian Question which most people in the rest of the Union either didn't know or care much about, or were happy to accept for the sake of a quiet life. What the referendum has done has highlighted the powers Scotland enjoys which the rest of the union doesn't, and the union now wondering why that is the case - suddenly English Nationalism is awoken in a way I've never seen and that's really bad news for Scotland. The deal which is on the table, in effect, is Scotland gets a whole stack of exciting and whizzy new powers but the commensurate is that Scottish MPs lose all right to vote on matters affecting England or the rest of the Union. No matter how much a staunch nationalist you are you should recoil from this in horror.
It is unthinkable under such an arrangement that any Scottish MP would be Prime Minister or senior cabinet figure ever again. Having no right to vote on matters concerning most of the Union would effectively disbar Scots from senior positions in the wider state. At the same time DevoMax is a false hope. Scotland's economy and population are less than a tenth of the whole. Like it or not, the sheer heft of the rest of the Union will pull Scotland along with it no matter what; she will have little choice but to follow in the wake of the ship of state like a lighter tethered to the back of a galleon. Yeah, you get to wiggle a bit on your course, but the course is set by other people.
To use a business analogy, Scotland is currently both a shareholder and a voting board director in UK PLC. Devomax would turn her into a wholly-owned subsidiary with no board level voting rights. Yeah, you get theoretical control over your affairs, but the lodestone of the rest of the union means you'll end up going along with everyone else on pretty much most things whilst going from a position of disproportionately large influence over that direction to one of very little.
Alex Salmond suggested the other day that if Westminster doesn't deliver DevoMax pronto Scotland would unleash the "Wrath of Khan". He's apparently a Trekkie, and so you'd think he'd have a better grasp of what happens in the film; from memory Khan picks a fight he can't win against Captain James T. Kirk of all people and succeeds only in losing everything he had. Whilst this is a fairly accurate analogy regarding what Salmond has done, I'm not sure this is actually the conclusion he's hoping people will draw.
As Khan admits in the film , strategy has nothing to do with his actions - it's for hates' sake he acts as he does, and that's a lousy reason to do anything.*
If I were Scotland I'd scrap the Scottish Parliament and the devolved powers and commit to Westminster for the simple reason that I've lost the game. Someone asked me the other day how doing so would make things better for them, and the answer to that question is that it's no longer about maximising your winnings, it's about minimising your losses. You had a good position and you lost it by overextending your hand. At such times, the sensible, game-playing move is to fold.
Of course that's not going to happen because a lot of Scots just don't seem to realise how much weaker they've made their position, so I've got another suggestion instead. Don't demand more devolution now. Take your time.
Right now, the fight is just over. The blood is up, emotions are high, and there is a substantial risk that Scotland will be bounced into an arrangement which is not just worse than the one she has now (that is inevitable anyway) but substantially worse than it has to be. Ed Milliband suggested some sort of "Citizens Convention" which would take a couple of years to decide what the new constitutional settlement for the Union would be. Of course this would push it back until after the next election and is nakedly self-serving for Labour but incredibly it's also the right move. Let heads cool and take your time coming up with something which will work and satisfy (as much as people can be satisfied) as many people as possible. Demanding sweets now to make up will not strengthen your position. The long game is your best move.
Depressingly, I've already seen some people suggesting that taking a deal now which would make Scotland's position worse is what they should do as when or if there's ever another referendum it would make it more likely to create a yes vote, and if that's the thinking that then there's really one answer: making other people's lives worse for decades in the hope that after you're dead they'll agree with you isn't patriotism. It isn't even nationalism. It's just being a jerk.
*Salmond lost any respect I might have had for him the moment he quit. He spent the entire indie campaign talking abut how he wanted members of the No campaign in his team to build a united Scotland after he'd won, and he lacked the basic grace to make the same offer he wanted of others after he lost. It's a real indication of the sort of fellow he actually is, sadly.
Oh, and that thing he said about Scotland declaring UDI? Forget it right now. Not going to happen.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-09-25 10:36 am (UTC)Salmand "But we'll keep the pound"
England "Er, no, no you won't"
Salmand "But but but, we can do it. It's best for Scotland!"
England "Well yes, you can but we're not going to agree to it. So no, you won't."
Salmand "WHAAAAAAH You're all BULLIES and NASTY" * toys out of pram *
Rest of onlookers "Why did you think England would agree to Scotland keeping the pound anyway?"
no subject
Date: 2014-09-25 10:42 am (UTC)I do think Salmond's plan was
Devomax + Barnett Formula + Westminster votes = Win for Scotland!
Which it would have been. But it's not going to be what he gets.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-25 10:58 am (UTC)1) A currency union backed by the bank of England
Relied on the Bank of England not wanting to protect their own interests above those of Scotland. How they thought this was going to happen I have no idea.
2) Oil to remain over $100 a barrel forseeably
Totally reliant on something out of their hands
3) Their entire corporation tax base not upping sticks and decamping to London the morning after victory
Their entire corporation tax base (or at least a hefty chunk of it) seemed to be saying consistently "We're going to move if the Yes vote wins because it's not in our interest to stay." That's from reading the insurance press admittedly, but still.
I think the nail in that coffin was when the supermarkets pointed out that prices would rise. Despite protests of "it's more expensive in London anyway" I am yet to see a pint of milk being a different price in any version of Tesco, irrespective of the size of the shop or its placement. Where you see price differences is between small independents; small chains and the national chains - not within the same chain.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-25 11:14 am (UTC)I wasn't expecting the rise in English Nationalism we've seen in the wake of the Scottish referendum, and that has actually made the UK leaving more likely, not less. It's ironic that Scotland staying in the EU was one of the major reasons given to hold the referendum, but by picking this fight the Nationalists have made getting what they want less likely, not more.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-26 10:46 am (UTC)Robin (Forgot his password, got IP blocked for an hour, doh)
no subject
Date: 2014-09-26 10:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-26 10:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-25 11:14 am (UTC)a) The big chain stores don’t have higher prices for London. Neither do the utilities companies. Milk, bread, clothes, electricity and gas are the exact same price in London as they are in the rest of the UK.
b) What’s more expensive in London is housing and maybe transport if you’re using the tube. And housing is a hideous nightmare of epic proportions which I wouldn’t wish on anyone (basically, no one can afford to buy a house anymore unless they work in the city and family homes in Peckham – Peckham! – are currently topping £1million) and is slowly beginning to strangle the city. And from the number of panicked articles in the Guardian about this, I think people are noticing.
c) London tries to compensate for the increased cost of living by offering higher wages which even Alex Salmond wasn’t promising in an independent Scotland.
d) Also, petrol is actually currently cheaper in London than massive great chunks of the country. Except Swindon. It’s always cheaper in Swindon. I’ve no idea why.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-25 11:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-25 12:13 pm (UTC)