Signs of coalition
And there's more. Signs tonight of a variable response from the SNP's rivals to the White Paper.
Labour want nothing to do with it, the Tories think nothing can be done with the SNP until they sideline independence.
But the Liberal Democrats take a different line. They remain leery of Mr Salmond and his SNP. But they argue that it is significant that the SNP are now canvassing constitutional options short of independence.
They say further that this takes the SNP onto LibDem territory - strengthening devolution within the UK.
They say all parties can talk around this objective.
Being a student of subtle politics, I instantly wondered whether this divergent response signalled a willingness for the Lib Dems to talk to the SNP about coalition at Holyrood.
This, I was told, was an issue for the SNP, as the incumbent Executive. Which certainly isn't a Yes. But it isn't exactly a blunt No either.
Longer term - probably much longer term - is it just conceivable that an SNP/LibDem pact could be created, perhaps once the issue of an independence referendum is tabled at Holyrood? And duly defeated?
Just thought you'd like to know.
I'm 
Comments
Hmmmmmm. FEDERALISM,me thinks this is heading towards a referendum on Europe,aint it great how they swing it around
Salmond wants a vote on independance! But can he prove that the existing Treaty of Union 1707 is legally valid? I'm not aware of it ever having been ratified by the Scots people, which by law it must be ratified by them to be legal.
Rather, Salmond and Holyrood must allow the Scots people to vote on the Treaty of Union, in order to sort out this unfinished business from 300 years ago.
If the Liberals are examining the possibilities of coalition, whether it be on specified grounds or a general ‘take every theme/subject/legislation as it comes policy’ this may be symptomatic of the withdrawal symptoms associated with their removal from power.
From power to obscurity was the path taken by the Liberals when their actions taken in collaboration with Jack McConnell and Labour proved too much to bear by the Scottish people; a spell in the wilderness seems to have produced another marvellous conversion on the road to the debating chamber.
It would seem the rag-bag coalition that have tried to stall the people of Scotland from expressing their views, that same group of MSPs who could not reach a consensus for Scotland before the election may be breaking up already; has Nicol Stephen been offered a sweetener?
Brian
The SNP would be mad to join a coalition with the LIB Dems.
I have no doubt that this move by whats his name, Nicol something is their last desperate throw of the dice due to a 8% rating in the latest opinion polls.
I know it is only one poll but the next one is likely to be even lower. A vote for them would be like tearing up your ballot paper.
Just a thought, all the parties that are refusing us Scots on a vote on Independence, will be crawling up our drives looking for our vote in the next general and Scottish elections.
Everyone who was disenfranchised by this, irrespective of how they would have voted, should chase them as they are an affront to democracy.
Im quite happy to see the SNP have a referendum on independence for no other reason than to see the issue dead and buried untill at least the next election.
But as for the idea of strengthening devolution by handing the collection of 3rd rate nonentities in Hollyrood further powers (presumably with increased paychecks to reflect their increased responsibilities)?
Never
This glorified regional council has more than enough to be getting on with already. Let the real parliament in London deal with the rest.
There may not be a coalition but a working agreement like the SNP and the Greens have.
This seems to have come about by the re-appearance of Nicol Stephen on the scene. He has been invisible for a while, but is this a crack in the Unionist Front? Think I'll wait and see what develops, but perhaps, just perhaps,someone prepared to explain their position!
I would love to see a mature national discussion on the matter, all the lies need to be exposed and the truth be known. It's a shame that the other parties in Hollyrood are not even willing to discuss the issue, this is with the exception of the Lib Dems who for once recognise that a change is required.
The case for an Independent Scotland has never been stronger, to coin a phrase "it is time". I would say to my fellow Scots dont believe the lies find out the truth for yourself, Scotland would do well as an independent state.
The people who are so determined to kill this issue because they have a vested interest, below is a recent article on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ new website outlines how important Scotlands oil is to the UK economy;
The parties who are so opposed to even discussing a vote on the issue are UK parties, their bosses are based in Westminster and they are their muppet masters.
A coalition would a nice idea.
Unfortunately ,I think the Lib-Dem leadership have already shot themselves in the foot with refusing from the outset to discuss options with the SNP. For this reason I can only see them routed the next time Scotland goes to the polls.
As for the general tone of the "unionists" to the white paper, I think the Scots have no time for these negative ninnies. Therefore at the moment, if there was an election tomorrow, the SNP would probably be returned with an increased mandate.
Whether this would be good for Scotland is another matter. It is nice to see if minority governments can work , to make more common sense and fair legislation .........
"They say further that this takes the SNP onto LibDem territory - strengthening devolution within the UK."
Didn't the SNP discuss or at least hint at the multi option referendum option and discussions with the LibDems on integrating their Fiscal Autonomy policy when trying to form a coalition with the LibDems immediately after the election? Are the LibDems only now coming round to the idea of a possible coalition because they hope to take advantage of public opinion which is currently in favour of the SNP and how they are running the country?
"But [the Lib Dems] argue that it is significant that the SNP are now canvassing constitutional options short of independence."
I wonder why the Lib Dems are pretending this is news? Such an attitude on the part of the SNP was trumpeted from the rooftops during the coalition non-negotiations when the Lib Dems were playing all hard to get. They must be hard of hearing.
I can understand an argument for a federal UK. Easy - it works for Australia, USA, Germany, RSA etc. and I can go on. I can also argue for small states; look at the lovely split between the Czechs and Slovaks. But to drag this into a referendum on the EU is absurd; I feel the paranoia...
I, for one, think it would be folly to abandon the advantages of minority government, especially if the price is bondage to a party of easy virtue.
Slainte
ed
If the other three main parties have got together to stop the SNP honoring their main election pledge, the public are intelligent enough to understand what is happening. It is not as if they are reneging on it,but, the combined powers of the main opposition parties are denying it.
It might be a longer road, but, if the SNP could get more powers for our devolved parliament?, that could only be a good thing, and at least a small step forward.
As for the Lib-Dems?. Is there `ANYTHING` they wont do in-order to get some power?. The SNP would be well advised to keep themselves well protected if they get into bed with the Lib-Dems, because they don't seem to be very fussy who they cosy-up-to.
Very interesting, could recent opinion polls be a factor here?
And what of The rival opposition parties attempt to stifle giving the people of Scotland a choice?
Undemocratic at best and downright despotism at worst.
If they had a better solution to increasing Scotlands capacity as a competent and competitive neighbour in europe they should have built those plans into thier manifesto for the electorate in May - which none of them did!
The question of Scottish independence always has been and will remain a matter for the heart not the head.
But I can't help be concerned at the lack of information or discussion on the practical issues, for example.
What is the capital and annual running cost for establishing 200+ embassies around the world? Not to mention the impact on Edinburgh house prices of 200+ embassies here.
What will be the cost of setting up and running a Scottish based Passport office, will we all be required to apply for new passports at £100 each, or can we choose to remain British passport holders with Scottish residence rights?
Similarly for vehicle registration and number plates, what is the cost for a Scottish DVLC.
What are the proposals for dealing with the income tax and national insurance affairs of the 1000s of people living in Scotland and working in England by the new Scottish based tax office.
In the future imagine the complications around the thousands of people who will have paid some tax and national insurance to both administrations when the pension and benefits systems diverge.
The question of Scottish independence always has been and will remain a matter for the heart not the head.
But I can't help be concerned at the lack of information or discussion on the practical issues, for example.
What is the capital and annual running cost for establishing 200+ embassies around the world? Not to mention the impact on Edinburgh house prices of 200+ embassies here.
What will be the cost of setting up and running a Scottish based Passport office, will we all be required to apply for new passports at £100 each, or can we choose to remain British passport holders with Scottish residence rights?
Similarly for vehicle registration and number plates, what is the cost for a Scottish DVLC.
What are the proposals for dealing with the income tax and national insurance affairs of the 1000s of people living in Scotland and working in England by the new Scottish based tax office.
In the future imagine the complications around the thousands of people who will have paid some tax and national insurance to both administrations when the pension and benefits systems diverge.
What's all this coalition talk about? A SNP-LibDem coalition would still be in a minority without the Greens.
And while the SNP has been working hard trying to be nice to the Greens, the LibDems behaviour towards the Greens has continued to be disgraceful.
So until this changes, I can't see the Greens voting in favour of a set of LibDem ministers. And since I doubt the Tories and Labour would abstain again, there is no majority.
If the SNP or any party are going into bed with the Lib-dems I'd strongly recommend the practice of safe sex:)
Sorry Nicol you blew it 1st time around when you refused to listen and got the mood of the scottish people all wrong.
We are enjoying the enthusiastic and ambitious politics of the SNP, some of us are beginning to truly believe in ourselves. Others feel that the SNP has (so far, lets not get complacent)delivered what they said they would and rewarded the peoples faith in them and gained our respect.
What frightens me more is the scottish media printing misinformation and biased opinions.
WE HAVE JUST HAD THE lABOUR PARTY (SUPPOSED TO BE SOCIALIST) SIGN A POLITICAL STATEMENT WITH THE TORIES (REMEMBER THATCHER)WHO WANT TO REDUCE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS THAT THE LABOUR PARTY FOUGHT FOR, TO INCREASE BIG BUSINESS PROFITS.
TO REFUSE THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE A VOICE IN THE FUTURE OF THEIR COUNTRY.
AND NO-ONE MADE ANYTHING OF IT IN THE BRITISH AND MORE FRIGHTENINGLY THE SCOTTISH PRESS.
Hugh:
Most small countries share embassies with other small countries or pick-and-choose which countries they will stage embassies in. There is no reason why Scotland couldn't share embassies with Montenegro, Luxembourg, Estonia, or any other small country. As to embassies being formed in Edinburgh; Edinburgh already hosts many consulates, so there shouldn't be too much trouble for those countries. The remaining number could follow a similar practice to that outlined above.
Scotland already runs a passport service (and no, Scottish passports wouldn't cost £100; and yes you could stick with your UK one if you so wished), DVLA, Job Centres, etc., etc. The difference would be instead of your local tax collector giving money to a British pot, it would go into a Scottish one. Instead of services north of the border reporting to Whitehall, they would report to Holyrood.
The infrastructure is already in place. All that needs to change is the removal of the top (UK level) layer.
Brian
Just read an interesting article in The Guardian. In it Des Browne (he who rose without a trace) said both Gordon (Brown) and I discussed the opposition put forward to the Independence white paper and are in agreement with it.
So there you have it, the North British branch of the English Labour party went cap in hand to London yet again to get there orders. Did they not learn from the election (Im here to save the union) that this turned off vast numbers of voters.
One question re balanced reporting, why was no one from the North British branch asked why they had to go to Gordon Brown to get there response approved.
Looks like it is still like the alleged response from Tony Blair to Jack Mc Connell, when I want your opinion I will tell you what it is.
Hugh has raised a valid point which is the need for objective information in any debate on this.
For example, Bob Blair has trotted out the usual comments on 'Scots Oil' yet the news item he refers to clearly refers to UK oil and Gas (a very substantial part of the oil fields and most of the gas fields lie in 'English' waters) and he makes no reference to the oil running out in about 5 years [compare this with the proposed referendum date].
Not sure on some of Hugh's queries though. Scots living in the rump Uk would pay UK tax; non-Scots living in Scotland would pay Scots tax. Similarly as the 'British ' passport is a UK one Scots would need a new Scottish passport & given the general resentment Scots seem to have toward the UK/England these days I'd be amazed if they wanted to retain their current passports.
The no. of embassies really revolves around how an independent Scotland manages overseas relations and which countries deem it necessary to be represented in Scotland.
The Scottish Media and Scottish Politicians are absolutely obsessed with
Scotland's constitutional status.
In my daily life encountering all the people I have in the last year on NO
occasion has anybody discussed with me Scotland's constitution. Nobody I speak
to are remotely interested with this media and political obsession. All people
want to do is get on with their work and play. In any event did we not have a
national conversation last May or have I missed something.
Stop boring the Scottish public and please change the subject.
If these comments represent the general of debate there is some seriously wide variability of quality in it.
The SNP are riding off the back of one election 'victory' at the end of the first cycle of devolved scottish government and have already fallen into choppy waters following their trumpeted miniscule policy successes despite being able to turn the whole machinery of the holyrood civil service to their purposes - what more do they have to deliver?
The LibDems, by all accounts, are plodding along with the same agenda which, though it continually fails to grab the imagination of the headline writers, shows a consistently well thought-out approach which probably will be adopted when all other sides work out how to deny them any credit for it in order to steal their votes.
Such was their desperation for power that it was refused when apparently within their grasp! Cue head-scratching by impatient self-interested careerists.
This seems to show the remarkably timeless detachment of a functionary as well as a lack of statesmanlike charisma by Nicol Stephen for which he and the LibDems are being rightly bullied, but it also demonstrates a remarkable cynicism of the people of Scotland to expect voters to be lead like sheep into the pockets of their bullying lairds.
I predict the people will throw up some unlikely results to confound the expectations of many commentators the next time they have an opportunity to go to the ballot box!
It's interesting to see how the Lib Dems have faded into political obscurity over the last few years. I've hardly heard a thing form them since the election.
It would probably be a good idea for them to enter a loose coalition with the SNP (like the greens) to raise their profile a little.
From an SNP point of view it would remove any fear of being kicked out of government.
From a Scottish political viewpoint it would bring some stability to the parliament and allow much more to be done over the next 4 years.
Just answer me one question. We all agree that the tories imposing the poll tax on Scotland with 25% of the vote was outrageous. What mandate have the SNP got to introduce an independence referendum on 33% of the vote?
I expect the usual abuse from SNP supporters as they are uncapable of answering a simple question without resorting to it but it would be nice to hear an answer.
#17, and most others like him:
The SNP have quite clearly spelt out their stance on each of the issues you've enquired about. These were published in their manifesto for the previous election, and also in a small publication called "Talking Independence" authored by Alasdair Allan, now MSP for the Western Isles.
Both dispel the myths that independence will cost Scotland money.
The reason that the SNP is advocating a national conversation is to get these issues into the open, instead of blindly and ignorantly arguing about unionist propaganda.
I have to agree with Hugh(18). At the risk of sounding selfish, I think the only conversation worth having is the economic one. The argument for independence has to touch the head as well as the heart. I have not seen much data yet that convinces me Scotland would be economically better off outside the UK union.
In addition, there is the unspoken question of whether The EU would allow an independent Scotland into the European Union. If it did Scotland would have to adhere to and adopt the Maastricht Conventions (currency, convergence and all the rest of it).
Yes, let's debate and have our conversation but with all the cards on the table - the pluses and the minuses - properly budgeted and costed (snowball's chance!). This may be a starting point for the unionist parties who so far have woefully let down those of us who want to remain within the United Kingdom.
Bryce
the tax problem is not about collection, the question that must be addressed is - would the tax take in an independent Scotland support the infrastructure already in place?
Would Scots be prepared for the considerable tax hike necessary to fill the hole left by removal of the generous grant currently provided under the Barnett formula?
To stuart ritchie
I would like to say the last time i checked the snp won 36.4 percent of the vote in the elections so i am not sure where he got 33 from. Perhaps his education has suffered under succesive labour governments and he does not know how to work out a percentage or perhaps he is just quoting labour rhetoric and hasnt actually made sure that labours facts and figures agree. Perhaps he should check out other labour facts and figures like the ones jack (leaving on a jet plane) Mconnell trots out about how we cant afford an independent scotland. Perhaps all the other labour voters should do this as well maybe they will find like stuart ritchie that the figures like stuarts maths skills are way off course.
Peter Mason:
There's more to the Scottish economy than just oil and gas, and I dare say with more powers (control over economy, energy policy, foreign relations) the economy would become even more diverse. A quick read of the white paper will tell you about how Scotland is well placed for renewable energy. Scotland ould put one set of under-sea trubines between Caithness and Orkney, and produce twice the electricity needs for Scotland. Surplus electricity could be sold down south or to Europe. With a flat tax and low tax, Scotland could have one of the worlds fastest growing economies, similar to the three Baltic states. Not one of them is rich in resources (not even manpower) and yet they are growing at a staggering rate.
I don't like to talk about oil when talking about independence because the same response is always given "the oil will run out". This is true. The oil in our existing fields shudl run out by 2030. However, new fields are being discovered, some closer to shore and some further from the current fields. Even if the oil were to run out in 2030, with no new fields, this does not concern me in the slightest. The UAE has a thriving economy and has become rich through shrewd investment in a very short time. The UAE only has very limited oil rserves, and yet they are visibly reaping the benefits of re-investment of mineral wealth.
With a properly managed economic plan, a country can be successful without having any resources, and with having limited and finite resources.
Stuart Ritchie:
The difference between the poll tax and a referendum is that the poll tax was an unfair tax charging people not based on ability to pay, but based on usage. It is not seen as outrageous because the Tories only have 25%, but because it was an incredibly unfair system of taxation. A referendum on the other hand, is a sytem whereby the public is asked their opinion on an important matter. If you find public consultation something outrageous, then perhaps a democracy is not the sort of country you should be living in...
Memo to Alex re Lib Dems wishing a coalition:
CHASE THEM!
John - Livingston:
That's a good question. The Barnett Formula is known to the public as the formula by which public spending is allocated to the different countries of the UK. This, however, is not exactly what the Barnett Formula is. in actual fact, the formula decides the *base* level of spending on *some* (but not *all*) public spending categories. In this calculation, Scotland get approx £1,500 more per capita than England.
The rest of the public spending (top-up spending, if you will) is allocated using a formula which aims to overcome the inequalities of the Barnett formula. For every £100 spent on an English head, a Scottish head gets £81. This is called the Barnett Squeeze. The aim there is to make public spending in each nation converge to the same total levels. Whether or not this happens varies with the amount of extra money made available each year. Whether or not the total collected tax in Scotland equates to the total spending is a matter for someone with more time to spend in the treasury than I have. But let's take a look at the possibilities.
Option 1 is that revenue match or exceeds public spending. No problem there.
Option 2 is that revenue falls short of public spending. Ah, now that's a problem!
As you pointed out, one solution to raising revenues is to increase taxes. However, history has taught us (even as recently as this decade), that increasing taxes doesn't always increase revenue; and sometimes decreasing taxes results in an increase in revenue. You can find out more about this by looking up Laffer Curve online. The basic idea, though, is that there is an optimum level of tax which generates the greatest revenue. Set the taxes too high, and people will avoid paying them. Set them too low, and you don't get enough. We found out during the Tory years of government that the top band of incoke tax was set too high, and is still too high to generate maximum revenue. A lower tax at the top level, a flat tax, or a more progressive tax (more bands) would generate an increase in tax revenue without requiring an increase in taxes.
Shortfall could also be consumed using government enterprise; the licencing of monopolies; and discriminatory taxes (taxes on luxury or non-essential products which not everyone will buy).
Ultimately, the best thing an independent Scotland can do is look at similar countries to ourselves and copy what they're doing.
I am a Labour activist, but have been really impressed with SNP and leadership.
I think rather than chase the Lib Dems, SNP shpould actively chase dissaffected Labour. The Labour party is becoming polarised around the "Scottish Question". Many seee the only way forward is independence!
Lib Dems can not be trusted, have a weak leadership and core voters who will shift.
Doug Mc
Stuart (27,
"We all agree that the tories imposing the poll tax on Scotland with 25% of the vote was outrageous. What mandate have the SNP got to introduce an independence referendum on 33% of the vote?"
There's a difference between imposition and referendum, a rather big difference.
Bryce in 32 said it rather well. If you can't see the difference, maybe you don't understand democracy.
And thanks Bryce for your (34), also showing a clear understanding of the real world.
Malc (28), AYE to that! All should read the documents.
Doug (35), Welcome aboard! I hope your assessment is right.
Personally, I've always thought that what's needed is an SNP majority, independence achieved, and the inevitable breakup of the SNP following the main bond which holds them together.
This would return us to a truly rainbow parliament with no chance of single- or even two-party domination, and the return of significant numbers of true socialists, greens, independents, tories and all. A healthy diversity is, like in Nature, the best condition for stability.
Slainte
ed
(and, in an independent Scotland, I would finally have a vote ;-) )
To all those who seem to think that it would be horrifically expensive to have emabassies,vehicle registration, passport offices, etc may I just draw your attention to the Republic of Ireland with a similar sized population ( and no North Sea oil ) who do all this and with a lower basic rate of taxation ! Also, pension and health benefits are maintained reciprocally between EU member states. How do they do this ? Well, they havent spent £6 billion of tax-payers money on a war in Iraq for a start......
Wake up, people of Scotland ! Find out the facts for yourself, dont listen to the old party political rhetoric !