Political Opinions

[andrewducker]

The Euro
Currently against it, for purely economic reasons. In fact, looking at the data from the last 4 years we almost could have been in the Euro as we've largely fluctuated within 3 cents of €1.47. However, the reason we've stayed so static is because we've kept inflation low, and so have they - but using very different interest rates. If we joined the euro then we'd lose control over our interest rates and thus while our exchange rate would then be fixed it would cause more problems with the economy because inflation would no longer be controllable on a local level. This has already been causing problems for various countries in the Euro area, with their economies being out of synch and no way of adjusting interest rates to match them. While there's an immediate gain to be made from not having to worry about currency conversion costs, the long term difficulties it would cause look likely to be outweighed by this. If our interest rate and the ECB interest rate were to be sufficiently similar for a prolonged period of time then I could see a case being made, but not when our interest rates are 2% over theirs.

Scottish Independence
On the other hand, I don't consider this to be an economic question. Either people in Scotland feel like they're part of the UK or they don't. While I consider it likely that Scotland would be, in some ways, worse off outside the UK, I also think that the effect on happiness of being ruled in a way that feels like imposition rather than collaboration is extremely negative. It's possible that Scotland becoming independent would remove the barrier to thinking that has some Scots blaming lots of their problems on England, meaning that they'd have to either sort themselves out or admit that their problems are their own. In any case, at the last election around third of people voted for an pro-independence party, and opinion polls tend to show support around that level. Polls show interesting, but varying results. When asked purely about Independence the results are much stronger than when asked "Independence, more power, or as things currently stand" the majority want more power, but not full-blown independence. I certainly see the current situation as untenable - we're going to need an English parliament at some point, or the removal of Scottish MPs from voting over purely English matters.

Comments

[nuttyxander.livejournal.com]

The backdrop to independence is really complicated and I think dragging the concept of "blaming problems on England" misses the point completely. What's important is the political climate and general outlook of the Scottish nation is markedly different from that represented by averaging them into the UK. Now at present, it suits large swathes of the left to have this counterbalance on UK politics, it really helps them. And in a way the Scots tolerated this deal up to recently because they felt that their aspirations and those of the UK were not so far appart.

However, thanks to the Olympics, war, trident, PFI, and other reserved matters going in directions essentially opposite to those that would have been sensible things have reached a serious level of tension. Now, to resolve it yes, more powers would be good. But it seems that everyone currently wants to shout down the SNP and refuse to move forward. There's a clear majority sat waiting in the Scottish Parliament to demand more powers.

But, sadly, it's not up to them, and I can see getting a new Scotland Act through parliament before the end of this Labour term as being a big problem. Politicians from all sides simply have to get together now to defend and improve the settlement in the union before it falls apart because independence is a much easier option than negotiating with Westminster again the way things are going. In large part that comes down to the intransigence of the treasury and other bits of Whitehall who simply don't get devolution at all.

An English Parliament meanwhile would be a total disaster, there is a need for proper local democracy in England, but it can't be brought in by creating something of that size. A proper federal system would be far better, but then all parts would need to have similar levels of devolution. Again, independence for Scotland if the current situation causes such issues is clearly much simpler. There just aren't enough politicians engaged with the issues to move on from the orthodoxy that came from the commissions set up to look up into devolution from the 70s. There's a vague chance that Brown might finally sort this out if he moves quickly, but the evidence from Lords reform is that the forces of con1servatism are so strong on our institutions that they behave like a death grip on democracy.

As it stands, great as devolution is, there just are no such things as purely English matters except in incredibly local cases (say, a railway bill like Crossrail). In all other matters Sewell motions block any concept of reduced voting privilege MPs. It's a lazy option almost as poorly thought out as the English Parliament concept.

But yeah, the current situation is not sustainable at all.

[andrewducker]

I think dragging the concept of "blaming problems on England" misses the point completely.
I didn't drag it in, I included it as a chunk of people _do_ blame Scottish problems on "English rule", and will factor that into their decision.

But it seems that everyone currently wants to shout down the SNP and refuse to move forward.
There is no one "forward". Different people want to move in different directions, and to put the SNP direction as "forward" and everyone else as "backward" or "stationary" is simple partisanship.

There's a clear majority sat waiting in the Scottish Parliament to demand more powers.
Which simple majority is that? Are the Lib-Dems in favour of more powers? Because unless they're onside there's no clear majority of anything.


As it stands, great as devolution is, there just are no such things as purely English matters except in incredibly local cases (say, a railway bill like Crossrail). In all other matters Sewell motions block any concept of reduced voting privilege MPs.
If no Sewel Motion has been passed on a particular topic, and the subject is one that has been devolved, then it doesn't affect Scotland. In which case surely the Scots shouldn't be voting on it?

[nuttyxander.livejournal.com]

I didn't drag it in, I included it as a chunk of people _do_ blame Scottish problems on "English rule", and will factor that into their decision.

Fair enough.

There is no one "forward". Different people want to move in different directions

Yes there is, a clear majority of parties want more powers in the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps terming it forward is loading the change as being progress, but that's possibly my personal perception overcoming my terminology.

Which simple majority is that? Are the Lib-Dems in favour of more powers? Because unless they're onside there's no clear majority of anything.

I'll admit I incorrectly recalled Labour motioning towards further powers, they've clearly stepped back from that now that I re-read their manifesto. However, the lib dem manifesto (p86-87) bangs on about a second constitutional convention under the heading "more powers for the Scottish parliament". One could be forgiven for believing they might be sensible enough to go with the SNP on that one. So, yes - unless the lib dems really want to wait four years to get their manifesto moving.

If no Sewell Motion has been passed on a particular topic, and the subject is one that has been devolved, then it doesn't affect Scotland. In which case surely the Scots shouldn't be voting on it?

In short no. In long, that's not how they work. You don't pass one to let Westminster pass laws on specific devolved matters. Rather, Westminster retains full ability to pass legislation on devolved areas. All the sewell motions are is a nicer way to frame such things, by rubber stamping laws as and when they come rather than legislative areas. They sort of make it look like the Scottish Parliament had a say. It's all a bit odd given that bills can pass between the lords and the commons. I'd have thought an ability to pass legislation between the legislatures would have been more democratic. But it means that there is very little that can be called purely English legislation.

The whole notion of Sewell motions or indeed Legislative Content Motions underline the poor sustainability of the current settlement. Like many quick fixes designed to make governance easier by giving an easy way to handle "non-controversial" topics they see a stunning number of uses on more controversial ones.

Also, what if the Scots don't vote for the legislation and their party (Labour?) then loses a vote and a vote of no confidence. Can one parliament operate with a majority for UK matters which goes for one party and a majority for English matters which goes to another? It seems a touch unlikely.

In truth my politics have usually lay near your own, however I tire all too easily of mentions of English Parliaments and excluding Scots from Westminster. I don't think you can seriously consider those to be an option if you've examined the way in which the present settlement operates.

[andrewducker]

I mostly don't think that the current situation is maintainable - if the UK government overrides Scottish law-making then it makes a mockery of the situation. They clearly need to do _something_ - and either increase the levels of power Scotland has and make it properly independent in those areas, or give them full independence.

Cheers for the information on the Lib-Dems. That does give them a (tiny) majority in favour of more power for Scotland. Let's hope that something sensible is worked out. Not that I'm entirely hopeful, but we'll see...

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

we'd lose control over our interest rates

This has never made sense to me as an argument. People I have never met, and who I know nothing about currently control interest rates, and never seem to control them to my benefit.

So what do I lose if we swap the anonymous nobodies currently making these descisions for another group?

Add to that the fact that I'm pretty sure economics is all a big con and there is no real need for inflation and I just do not get it.

[andrewducker]

It's not a case of who controls it, it's the level at which it's controlled. An interest rate which covers the whole of Europe gives far less fine control than one which covers a single country.

And inflation isn't something people made up - it's simply a measurement of how much prices have gone up over a time period. If milk has gone up by 2% over the last year then that's part of the calculation. Nobody sets it.

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

Ok, so what is the required level of fine control? If Europe-wide is too big, why is UK-wide ok? Why not each of the countries? Or to maximise local involvement every local authority could set its own interest rate?

Why should prices go up? I've also never understood that.

[andrewducker]

It is an interesting question as to whether the UK is also too large. And it's tricky one - because there are overheads to having your own currency, and having to change currencies when you go somewhere new. In some ways London and the Midlands could do with having different currencies, because they're frequently growing at different rates, but having to change money when you travelled between them would be tricky.

As for why prices go up, the answer is pretty complicated, but the Wikipedia article is quite interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

[holyoutlaw.livejournal.com]

they'd have to either sort themselves out or admit that their problems are their own

That would never work in the US. We'd have to find another bugaboo to blame. For example, we went from Communism (pre-Reagan) to drugs (post-Reagan) and now to terrorism (Bush II). We've also tried gays and are working on immigrants.