andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2007-05-13 10:33 am
andrewducker) wrote2007-05-13 10:33 am
Political Opinions
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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...