When will indyref2 happen?

[renton]

16 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

The two aren't mutually exclusive.  An independent country can do both.

I think from the point of view of the Commission it's what Iain Banks called an Outside Context Problem.  Automation has the  potential to kill of Capitalism as we understand it through a combination of an ever shrinking workforce and vanishing costs of production it kind of breaks up the neoliberal eco-system. That's if it get's here before the collapse of growth required by a world undergoing catastrophic climate change doesn't do for Capitalism first.  It's effects and course can not be adequately modelled currently (and certainly not by generations of economists trained to imagine no other option to capitalism).

Either way, it's an important subject that requires more thought and study, but we're not there yet and this commission, which was almost certainly aiming for dull, worthy and sober would do itself no favours by invoking the rise of either the sea level or the machines when trying to demonstrate a groundedness that the more radical wing of the movement can often be accused of lacking. It's more an optics thing than anything else.

 

Edited May 28, 2018 by renton

[Detournement]

5 minutes ago, renton said:

 

Either way, it's an important subject that requires more thought and study, but we're not there yet and this commission, which was almost certainly aiming for dull, worthy and sober would do itself no favours by invoking the rise of either the sea level or the machines when trying to demonstrate a groundedness that the more radical wing of the movement can often be accused of lacking. It's more an optics thing than anything else.

 

I think this is why I feel alienated from a lot of the arguments about independence. Unless you are going to use independence to address the issues that actually matter what's the point? Too many people are insulated within the tribalism of the debate and think that this debate itself protects Scotland from the dangers of automation, climate change, austerity etc. 

We have been stuck in stasis since 2014 while in the USA, in England and on the continent new critiques are emerging and solutions are being put forward. The problem is clearly that the SNP can't combine being a party of government with being a party of radicalism which wants to break up the UK. The independence movement will only succeed when it moves beyond the SNP.

[renton]

2 minutes ago, Detournement said:

I think this is why I feel alienated from a lot of the arguments about independence. Unless you are going to use independence to address the issues that actually matter what's the point? Too many people are insulated within the tribalism of the debate and think that this debate itself protects Scotland from the dangers of automation, climate change, austerity etc. 

We have been stuck in stasis since 2014 while in the USA, in England and on the continent new critiques are emerging and solutions are being put forward. The problem is clearly that the SNP can't combine being a party of government with being a party of radicalism which wants to break up the UK. The independence movement will only succeed when it moves beyond the SNP.

I think an issue is that when Independence becomes more like a manifesto for a singular viewpoint it can struggle for popular support. On the one hand the rise of the Yes movement and it's radical left almost certainly did wonders in hauling up the yes vote to that 45% because, as you say it captured people's imaginations and it invoked a different future. I think there possibly is a route to 50% +1 through that strategy. On the other hand not everyone is that left, or that radical and I wonder if what the Indy movement really needs is a stronger voice on the other wing, an idea for independence that is removed from the vision of the left (my preferred vision) so that it can reach out towards the centre. Maybe we need an army of dull plodding centrists - why can't we have a broad movement where the desire to have the levers of control is not inextricably linked to the desire to tip the whole thing over and start again? Again, not a criticism as I would be firmly in that radical camp but I recognise that maybe we can and should have both.

[dirty dingus]

If you ever read the Scottish Sun, (I get a free look at it most days) the feature political writers Chris Musson and Andrew Nicholl are certainly Unionist, the only time the give faint praise to the SNP is when it's at the expense of Corbyn. 

[Detournement]

39 minutes ago, renton said:

Maybe we need an army of dull plodding centrists - why can't we have a broad movement where the desire to have the levers of control is not inextricably linked to the desire to tip the whole thing over and start again? Again, not a criticism as I would be firmly in that radical camp but I recognise that maybe we can and should have both.

I think there already is a large middle class/centrist plank supporting independence largely made up of public sector/third sector workers.

The danger for the SNP is surely that left wingers return to Labour which will make getting a second referendum nearly impossible after this parliament.

[renton]

3 minutes ago, Detournement said:

I think there already is a large middle class/centrist plank supporting independence largely made up of public sector/third sector workers.

The danger for the SNP is surely that left wingers return to Labour which will make getting a second referendum nearly impossible after this parliament.

I suspect the issue is that there are two opposite poles in that in a binary referendum the SNP probably need more people from the centre to join up, but as you say can't afford to alienate the radical Indy movement to much else they lose the Holyrood election.

Edited May 28, 2018 by renton

[Suspect Device]

47 minutes ago, renton said:

I think an issue is that when Independence becomes more like a manifesto for a singular viewpoint it can struggle for popular support. On the one hand the rise of the Yes movement and it's radical left almost certainly did wonders in hauling up the yes vote to that 45% because, as you say it captured people's imaginations and it invoked a different future. I think there possibly is a route to 50% +1 through that strategy. On the other hand not everyone is that left, or that radical and I wonder if what the Indy movement really needs is a stronger voice on the other wing, an idea for independence that is removed from the vision of the left (my preferred vision) so that it can reach out towards the centre. Maybe we need an army of dull plodding centrists - why can't we have a broad movement where the desire to have the levers of control is not inextricably linked to the desire to tip the whole thing over and start again? Again, not a criticism as I would be firmly in that radical camp but I recognise that maybe we can and should have both.

The other wing from left isn't centre. If you're looking for an independence supporter from amongst the 'capitalists', you should look to the likes of Martin Gilbert.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-29155827

 

Not sure there's that many but I did read another article in Moneyweek talking to a fund manager in Edinburgh who believes that Scotland could be a more dynamic and faster growing economy with independence.

 

 

[renton]

4 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

The other wing from left isn't centre. If you're looking for an independence supporter from amongst the 'capitalists', you should look to the likes of Martin Gilbert.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-29155827

 

Not sure there's that many but I did read another article in Moneyweek talking to a fund manager in Edinburgh who believes that Scotland could be a more dynamic and faster growing economy with independence.

 

 

John McGlynn once played central midfielders on both wings in a crunch game so I'm willing to look at non symmetrical geometries here.

 

But yeah, centrist to right, if you like. I think there was a very small "economically Liberal" grouping in the last referendum, but I don't think it got much traction.

Edited May 28, 2018 by renton

[sparky88]

25 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

The other wing from left isn't centre. If you're looking for an independence supporter from amongst the 'capitalists', you should look to the likes of Martin Gilbert.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-29155827

 

Not sure there's that many but I did read another article in Moneyweek talking to a fund manager in Edinburgh who believes that Scotland could be a more dynamic and faster growing economy with independence.

 

 

I don't think Yes can win without presenting arguments that appeal to the Right. Winning the economic argument would be one way to do this, and I'm not sure they did this in the referendum campaign. When the yes campaign thinks it is seeing natural Tories, as well as labour supporters, voting yes it will win an independence referendum.

[NotThePars]

One hell of a tightrope to walk in terms of winning the right while maintaining the left. It’s not been a particularly successful strategy for the anglo political spheres in the last few years.

[Lurkst]

1 hour ago, NotThePars said:

One hell of a tightrope to walk in terms of winning the right while maintaining the left. It’s not been a particularly successful strategy for the anglo political spheres in the last few years.

No, it seems from history that the only way to do that is to be an utter c**t.  

 

 

[Antlion]

7 hours ago, ancientnoise said:

Too wee, too poor, too stupid?

It’s borderline offensive that Brexiters think they can get away with condemning anyone as fantasists and economically-clueless romantics.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

One hell of a tightrope to walk in terms of winning the right while maintaining the left. It’s not been a particularly successful strategy for the anglo political spheres in the last few years.

It's due a win

[Suspect Device]

Not sure if this has been posted before but it's an unusually balanced piece.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-scotland-economy-analysis/not-oil-but-trade-the-economic-case-for-scottish-independence-idUSKBN16S1ZL

 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

19 hours ago, sparky88 said:

I don't think Yes can win without presenting arguments that appeal to the Right. Winning the economic argument would be one way to do this, and I'm not sure they did this in the referendum campaign. When the yes campaign thinks it is seeing natural Tories, as well as labour supporters, voting yes it will win an independence referendum.

The Right has no interest other than self-interest.  And there is no way most of them will have any truck with the notion of Scottish independence if they perceive a threat to their own circumstances.  You want evidence ?  Check out the rabid contributions of the Kilt-Right in the MSM; reams of condescending damnation heavily laced with sneering sarcasm but never a constructive argument anywhere to be seen.

And that's because they don't have any.  Carry on as before as the foodbanks and rough sleepers pile up, and turn up the Veral Lynn album to drown outr the protests.  Utter warmers the lot of them, Tory, Labour and Liberal Britnats.

[Baxter Parp]

A Sturgeon Tweets:

1/ Reading lots of interesting comments about the #GrowthCommission - which is good. So much better to be discussing how to build a successful independent Scotland than just resigning ourselves to managing the decline of Brexit UK. A few points worth underlining though...

2/ the report explicitly rejects austerity eg Part B p44 - “Scotland should explicitly reject the austerity model pursued by the U.K. in recent years” and recommends above inflation spending growth each year. A marked contrast to the failed Westminster approach.

3/ report also stresses importance of investment to boost economy and that fiscal targets should not be at the expense of growth - another sharp contrast with Westminster. Indeed, it recommends fiscal stimulus both in the independence transition and in periods of low growth.

4/ the report’s projections about deficit reduction are deliberately cautious. They make no assumptions about higher growth - and instead illustrate that even in worst case scenario independence is a better option that sticking with Westminster system that created the deficit....

5/ ...but with the powers of independence and by following report’s advice on how we can match the success of other small countries - particularly its recommendations on population - higher growth, more revenue and increased prosperity and fairness is the attainable prize.

6/ so we have a choice - stay as we are, locked into the Brexit spiral and continued austerity that the Westminster parties offer no alternative to - or decide to equip ourselves with the powers to build our way to a better future.

7/ lastly, policy choices in an independent Scotland will always be for the government of the day, so we should welcome debate - but without independence, these choices will always be far too limited. That’s the case we must win - and #GrowthCommission helps us do it.

Seems to me a lot of people are falling for the spin rather than the substance of the report.  Possibly deliberately.

[AUFC90]

Under this fantasy arrangement dreamed up since the previous vote? Absolutely they would.
BoE would do whatever it felt was necessary to protect the rUK economy. If that meant screwing iScotland's economy over then why would they care? Their responsibility would be to manage the currency for the benefit of rUK.

Theyd screw their own economy too. Thats essentially the rub of it. How much reserves would Scotland be entitiled to and how much would it f**k the BOE up if we changed it to another currency ?

[Detournement]

1 hour ago, Baxter Parp said:

Seems to me a lot of people are falling for the spin rather than the substance of the report.  Possibly deliberately.

Or Sturgeon is a dull centrist who has no problem with austerity as long it's legislated in Scotland. And it is her who is ignoring the substance of the report eg limiting the deficit to 3% within 5-10 years.

The "attainable prize" is a delusion the 21st century, every other small country they reference developed in entirely different economic conditions. She doesn't address where the investment is to come from, ignores that debt/GDP is to be limited and that debt repayments to rUK are to come out of general spending. Fiscal expansion under these conditions is impossible.

We only have to look to Italy to see what this version of economics results in. We would actually be in worse position than Italy as we would be just as dependent on the bond markets but with zero central bank support.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Detournement

[Baxter Parp]

1 minute ago, Detournement said:

Or Sturgeon is a dull centrist who has no problem with austerity as long it's legislated in Scotland. And it is her who is ignoring the substance of the report eg limiting the deficit to 3% within 5-10 years.

The "attainable prize" is a delusion the 21st century, every other small country they reference developed in entirely different economic conditions. She doesn't address where the investment is to come from, ignores that debt/GDP is to be limited and that debt repayments to rUK are to come out of general spending. Fiscal expansion under these conditions are impossible.

We only have to look to Italy to see what this version of economics results in. We would actually be in worse position than Italy as we would be just as dependent on the bond markets but with zero central bank support.

"“Scotland should explicitly reject the austerity model pursued by the U.K. in recent years” and recommends above inflation spending growth each year. A marked contrast to the failed Westminster approach. "

Determined not to read's Deteournement, there. 

[Detournement]

Have a read of this Baxter

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/05/30/sterlingisation-would-be-a-disaster-for-scotland/

It probably won't make any difference because you exhibit the winning traits of a rabid nationalist who greatly enjoys tribalism.