SNP's Model for Independence 'Broken Beyond Repair'

[Kyle]

...says Salmond's former head of policy, Alex Ball.

This might be a bit of a TL;DR moment, so I've put his article in a spoiler.

The SNPs model of independence is broken beyond repair. The party should

either build a new one or stop offering it as an alternative to Tory cuts, say

Alex Bell

There is a strange moment in the TV coverage of the 2015 UK general election.

Nicola Sturgeon is in a debate and a member of the audience admits to liking the

new SNP leader but not supporting independence. She asks if she should join the

party. Sturgeon listens and answers in what seems like perfect modern

politicalese you are welcome, she says. The audience in the studio and at home

are comforted by the generosity, the non-tribalism of Nicola. It seems like a

perfect example of our political leaders mending fences after a divisive

campaign.

Consider what actually happened in that exchange. The leader of a party whose

first tenet is independence is asking a person who openly admits she doesnt

want independence not just to vote for her, but to join the party. She is

saying, implying at least, that the SNP is for people who are for Scotland and

that alone. There is no prescription to sign up for independence just sign up

for the SNP and its success.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqx30qB4yg">(Watch

from 0930 onwards)

This shift in the partys purpose from independence to being Scotlands

party is often read as a simple tactic. The leadership are disguising their

main aim, sovereignty, until a referendum victory looks likely. In fact

something else is at work. The SNP is shifting its emphasis because the

leadership can find no way of achieving the core aim safely.

Cut Nicola and no doubt she still bleeds independence, but what she means by

that is far less clear than before the referendum. The doubt arises because the

campaign towards the 2014 vote, and the economic information since, has kicked

the old model to death. The idea that you could have a Scotland with high public

spending, low taxes, a stable economy and reasonable government debt was wishful

a year ago now it is deluded.

***************

A lesson of the referendum is that many arguments around independence are

simply redundant. We can all agree you can have a nation of any size, governed

in any way, seeking to do whatever it wants within the tolerance of the

international community. Tranches of what occupied both sides up to September

2014 are simply distractions.

The only thing that matters in Scotlands argument is this what will be the

likely economic health in the short to medium term, and what will that mean for

government spending and borrowing? Dull, but it determines everything else.

2014 was an economic sweetspot for two reasons. It was a good year for oil,

and it came after thirty good years. Thus the Scottish economy looked healthy

and was able to boast that it had chipped in more to the UK treasury than it had

got back over recent times.

That is not the same as being able to say the Scottish economy could afford

British levels of spending, which was a significant plank of the Yes promise.

That debatable point could be obscured by lots of noise, and the SNP is

accomplished at shouting.

But Nicola Sturgeon knows the SNP is good at misdirection. The partys

success has been built on hard work and spin. Behind the scenes she isnt

gullible. It may work in public to rubbish claims by the Institute of Fiscal

Studies that there is a gap between what Scots pay into government and what they

get out in services, but only fools believe their own propaganda. The fact is a

gap exists Scotland does not earn enough to pay for its current level of

spending.

Once you accept that, you acknowledge that the SNPs model is broken. That

model, as expressed in the White Paper and numerous speeches, is that it was

possible to move from the UK to an independent Scotland and keep services at the

same level, without either borrowing a lot more or raising taxes. It isnt.

As sure as death and taxes, there will be an economic jolt in the road to

independence. Scotland will have to pay to either increase borrowing, raise

taxes or cut services to bridge the gap between revenue and spending. And thats

not the only bump.

The second shock to the system will be the cost of borrowing. A new state

will inevitably attract higher borrowing costs. Thus the price of the debt we

inherit from the UK will go up on independence day. Theres more.

The appeal of the SNP is that it resists austerity. It promised to reduce

budgets by (fractionally) less during the 2015 election. In other words, it

would borrow more. So on top of the higher cost of borrowing, you would have

more borrowing to pay for. It doesnt end there.

SNP fine print makes it crystal clear that it will not reverse the dastardly

Tory cuts on independence. It will not reverse the privatisations or the

anti-union legislation of Thatcher and nor will it repair the cuts of Cameron

and Osborne. However, it does give the impression that, come sovereignty, it

will restore things to what they were. Its central message in Westminster is

that the state need not be dismantled. It is therefore reasonable to expect,

voters certainly will, that spending goes up on independence. Which will add

even further to borrowing.

However, Scotland may not be allowed to borrow that much. A currency Union,

either Sterling or the Euro, would come with limits. A brand new currency may

not be trusted by lenders. So taxes would have to go up to meet the spending gap

and the extra money it takes to repair the state.

But there is of course one more bump to overcome the cost of transferring

to an independent state in the first place. Recall all the problems associated

with merging eight police forces into one and multiply this by a hundred. What

price the transfer to sovereignty? £1 billion, maybe £2 billion.

Thus an economy which couldnt afford existing spending will be hit by

several significant new demands on the Treasury. Without a thorough, independent

understanding of those additional charges, you can make no promises on what

independence will be like. It is reasonable to assume that all these obstacles

can be overcome, but it is stupid to deny they exist.

************

There is a paper somewhere in the civil service which sets out the idea of

independence in the UK. Written by officials in 2012, and amounting to little

more than a phrase and some bullet points, it tries to capture an idea of what

Scotland could become. Few people saw the single sheet document and its

probably long wiped from any computers by prudent officials.

What the official paper was getting at is that the SNPs case UK levels of

spending, no tax increases, relatively high government borrowing but a stable

economy was more possible within the Union than without. With declining oil

revenues and a long period of low growth, that is more true now than in the last

couple of decades.

In the secretive world of the SNP, its impossible to know if Nicola has

absorbed all of this. John Swinney, Finance Minster for eight years, never lets

on he understands it, but if he doesnt then he is unfit for the job. So we must

assume these bright people know that the old model, once optimistic, is now

dead.

The party unambiguously denies any doubt and says the only obstacle to

independence is public opinion, which they hope to sway in the near future. But

its actions speak to a different storyline.

********

In the final months of the campaign, it was obvious that energy and

excitement were unleashed there was a sense of possibility at large.

Independence as a concept had escaped the bounds of the SNP and become a word

which triggered five million possibilities. Thats all well and good, but its no

way to run a political machine.

A diverse debate was a help before the vote, but a risk afterwards. The SNP

needed to gain control again and reclaim its central brand, its USP. So the

party cleverly co-opted all these independent forces within the nation to join

the existing machine. One effect was the SNP stormed to victory in 2015 and

remain very much the owners of independence. The other effect was less

benign.

With the SNP back in charge of independence gone were the voices which were

beginning to explore the range of what that policy could mean, or alternate

versions to official SNP one. Amid all the cries of Scotland will never be the

same again and the talk of another referendum, what was in fact happening was

the energetic advocates of change were being brought into line and the Partys

version of Scotlands future restored as the official one.

The other thing which had to be controlled was the flow of information. In

some ways this was easy. Critics of the SNPs version were already feeling

bruised by the referendum. In the Unionist camp there are self-reinforcing tales

about how internet trolls will savage the outspoken. Academia long ago gave up

entering the debate, not liking the heat of real politics. Once the Scottish

Government itself stopped talking about and publishing on the matter, the issue

imploded.

Yet there is a bizarre paradox here A government elected on an independence

platform makes a virtue of saying it is putting no effort into researching

independence. Instead of this being taken as a terrible admission of failure, it

is hailed as proof that no new referendum is imminent. The core policy, one with

huge implications for every citizen of the land, is proudly not worked upon.

Its like the Labour government of 1945 boasting it knows nothing about how to

set up a National Health Service.

Even more bizarre, SNP supporters approve of this. Where once the movement

decried the un-examined state, now it colludes in obscuring the facts. For many

decades the party called for Scotland to have an independent economic

forecasting unit. Now it is in power it actively talks down the value of

impartial macro-economic research. Similarly, the SNP of a few years ago would

have killed for a fiscal institute shedding light on our tax base , but the

Scottish Government resists cries for such a thing. And the party faithful

applaud, as if information itself were now an enemy of destiny.

For a government that boasts of its competence, it wins support by being

incompetent on its core policy. There is merit, apparently, in not researching

our future, or spending money on preparing policy. In any other area of

government, this would be a suicide-note.

Scotlands post-referendum debate has gone deathly quiet. There are plenty

who will join in the SNP slogans about a vow betrayed or nasty Tories, but it is

evidently untrue to say we are changed for ever. Instead, we are back in the

past, dominated by one party, bereft of intelligent debate, doing quiet deals to

get by in short, back to normal.

The interests of the SNP and the interests of independence have diverged.

Independence needs facts and planning. The leadership fear those facts will rip

the party apart. The SNP is growing comfortable in its role as the Scotland

party within a lop-sided UK, while pretending it is still fighting for

independence to keep the party together.

We are told the people are in charge, but the Government goes out of its way

to deny the people information. This isnt about Scotland, its about the SNP.

The electorate arent stupid. They tolerate this contradiction for want of an

alternative. Lets pray that alternative turns up before independence does.

This is a morally dubious form of government. Posing as the defender of the

poor against Tories when you have no credible alternative and dont bother to

research one is arguably immoral. More so when there is an explicit party policy

not to reverse all cuts upon independence. The SNPs ill-prepared version of

independence does not plausibly offer any real alternative.

*************

SNP Independence has become the cocaine of the politically active, fun to

join in but dulling the senses, jabbering on at a hundred words per minute while

disconnected from self awareness. It is for another generation to do the hard

work of thinking through all the implications, and then deciding if independence

is the right thing to do. By that point Britain will be different, Europe will

be different and the world will have fundamentally changed. Perhaps there is no

harm in all of this: some political misdirection; ultimately settling for a

better deal than before; nobody shot in the process. But it serves neither

devolved Scotland nor the people who wish for independence.

Some interesting points made by someone that you'd assume was/is in favour of independence, considering his previous senior position in the SNP. He might be misinterpreting what the SNP are doing at the moment, but must admit, I do agree with his point on building the economic case for an independent Scotland. We REALLY need to see that improved and we can no longer rely on oil. The SNP has made itself the party of Scotland, but as part of the Union. Small steps and all that, but it's difficult to imagine a world where the old Tartan Tories, the new lefty yes voters and the no voters who believe in the SNP's other policies can co-exist forever.

Incredibly, the SNP's response to this was to moan about the vow not being delivered. I'm not even sure that's relevant to the piece and shows the dangers of the game the SNP are playing at the moment. A huge number of people are still backing the SNP's grievance line, but there's already dissent coming from a few different demographics. My personal complaints relate to the SNP's record in government. It's not awful by any means, but I think it could be stronger and a decent opposition would be exploiting the holes much more effectively. The polls reflect a dominance that labour enjoyed until fairly recently and I worry that complacency will set in on that front, if it hasn't already. I'd also like to see the SNP engaging more with the both the core of the party, both the old strongholds and the new. There seems to be an inaction in the independence case publicly, I hope it's at least being worked on behind the scenes.

I know this is very much a pro yes, pro SNP forum. I'm still very much pro yes and will continue to vote SNP until there's a better alternative, but might it be time for either the grievance agenda to stop and for the SNP to try and engage in what we know is a broken system and shitey watered down devolution, or just full tilt towards another independence push? I can't help but feel the SNP are treading water a little bit, what with such overwhelming popularity in the polls, and I don't think that's a healthy position for anyone really.

[vikingTON]

The polls actually show far greater dominance than Labour have ever enjoyed in Scotland. No party has ever secured the level of absolutely crushing landslide that the Only Show in Town will secure in May - after eight years in government, no less. So yeah - due to that considerable and predictable misuse of the facts in your piece of 'concern' trolling, it's 'no dice' from me.

[Fotbawmad]

Don't know why oil seems to be such a deal breaker when it comes to independence. To me it's false dilemma to focus on it due to the fact we'd still be better off. Even when oil is factored out. Not to mention there is still the potential to discover new oil fields in Scotland, especially on the west coast.

[Antlion]

Why is "grievance" the new buzzword? I wonder if the media would criticise London-based parties for their supposed sense of "grievance" if decisions affecting England were taken in Holyrood.

Just imagine that for a second - imagine the absolute raging, incomprehensible horror that would be trumpeted by the press if major decisions affecting English welfare, budgets, taxation and constitutional rights were taken outside England, and decided by a majority of non-English-based MPs.

But of course the Scots lap up being in the reverse position, and any who dare question it are simply consumed with "grievance".

[Kyle]

The polls actually show far greater dominance than Labour have ever enjoyed in Scotland. No party has ever secured the level of absolutely crushing landslide that the Only Show in Town will secure in May - after eight years in government, no less. So yeah - due to that considerable and predictable misuse of the facts in your piece of 'concern' trolling, it's 'no dice' from me.

I voted yes, voted the SNP in May and will again next year.

Being cocky isn't going to secure the SNP's position long term (although the lack of credible opposition might) and it isn't going to secure independence. We need to face up to reality - the economic case didn't convince enough people and that was with a much higher oil price than we have now. It needs to recalibrated and the SNP need to engage with people. For me, they've managed to do the latter by convincing a lot of no voters to vote for them at the election and representing their constituencies well since but they've so far completely failed to do the former.

I have absolutely no idea why you think I'm a troll tbh, unless you think I'm trolling like minded people.

[Antlion]

Incidentally, why does that fat disaster Jackie Baillie insist on calling everything anyone says an "intervention"? For that matter, why is she the press's go-to walrus whenever they want a comment from slab? I dearly hope that the electorate collectively roll her back into the ocean next May.

[Kyle]

Why is "grievance" the new buzzword? I wonder if the media would criticise London-based parties for their supposed sense of "grievance" if decisions affecting England were taken in Holyrood.

Just imagine that for a second - imagine the absolute raging, incomprehensible horror that would be trumpeted by the press if major decisions affecting English welfare, budgets, taxation and constitutional rights were taken outside England, and decided by a majority of non-English-based MPs.

But of course the Scots lap up being in the reverse position, and any who dare question it are simply consumed with "grievance".

So it's justifiable grievance then?

It's still grievance all the same. Whilst I agree with what you're saying, the majority of people living in Scotland voted to remain a part of that system. What the Tories have done since May has fucked me off just as much as it has you, but there's not much we can actually do about it whilst they have a majority in a system we are a part of.

This kind of sums up the problem with the yes campaign - it's clear they didn't get it right and a lot of people seem completely unwilling to discuss what went wrong. We lost the referendum. If we want to win one in the future, the problems with this campaign need to be confronted and rectified.

[Antlion]

So it's justifiable grievance then?

It's still grievance all the same. Whilst I agree with what you're saying, the majority of people living in Scotland voted to remain a part of that system. What the Tories have done since May has fucked me off just as much as it has you, but there's not much we can actually do about it whilst they have a majority in a system we are a part of.

This kind of sums up the problem with the yes campaign - it's clear they didn't get it right and a lot of people seem completely unwilling to discuss what went wrong. We lost the referendum. If we want to win one in the future, the problems with this campaign need to be confronted and rectified.

Lots of things went wrong. A huge media onslaught; undermining of the currency issue; a reactive rather than a proactive approach to constant scaremongering and horror stories.

The SNP can now be seen as the party which will "protect" Scotland from its own sovereign government (the one run by a party it rejected), but frankly if I was them I'd be much more vocal in pointing out that Scots really can't have it both ways. The limited powers are the end of devolution - there will be no more, ever. The Scotland Bill is not a panacea to Tory policy and neither is Holyrood. This isn't pointed out nearly enough: a devolved parliament *cannot* mitigate the effects of a sovereign parliament's policies in full (nor should it be expected to).

Nicola Sturgeon is right to point out that a future referendum won't happen until polls show people want independence. But if she wants people to go out actively trying to change minds, I agree that they'll need more to offer than what was offered last time.

[Loondave1]

Incidentally, why does that fat disaster Jackie Baillie insist on calling everything anyone says an "intervention"? For that matter, why is she the press's go-to walrus whenever they want a comment from slab? I dearly hope that the electorate collectively roll her back into the ocean next May.

Yes Baillie is fat I get that but what about Alex Ball ?? Head in the sand.

[harry94]

Don't know why oil seems to be such a deal breaker when it comes to independence. To me it's false dilemma to focus on it due to the fact we'd still be better off. Even when oil is factored out. Not to mention there is still the potential to discover new oil fields in Scotland, especially on the west coast.

You say we'd still be better off but the fact is that we're now entering a period where our deficit is 2.5% greater than the rest of the UK. Although it's possible to debate the methodology behind generating these numbers, the yes campaign went into the referendum using data collected in exactly the same way to argue that our financial position is better than that of the rest of the UK. Oil fields may be discovered and will prop up the figures a bit but for the foreseeable future, we'll be in dependency to the rest of the UK.

It's possible to argue that there are potential economic prospects that may come with independence but that's irrelevant for now. No population votes for themselves to potentially be poorer in the short-medium term. Elections aren't about long term prospects.

As a starting point, I'd be looking to see what sort of mechanisms can be used now for independence planning. The SNP would take a hit and a bit of abuse for it but they can give themselves slight deniability by establishing a council of economic experts under something like 'Future Planning and Constitutional Change'. I like the idea of setting up a digital currency as a proper public utility.

[Antlion]

Yes Baillie is fat I get that but what about Alex Ball ?? Head in the sand.

She doesn't have an old wife though, so people generally refrain from using that to destabilise her political positions and statements.

Or maybe they just don't need to.

And I'm sorry; I don't know if Alex Ball's head is in the sand, so I can neither confirm nor deny that for you.

[Loondave1]

Your an antlion mate your heads in the sand by definition.

[Antlion]

Your an antlion mate your heads in the sand by definition.

Mercifully it wasn't when I was taught how to use punctuation.

[invergowrie arab]

Bell took a huff during the drafting of the white paper when it became clear he didn't have a clue what he was talking about and he was sidelined. He has spent the last two years attacking the SNP and ..ahem.. scrambling for relevance.

His latest economically illiterate rantings are based on the false assumption that Indy Scotland would continue with the exact same models and levels of public investment that exists currently but with increased spending. Literally no one suggests that is the case

[Fide]

Ball is just the latest in a series of ex-SNP SPADs, councillors and candidates who, when they were no longer part of the only show in town, decided to throw their toys clean across the nursery.

As for grievance politics, it's a phrase oft-used by Hothersall, McDougall and a few of the more desperate Labour MSPs. Which tells you how much attention should be paid to it.

[Loondave1]

Interesting the SNP took the advice of an "economic illiterate" in the first place.

[Loki]

You say we'd still be better off but the fact is that we're now entering a period where our deficit is 2.5% greater than the rest of the UK. Although it's possible to debate the methodology behind generating these numbers, the yes campaign went into the referendum using data collected in exactly the same way to argue that our financial position is better than that of the rest of the UK. Oil fields may be discovered and will prop up the figures a bit but for the foreseeable future, we'll be in dependency to the rest of the UK.

It's possible to argue that there are potential economic prospects that may come with independence but that's irrelevant for now. No population votes for themselves to potentially be poorer in the short-medium term. Elections aren't about long term prospects.

As a starting point, I'd be looking to see what sort of mechanisms can be used now for independence planning. The SNP would take a hit and a bit of abuse for it but they can give themselves slight deniability by establishing a council of economic experts under something like 'Future Planning and Constitutional Change'. I like the idea of setting up a digital currency as a proper public utility.

I had never seen anything on a proposed digital currency before. If that was in use before any future referendum, it would certainly strengthen their economic argument.

They are considerable lessons to be learned from the defeat at the last referendum.

[renton]

Interesting the SNP took the advice of an "economic illiterate" in the first place.

depends on what sphere of public affairs he was brought in to advise on, it wasn't necessarily maco-economic or fiscal policy.

I had never seen anything on a proposed digital currency before. If that was in use before any future referendum, it would certainly strengthen their economic argument.

They are considerable lessons to be learned from the defeat at the last referendum.

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/scotpound-a-new-digital-currency-for-scotland

[Colkitto]

If anyone who supports the SNP or supports independence is giving the Unionist media and commentators favourable headlines then they're doing it wrong

[Srevart Treb]

Always voted SNP but seriously considering a no-vote from now on.

Nicola telling me I want to live in a multi-cutural wasteland is not sitting right.

Yes, independence has always been top of my list, but immigration is not far behind it.