in an indepdent scotland, what would the main political positions be?

[egb_hibs]

lets assume we got an independent scotland - what do you think the main political parties would represent?

how would they differentiate themselves given that scotland is pretty much a left of centre country, and the issue of nationalism would be done and dusted.

what would the party positions then coalesce around:

- old style left wing economics, versus progressive centre left economics?

- liberalism versus conservativism on issues of social mores?

- campaigns for re-establishment of the union?!

- celts vs picts ?

how do people think it would shape up, and what packages or combinations of positions, would form the basis of party platforms?

[Observer]

Clientilism? More jobs for Aberdeen/Glasgow/Edinburgh etc.


The zero sum game....

[Colr]

More internecine strife writ large.

Scottish politics needs a radical injection of new ideas, independence or none.

[Bartok]

The main divide would be on catholic schools

[Archie]

I think a major issue would be around whether the SNP remained in some form as a party. It is possible that professional politicians might say 'my work now is done', but equally possible that some form of 'Scotland's Party' might emerge. I am uncomfortable with this, but it might happen (in a form at least) sooner than we think if the SNP have a role in the Executive and the referendum is not held for some years or is lost. What then?

[Colr]

Originally Posted by Archie

I think a major issue would be around whether the SNP remained in some form as a party. It is possible that professional politicians might say 'my work now is done', but equally possible that some form of 'Scotland's Party' might emerge. I am uncomfortable with this, but it might happen (in a form at least) sooner than we think if the SNP have a role in the Executive and the referendum is not held for some years or is lost. What then?

and what would that be like, then?

[Smurf]

To answer the question. Depressing..

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

The main divide would be on catholic schools :madhair:

many a true word spoken in jest

[Colr]

Originally Posted by Smurf

To answer the question. Depressing..

And rather wooly (so popular in the Highlands!!)

[Colr]

[Archie]

Originally Posted by Colr

and what would that be like, then?

Well I agree with Smurf, but given the fact that the SNP has portayed itself as 'Scotland's Party' and claiming a vote for them is a 'vote for Scotland', then I don't think it's a huge leap to set up as a national party. I don't think Salmond favours this, but the possibility of power without independence is a possibility, not least because it's not clear when a referendum would (or could) be held. DC says that they would simply mind the shop, but you can't do that for 4 years, so there would have to be some form of 'national' politics.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by Archie

Well I agree with Smurf, but given the fact that the SNP has portayed itself as 'Scotland's Party' and claiming a vote for them is a 'vote for Scotland', then I don't think it's a huge leap to set up as a national party. I don't think Salmond favours this, but the possibility of power without independence is a possibility, not least because it's not clear when a referendum would (or could) be held. DC says that they would simply mind the shop, but you can't do that for 4 years, so there would have to be some form of 'national' politics.

Be interesting to see if the various political ideologies that gather under their banner in the hope of being bigger fish in a smaller pond will start to fight amongst themselves when they have to make real political decisions. I suspect the soft left have the mojority so it may be just like New Labour again but with added haggis.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by wee162

So there's an extra million people who have moved into the top tier of wage earnings in the last 10 years is what you are trying to say here? Aye, I can see why that would annoy you

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the reason that the rate of tax rates are pegged to inflation rather than average increase in earnings because that is the cost of living? So why should it be any different?

The reason why people have moved into the upper tier of Income Tax is because they are earning more money than they would if their wages had not increased at a higher rate than inflation. Shouldn't you be proclaiming the increased wealth in the country?

it's probably shouldn't. however, the one flaw in the plan is that the rate of inflation doesn't reflect the, er, rate of inflation. so many things are excluded, including, most significantly, house price inflation, that the thing is a sham. people are coughing up so much more in mortgages or rent, or their children's mortgages or rent, that the rate of inflation used by the party apparatchiks is completely misrepresentative. moreover, geebs has done such catastrophic damage to the value of people's pensions, that for a good number of them their overall wealth is probably reducing.

And the reason why the Scottish Parliament will not raise tax is because it comes straight off the cash settlement from Westminster, and the reason it is not reduced is because that would cause a large shortfall which would result in reduced services.

unless those service were reformed of course. did you see that gerry robinson and the nhs programme the other week - ok it's just a token example perhaps, but all one's worse fears about public sector management practices were confirmed.

[superbam]

It depends on how the Labour party would re-launch itself in an independent Scotland. It would be interesting to see how many folk the SNP would lose to a reformed, non-unionist Scottish Conservative Party (which I reckon would be much more of a force after independence), perhaps leaving the SNP as a solidly left-of-centre social democratic party.

[Colr]

And the reason why the Scottish Parliament will not raise tax is because it comes straight off the cash settlement from Westminster.

Is that actually the case or is that what you assume would happen. I suspect the latter - you troublesome wee trot!!

[wee 162]

If it was a similar voting system as the Scottish Parliament is using, I personally think the Labour Party in Scotland would probably split. There is not much advantage in a "broad church" type of party unless it is useful electorally, and in this system those advantages are largely negated. What I could see happening in the aftermath of this would be a centrist New Labour type party which would be rebranded as something like the Scottish Democratic Party which would draw in some SNP votes, some Labour, and probably cause the disbandment of the Lib Dems. I would see their policies as being broadly similar to those of the current UK government. By that I mean a conservative economic policy, reasonably progressive social policy, and lots of talk about targets etc.

You would also get a leftist party made up of the few remaining in the Labour Party who are still proud to call themselves socialists. This would have the potential to make a lot more electoral headway than a party like the SSP due to better funding from Unions etc. Most likely scenario is an amalgamation of this party and the SSP at some future point as balkanisation of the left can only go so far before they are basically all cutting each others throats. Their headline policies would be based on Scandanavian models, some protectionism in certain industries, and quite possibly non entry into the EU so that this could be achieved.

Funnily enough the political party who would benefit most from Scottish independence imo would probably be the tories! There would be another re-branding exercise, and their policies just now are pretty centrist. A centre-right Scottish party would probably do okay in elections on a more international trade, neo-liberal economic platform.

The Greens would not change much imo, and fair play to them for that I say.

In summation I would say that within 10 years after independence maybe only one of the political parties we have now would look the same. Some would be reduced to a rump (SNP, and Lib Dems imo), one would have split leading to two new parties which could well consume the current SSP, and the tories would be liable to be a bit more populist in Scotland.

The main political agendas would be 2 centrist parties, one pretty strongly left wing, the Greens, and maybe one or two fringe ones who pop up on the outer reaches of politics.

It would certainly be a lot healthier than it is just now...

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by Colr

Is that actually the case or is that what you assume would happen. I suspect the latter - you troublesome wee trot!!

It's written into the Barnett formula which was amended on the back of devolution.

I actually pay attention to what I'm voting for in elections.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

it's probably shouldn't. however, the one flaw in the plan is that the rate of inflation doesn't reflect the, er, rate of inflation. so many things are excluded, including, most significantly, house price inflation, that the thing is a sham. people are coughing up so much more in mortgages or rent, or their children's mortgages or rent, that the rate of inflation used by the party apparatchiks is completely misrepresentative. moreover, geebs has done such catastrophic damage to the value of people's pensions, that for a good number of them their overall wealth is probably reducing.

I agree with you totally about the rate of inflation. It is difficult to quantify how much house price inflation effects peoples outgoings since there's no such thing as a standard mortgage, but it should definetely be factored in somehow. I'm not sure how it is calculated in the UK, but I know that in the US it is still a bag of groceries which is the main factor.

This is from a different thread btw?

[Colr]

Originally Posted by wee 162

It's written into the Barnett formula which was amended on the back of devolution.

I actually pay attention to what I'm voting for in elections.

That's a bit cheeky - as well as pointless. Its the best power the parliament has, seems crazy to neurer it like this. If folk want to vote to pay more tax and spend more on the public sector, they should be able to (and vice versa).

[Colr]

Originally Posted by wee 162

I agree with you totally about the rate of inflation. It is difficult to quantify how much house price inflation effects peoples outgoings since there's no such thing as a standard mortgage, but it should definetely be factored in somehow. I'm not sure how it is calculated in the UK, but I know that in the US it is still a bag of groceries which is the main factor.

This is from a different thread btw?

Its shifted somehow. There are several measures of inflation. The one we use commonly is based on a standard bag of groceries and other items.

The RPI and CPI both exclude mortgage and rent costs.

I do not think there is a measure which includes these. It also excludes things which affect house prices like tender price inflation (which have been outstripping the RPI by some way), materials, etc as well as obvious ones like land. Wage inflation itself is a major driver of housing inflation.

[Archie]

Originally Posted by Colr

The RPI and CPI both exclude mortgage and rent costs.

I think (and happy to be corrected as I'm digging deep in to the recesses of my my mind here) that these costs are excluded because they are very succeptable to local variations and because houses are so different in character. A house in Edinburgh could cost £80,000 or £2million (the average price is just over £202,000), but what impact would it have in most people if the only inflation was at the upper end. Funny how house price inflation is the only inflation that many people rather like!

There are, of course, a whole number of inflation measures - ask medical staff about price inflation there.