The Nat paper on foreign affairs, continued

[This would have been a reply to the comments thread on the previous post, but it's too big. Never mind.]

Observer

Let's have a go, shall we?

“You just so completely don't get where we are coming from Smee it's almost comical.”

I do, actually. It's just that what you call “aspiration” I call “half-baked, ill-informed naivete”, and I start from objective, quantifiable facts while you don't.

“We will be a small European nation that yeah doesn't play with the big boys, we'll be in with the smaller nations”

Right. With as little influence as they have.

“The reason why we want to be independent is because it will bring government closer to the people.”

Non-sequitur. You can have closer, more responsive government without “independence”. That's what devolution does. You could even try devolving more power down to the local tier – although I keep detecting a Nat tendency towards having smaller, larger councils. Are we going to get the Regions back again?

“The big boys are all mega capitalists and in the nuclear club. We want to join the other guys. The ones who have options.”

What “options” would these be?

On the economic front, you are ignoring the fact that it is not 1905 or 1922 or even 1973, it is 2009. Corporate globalisation has happened. There is no Scottish currency, central bank or stock exchange. There is no such thing as a “major Scottish company” - they are all “British” at least, if not international. (There might be an exception or two to that, but I doubt it.)

The cold, hard, unpleasant fact is that Scotland is and will be a “branch-office” economy. The choice is between staying part of the Union and having some entrenched say at head office (or at least at one of them), or having none.

Politically, I also fail to see where there are any “options” that we don't currently have. Oh, we could do an Ireland and choose to free-ride our security on other people's efforts. Morally despicable and also pretty dangerous, if you have any idea at all of the quantity and quality of intelligence-sharing which happens under the UKUSA agreement. (Hint: look it up.)

This argument seems to rest on the notion that once “independent”, the nutty bits of the world will somehow leave us alone, just because of that.

Hmm. Lockerbie. Glasgow Airport. Denmark. Do I need to say more?

“We have done Empire and power for so bloody long and what has it got us?”

No, actually we stopped doing “Empire and power” around 1956 (if not earlier). Since then, what we've done is a bit more than our fair share of defending and securing the liberal democracies against the various totalitarian / theocratic threats facing them. And where we've felt that our Septic chums have gone off on a bit of a tangent (e.g. Vietnam), we've left them to it.

Similarly, on the economic and social front we have developed a solution which is balanced between the high-tax, high benefit situation of Continental Europe and the free-for-all of the US. Personally I quite like it. What's your problem?

“My finger will be pointing to Norway - not an Imperial power any more. Never was.

But who do you wanna be like? A big bad nuclear power or Norway?”

Nothing like a false choice as a poor debating technique.

I don't want to be a “big bad” nuclear power, I think continuing as a “small and cheap-as-possible” nuclear power is quite appropriate, thanks.

As for “being like Norway”, that is simply not possible for Scotland. It is 2009, not 1905 or 1973. Norway has always had, and continues to have, a lot more oil and gas than we do. (See here and here.)

And as pointed out above, globalisation has happened. The next-door-neighbour isn't the small and inoffensive Sweden / Stockholm, it's England / London. Oh, the alternative is to do what the Irish did and put Germany / Frankfurt in charge of their economic policy. That worked for a while, but didn't turn out too well, did it? I assume you've taken on board the incontrovertible fact that if we had joined the Euro back in the 90s then our property / equity boom-and-crash would have been even worse than it is.

Norway was independent in 1905, Ireland in 1922. Pre-globalisation. Entities like Bank of Ireland, Den Norske Bank, StatoilHydro could be set up and protected. No more. Look at who really owns and runs corporate Belgium, Slovenia, Lithuania, etc etc. It's French, German, Swedish, Austrian companies. So what does those countries' “independence” really mean?

As you say, “D'oh.”

The other thing I'd like to point out is that no-one has challenged my main point, which is that an “independent” Scotland wishing to join the EU will find itself paying more than £300m a year than it currently does.

Can I just write that one up as a “hit, a palpable hit”?

The Nat paper on foreign affairs - weasel words and unintentional hilarity

Mike "Michael" Russell

A weasel

I was astonished to read in the SoS that our precious Nat devolved Executive planned to put out papers on issues including Europe and foreign affairs, and defence.

My immediate reaction was "Great - this is going to be hilarious."

His Immensity and his troupe of poltroons merrily charging off into all the policy areas which will show them up as naive and incompetent. Brilliant.

And the paper on Europe and foreign affairs, put out by the inimitably pompous Mike Russell, has not disappointed me.

There are bits of this document that have had me laughing more than I've done in ages.

Let's have a look at a few of the gems.

"2.22. ... Mechanisms exist for Scottish interests to be fed into the decision making process, directly and via the UK. However these are often lost or diluted during their incorporation into the UK negotiating line, even where Scotland's carry a disproportionate share of the UK's interests."

[Sic.]

Apart from the dodgy grammar, this is asinine drivel and a frankly offensive attempt to mislead.

Exactly how "often" are Scottish interests "lost or diluted"? Can we have some specific examples? Around, say, six ought to be enough. Oh, we can't.

"5.4. A Scottish Foreign Service and embassy network could and should look very different from the FCO model."

It certainly would. As discussed previously, it would be a lot smaller, less effective and would cost more, pro rata, than the existing UK network of embassies and consulates does. Who wants that?

"5.6. Under current arrangements, Scottish Government officials working on Scottish Affairs are accredited with UK diplomatic status and work alongside, or within, UK representations overseas. That reflects the fact that in many policy areas Scottish and UK interests coincide. Independence would not change that and there is no reason why close co-operation on policy and representation, up to and including shared services, should not continue"

Quite. So if in many areas Scottish and UK interests coincide, why do these morons want to secede? And if "independence would not change that", then what exactly is the point?

I'm glad they realise that "close co-operation and policy and representation, up to and including shared services" is a good thing.

What they don't seem to realise is that we already do a lot of "close co-operation" and "shared services". We have this "Union" thing, see - the UK has one of the largest networks of embassies and consulates in the world, they represent us just as much as the rest of the UK, and we only have to pick up 8.5% of the cost. OK?

(Continuing on these lines, the Nats provide an Annex A which gives comparisons of the costs of foreign ministries & embassies, as well as UN, Commonwealth, World Bank etc memberships.

Hilariously, when you do the maths, you find that 8.5% of the UK's costs always comes to quite a lot less than the costs incurred by the likes of Norway, Denmark and so on. So the Nats have actually gone and provided us with the evidence that "independence" would actually cost us quite a bit more in duplication and loss of shared economies of scale. Well done, Agent Russell, the Union thanks you for your help.)

"5.7. An independent Scotland would be recognised as a state in its own right by the international community... ...it would be able to develop its own foreign policy to promote Scotland's interests internationally, and engage with other states as an equal partner."

"Equal"? About as equal as Iceland, Malta, Upper Volta, Laos and so on. In other words, ignored, just as they are.

"5.8. Small countries can and do take lead roles in international organisations and policy development. Key positions within the United Nations including that of Secretary-General are often filled by individuals from smaller nations."

The Hootsmon led on the prospect of Fatso becoming UN Sec-Gen. Laugh? I nearly became incontinent.

How can I begin to respond to this dross?

Power at the UN resides with the Security Council. As part of the UK, Scotland has influence over the UK's permanent membership of that body - which carries a permanent veto.

The job of Sec-Gen, however, is a powerless sinecure. That's why the big, powerful countries are happy to see it go to people from small, puny countries. They don't care.

For comparison, look at the treatment of posts like the top jobs at the World Bank and the IMF. They matter. They are split between the US and the big countries in Europe.

"Small countries ... have all made significant global contributions to security, peace and reconciliation initiatives. New Zealand, for example, hosted a major conference on cluster munitions"

The mirth continues. Wow, the Kiwis hosted a conference! Clearly a massive contribution to global security and world peace. On that basis, the Hilton Hotels Group must count as the world's leading superpower, since it must host more conferences than anyone else.

Now here's the real corker:

"5.17. An independent Scotland would continue membership of the European Union, fulfilling the responsibilities which membership brings."

WEASEL ALERT! WEASEL ALERT!

Note the pathetic attempt to slide and whitewash past the fact that there is a huge amount of controversy and uncertainty over this one.

I've covered some of this before, but let's do it again.

There are no precedents for a secession from an existing EU Member State.

There is, however, a precedent for a secession from an existing member of the League of Nations. That happened when the Irish Free State left the UK. And in that case, the UK carried on happily as a member, while the IFS had to apply to join.

But the precedents are irrelevant, as is the fine detail of the UK's internal constitutional legislation. The EU writes its own membership rules. If the other Member States wanted to treat Scotland as "inheriting" the UK's membership, they could. If they wanted to treat it as a fresh applicant, they could do that too.

Which would they choose?

Whichever suited their own interests, of course.

Now, let's recall that the UK isn't just any EU Member. It has a special status in a number of areas, most notably the Budget Rebate secured by the Blessed Margaret when she said "I want my money back" in 1984.

The rest of the EU don't like this special status. It costs them money. They keep trying to find ways of ending it.

So in the event of a Scottish secession, the rest of the EU could choose between two options:

A) recognise both Scotland and the UK as inheriting the UK's previous membership. Both would inherit their respective shares of the budget rebate. The total cost of the rebate to the rest of the EU would stay the same.

B) decline to recognise Scotland as inheriting the UK's previous membership, and insist instead that it make a fresh application. Scotland would, then, not inherit its share of the UK rebate. The total cost to the rest of the EU would go down, by about 8.5%.

Add to this the political factor, that various countries like Spain, Belgium, Italy and so on are likely to feel a certain inclination towards not "rewarding secessionism", in case one day it's turned against them.

So let's think about it. I'm an EU State, I might not feel too disposed to reward secessionism, and I can choose between reducing my costs or leaving them the same. Hey, I'm going to go for B. Trebles all round!

But not for us, of course. Incredibly, the Nats provide an analysis of all this in Annex B. (I'm starting to think that the Annexes are actually the output of a Unionist mole. Cracking stuff, whoever you are.)

Here we are:

"Depending on the treatment of North Sea GDP in the analysis, Scotland is estimated to have made an illustrative contribution of between €742 and €991 million before accounting for the UK rebate in 2007. When a population share of the UK rebate is included, Scotland is estimated to have made an illustrative contribution to the EU of between €263 million and €512 million in 2007."

But there would not be a "population share of the UK rebate", as we have established above, so one immediate consequence of "independence" would be to cost us €479m, or £328m.

Christ on a bike, that's getting on for 10% of the entire devolved Scottish budget, and nearly 6% of total Scottish public spending.

Yikes.

And on top of that, we have to add the extra costs of the new "independent" foreign ministry and membership of international bodies. I'm not doing the detailed sums now, but it has to be heading for £500m.

Once again, let me propose a vote of thanks to Agent Russell - Codename "Weasel" - for doing such a good job at exposing one of the immediate, bottom-line costs of "independence".

Well done.

"The Economist" on the end of the Nat dream

An article from "The Economist" which deserves a bit of an airing.

Lockerbie and Scottish politics

A dream fades

Sep 3rd 2009 | EDINBURGH
From The Economist print edition

The release of the bomber has dampened the nationalists’ appeal

Reuters

Salmond and MacAskill need divine aid

IT WAS supposed to be so different. Alex Salmond, first minister of Scotland’s devolved government and leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), must have expected to grab the limelight this week with the launch of a bill to permit a referendum on Scottish independence next year. Hardly anyone even noticed. The long shadow of Lockerbie has dimmed prospects for both independence and Mr Salmond himself.

Two weeks after the Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, announced the release of Abdulbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, the row shows no signs of abating. On September 2nd the Scottish Parliament refused to support his decision. Opposition MSPs defeated the proposed expression of confidence by 73 votes to 50. Fortified by polls suggesting that more than half of all Scots object to Mr Megrahi’s release, they argued that it was a bad decision, badly made.

Whether bad or good, the decision remains mysterious. Official correspondence released on September 1st shows that Scotland fought tooth and nail for almost two years to have Mr Megrahi excluded from the bilateral prisoner-transfer agreement that Britain and Libya were negotiating, only to let him go last month under a 1993 law that permits compassionate release in Scotland.

Explaining it, Mr MacAskill clung as much to the rules as to the compassionate moral high ground. There are certain conditions for release, one of which is that a prisoner has only three months to live. The unanimous view of Scotland’s prison and medical authorities was that Mr Megrahi, suffering from prostate cancer, met that and other requirements. (The quality of the medical advice is being questioned as Mr Megrahi’s plans to write his memoirs are aired.) Previously, 30 prisoners who applied for compassionate release were freed; none of the seven who were refused had unanimous backing from the authorities.

Yet doubts remain. Mr MacAskill rejected a bid to transfer Mr Megrahi to a Libyan prison because, he said, the American government and victims’ families believed the British had agreed before the trial that anyone found guilty would serve his sentence in Scotland. MSPs wondered why this reasoning had not ruled out compassionate release.

Rumours of some secret deal are rife. But though Scottish firms do have interests in Libya, and Scotland almost certainly wants a bigger subsidy from London, politics may matter more than economics. One of Mr Salmond’s first acts on taking office in 2007 was to complain that Tony Blair had promised Libya a prisoner-transfer agreement without telling him, though Scotland is autonomous in judicial matters. Relying on Scottish law instead to release the Libyan may have satisfied nationalist feeling.

But that does not explain why Mr Megrahi was let go under any law. Some argue that it may have seemed a chance to stake out an independent foreign policy. Though attention has focused on America’s hostile reaction, the Libyan view is also striking. In an interview with the Herald, a Scottish newspaper, Saif Qaddafi, the son of Libya’s ruler, said Mr Megrahi’s release had made Libyans and Arabs think of the British and Scottish as more “merciful and more civilised” and less as Islam-hating “crusaders”.

A nice thought, but it is not doing Mr Salmond much good. A YouGov poll on August 27th found that only 28% of Scots would vote “yes” on independence and 57% “no”, a much wider gap than when the question was put in April. In another YouGov poll, support for the SNP itself was also down, to 26% on August 30th in national elections from 31% in June. So dies the dream.

Some sensible, moderate thoughts on the finances of "independence"

Stumbled across this piece from the Adam Smith Institute:

"Spending on Scotland

Written by Tom Clougherty

Thursday, 03 September 2009 06:02

In his Daily Telegraph column yesterday, Simon Heffer stated that, "As far as one can tell... the subsidy from other parts of the Kingdom (ie, England) to Scotland is currently at least £22 billion a year." This is something you often hear English people saying, much to the annoyance of many Scots, who insist it isn't true. Who is right? Well, the truth – as usual – is slightly complicated.

On the one hand, Heffer is right: Scotland does get 22 percent more public spending per head than England. Indeed, it even gets more spending per head than comparatively poorer areas of England, such as the Northeast. Interestingly, this disparity is not explained by higher levels of welfare dependency in Scotland – if you were to exclude spending on 'social protection' then the public spending gap would rise to 28 percent. It is simply a matter of government being bigger and less efficient north of the border.

But on the other hand, if you factor in Scotland's geographic share of North Sea Oil revenues (about 83 percent), then Scotland pays just about as much in tax as it receives in spending. That isn't to say that public spending in Scotland isn't too high (it is) or that it is sensible to base current spending on natural resources revenue (it isn't) – but those are separate issues.

So perhaps Scotland is – just about – pulling its weight at the moment. However, this should not distract from the fact that it won't be able to for much longer. North Sea Oil production peaked in 1999, and is now declining at an increasing rate. Meanwhile, Scotland's public sector wage bill has risen by 55 percent since 1999, with 1 in 4 Scots now directly employed by the state. Public spending has risen from 50 to 56 percent of GDP in the same period, and on current trends is set to reach 67 percent by 2012/13.

According to the Centre of Economic and Business Research, that would make Scotland the third most state dependent country in the world, after Iraq and Cuba. And what a sad accolade that would be for Adam Smith's homeland!"

What's not to like about this?

Mild, moderate, factual, and dishes both Eng Nats like Heffer and the Scot Nats at the same time. Couldn't have put it better myself. (In fact I'm fairly sure that I have used the phrase "pulling its own weight" in various places, but I have no monopoly on common sense.)

And also making the telling point that the current situation is only temporary, and that we really, really need to do something about improving productivity, entrepeneurship and economic growth up here. (Please could no-one suggest that "green energy" can come close to replacing oil in either physical or financial terms, or I will be forced to direct them here. And anyone mentioning fresh water or fish will be deleted without mercy.)

The answer to this problem is, of course, out there, and it's blue. Hopefully it won't be too long before that's got through to Scots as well as the rest of the UK.

This article does give a good summary of the core of my own position. Even if we set aside all the subjective stuff about feeling British (or not), if someone could show me that we would be significantly better off - say, due to a currently "hidden" oil surplus - after "independence", then I might be prepared to entertain the idea.

But this isn't the case. "Independence" would mean we were no better off than now, and when you add on the costs of transition, disruption, duplication and diseconomies of scale, and then consider the subjective issues, the whole idea stands revealed as a ludicrous vacuity.