SNP makes its case for Independent Scotland with White Paper

[Crazedwraith]

Scottish first minister Alex Salmond has launched his government's independence blueprint, calling it a "mission statement" for the future.
The 670-page White Paper promised a "revolution" in social policy, with childcare at its heart.
The launch came ahead of next September's independence referendum.
Alistair Darling, leader of the campaign to keep the Union, branded the document a "work of fiction, full of meaningless assertions".
On 18 September, Scots voters will be asked the yes/no question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"
Launching the paper - titled Scotland's Future: Your guide to an independent Scotland - in Glasgow, Mr Salmond said: "This is the most comprehensive blueprint for an independent country ever published, not just for Scotland but for any prospective independent nation.‬‬‬
"But more than that, it is a mission statement and a prospectus for the kind of country we should be and which this government believes we can be.
"Our vision is of an independent Scotland regaining its place as an equal member of the family of nations. However, we do not seek independence as an end in itself, but rather as a means to changing Scotland for the better."
As well as making the case for independence, the White Paper also set out a series of policy pledges which the SNP said it would pursue if elected as the government of an independent Scotland.
These included:
Thirty hours of childcare per week in term time for all three and four-year-olds, as well as vulnerable two-year-olds.
Trident nuclear weapons, currently based on the Clyde, removed within the first parliament.
Housing benefit reforms, described by critics as the "bedroom tax", to be abolished, and a halt to the rollout of Universal Credit.
It would be in Scotland's interest to keep the pound, while the Bank of England would continue as "lender of last resort".
BBC Scotland replaced at the start of 2017 with a new Scottish broadcasting service, continuing a formal relationship with the rest of the BBC.
Basic rate tax allowances and tax credits to rise at least in line with inflation.
A safe, "triple-locked" pension system.
Minimum wage to "rise alongside the cost of living".
The Scottish government said Scotland's finances were healthier than those of the UK, providing a strong foundation to put the focus of the referendum campaign on Scotland's future.
Mr Salmond said the list of policies would help address what he described as the "damage caused by the vast social disparities which have seen the UK become one of the most unequal societies in the developed world".
"We know we have the people, the skills and resources to make Scotland a more successful country," he added.
"What we need now are the economic tools and powers to build a more competitive, dynamic economy and create more jobs.
"This guide contains policies which offer nothing less than a revolution in employment and social policy for Scotland, with a transformational change in childcare at the heart of those plans.
"Our proposals will make it far easier for parents to balance work and family life and will allow many more people, especially women, to move into the workforce, fostering economic growth and helping to boost revenues - which will in itself help pay for the policy."
Blair Jenkins, chief executive of the pro-independence Yes Scotland campaign, said of the White Paper: "It addresses the questions and concerns that matter to the people who live and work in Scotland, from childcare to how the country will be rid of Trident and the nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
"It is a very informative and easy-to-understand guide and it will open a new dimension in the debate about Scotland's future and the choice we face next September over the opportunity to make our own decisions according to our own needs, priorities and aspirations or sticking with a Westminster system that is simply not working for Scotland."
But Mr Darling, the former UK chancellor who now leads the Better Together campaign, said the White Paper had failed to give credible answers to fundamentally important questions.
He went on: "What currency would we use? Who will set our mortgage rates? How much would taxes have to go up? How will we pay pensions and benefits in future?
"It is a fantasy to say we can leave the UK but still keep all the benefits of UK membership. The White Paper is a work of fiction. It is thick with false promises and meaningless assertions.
"Instead of a credible and costed plan, we have a wish-list of political promises without any answers on how Alex Salmond would pay for them."
Mr Darling said the childcare pledge could be delivered now, and raised concern about the viability of the Scottish government's plan to keep the pound, saying SNP ministers needed a currency "Plan B".
The Scottish government's critics have also questioned its plan to get rid of Trident nuclear weapons - currently based on the Clyde - while being a member of Nato.
For the UK government, Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael said the Scottish government had deliberately ignored the uncertainties and difficulties of independence, and had failed to put a price tag on its vision, adding: "Rarely have so many words been used to answer so little.
"We know that the terms of independence would need to be negotiated with many countries including the rest of the UK and the EU.
"An honest assessment of the challenges and uncertainties of leaving the UK would have seriously helped the debate between now and September.
Instead we have been given a wish with no price list. Today was their chance to level with people. They have chosen a different path and people in Scotland will judge them on that."

Got to admit, when they put forth claims like 'cheaper energy for everyone' and so forth, regardless of how true they are, I stat to think this might end up convincing people to say YES

[Starglider]

It's the standard populist socialist playbook, exactly as used by Hugo Chavez. Fortunately Salmond has less chrisma; I can only hope the electorate sees through the clumsy, blatant 'bribe me with my own money' strategy.

[Zaune]

I reckon they'd be better off just going for a nice, simple, catchy slogan. How does "Vote Yes and make the Tories someone else's problem" sound?

[Guardsman Bass]

I assume he's planning around a very generous amount of oil money from the North Sea. That could mostly happen if it meant getting Scotland to take on their share of the national debt and stop using the British Pound. They're still planning to use the British Pound for some reason, even though it means their monetary policy would be in UK control. Maybe they're afraid Scotland on its currency will get hit with Dutch Disease if it gets all the oil.

[Irbis]

It's the standard populist socialist playbook, exactly as used by Hugo Chavez.

Or maybe, just maybe, it means The City stops leeching off one of few remaining profitable industries in UK and the money stays in Scotland? Thought of that?

Nice you have so little arguments you need to compare people tired of southern right wingers and their law benefiting only their Eton banking buddies to Chavez, but maybe you heard about someone called Thatcher? If not for her mindless destruction of Scottish industry, then mounting oppression, there would be no referendum today. It's classic 'reap what you sown' case.

[mr friendly guy]

Just to change slight tack, what would happen to the EU of Scotland becomes independent?

I have seen two arguments which leads to possible contradictory positions.

The first is that Scotland would be kicked out not a member of the EU and that the new nation would have to reapply for EU membership. This I belief was an official statement from the EU about Catalan's independence aspirations, although the same logic would apply to Scotland.

The counterargument is interesting. It posits that since Scottish citizens are by default citizens of the EU, it would be a human rights violation to strip them of citizenship.

Putting that all together, can it lead to a situation where Scotland is not part of the EU (but can apply for membership) but its citizens are also EU citizens but living in a non EU member.

[Lord Revan]

technically speaking aren't Scottish people EU citizens cause they're citizen of the UK thus if they give up their UK citizenship shouldn't they automatically assumed to give up their EU citizenship as well. For Example if I move to USA and got USA citizenship and in the process gave up my Finnish citizenship I'd no longer be EU citizen either cause to be an EU citizen you must be a citizen of one of the member states.

[bilateralrope]

technically speaking aren't Scottish people EU citizens cause they're citizen of the UK thus if they give up their UK citizenship shouldn't they automatically assumed to give up their EU citizenship as well. For Example if I move to USA and got USA citizenship and in the process gave up my Finnish citizenship I'd no longer be EU citizen either cause to be an EU citizen you must be a citizen of one of the member states.

If Scotland votes for independence, what happens to the UK and EU citizenship of people who don't want to lose that citizenship ?

Some of whom will have voted for independence, others who voted against it.

[Lord Revan]

technically speaking aren't Scottish people EU citizens cause they're citizen of the UK thus if they give up their UK citizenship shouldn't they automatically assumed to give up their EU citizenship as well. For Example if I move to USA and got USA citizenship and in the process gave up my Finnish citizenship I'd no longer be EU citizen either cause to be an EU citizen you must be a citizen of one of the member states.

If Scotland votes for independence, what happens to the UK and EU citizenship of people who don't want to lose that citizenship ?

Some of whom will have voted for independence, others who voted against it.

first of you don't have to speak of EU citizenship as a separate thing as it's not, I'm EU citizen cause I'm a citizen of an EU member state (Finland) and that's true of every EU member state and their citizens IIRC, that's why people of Åland are EU members are they're still citizen of Finland even though Åland itself isn't part of EU.

So it really depends on how the newly independent Scotland wants to deal with this issue, but I'm a Finn so I'm not that familiar with Scottish politics to answer that.

[Darth Tanner]

As has been said if Scotland leaves the UK it must reapply for EU membership as it will be a new entity existing outside of the EU. Spain is quite likely to make the process of applying as difficult as possible to prevent its own country breaking up.

Hollande, Rajoy and the Commission have all clearly stated this. Obviously Salmond being the fat tool that he is just ignores that and keeps repeating his claptrap that Scotland will be smoothly welcomed into the EU.

Hope Salmond isn’t relying on people whose jobs rely on Faslane - shouldn’t think Salmond is planning to destroy more than 19,000 jobs or so.

Or maybe, just maybe, it means The City stops leeching off one of few remaining profitable industries in UK and the money stays in Scotland? Thought of that?

Until the Shetlands declare independence as well and get to keep the oil themselves?

Overall speaking as a Brit if Scotland want to make a go of it alone as a country I’m supporting of that – however it will be a sad day to kill the union and I think Salmond & Nicola Sturgeon are probably the most disgusting politicians I’ve seen – they make Cameron look good and honest!

[Zaune]

As has been said if Scotland leaves the UK it must reapply for EU membership as it will be a new entity existing outside of the EU. Spain is quite likely to make the process of applying as difficult as possible to prevent its own country breaking up.

On the other hand, a number of other countries might well be inclined to make things as easy for them as possible out of sheer spite.

[Starglider]

Or maybe, just maybe, it means The City stops leeching off one of few remaining profitable industries in UK and the money stays in Scotland?

Go on, explain how the 'City' 'leeches' off 'Scottish industry' and how independence would prevent this. It certainly isn't tax revenue, because the London financial industry generates massive tax revenues that subsidise the rest of the UK.

Regardless, any real arguments for or against Scottish independence are completely irrelevant to Salmond, who is on a pure ego trip and will mouth whatever plattitudes, tell whatever lies are necessary to become (and stay) Prime Minister.

but maybe you heard about someone called Thatcher? If not for her mindless destruction of Scottish industry, then mounting oppression, there would be no referendum today.

The reason for the decline in UK industry was illustrated very well by the recent near-closure of the Grangemouth complex. This time the union backed down right at the point of no return, but only because brave Conservative leadership managed to beat a tiny bit of sanity into them 30 years prior.

[Irbis]

Just to change slight tack, what would happen to the EU of Scotland becomes independent?

Actually, there is sort of precedent - when Greenland was granted home rule in 1979, it remained part of then EU pillar organizations, but choose to leave it shortly after due to disagreements on fish and seal hunting policies.

Putting that all together, can it lead to a situation where Scotland is not part of the EU (but can apply for membership) but its citizens are also EU citizens but living in a non EU member.

Um, Danish citizens living in Greenland do keep EU citizenship, they just can't vote in EU elections if they reside there. Once they move back to Denmark, they can do so again.

Until the Shetlands declare independence as well and get to keep the oil themselves?

Overall speaking as a Brit if Scotland want to make a go of it alone as a country I’m supporting of that – however it will be a sad day to kill the union and I think Salmond & Nicola Sturgeon are probably the most disgusting politicians I’ve seen – they make Cameron look good and honest!

Now, let's not reduce the argument to absurdity.

As for Salmond, meh, he might be a horrible human being, but when I lived in Scotland for my year stay here, all I heard from locals was revulsion of British right wing parties and their continued oppression and retaliatory laws against Scotland for not voting for them in elections. I don't know, is it democracy when you can't influence who rules you, especially if elected government hates you? I would probably vote for anyone to escape that situation, especially seeing Salmond can be quickly replaced in independent Scotland, but Scots can't do so with Cameron.

Also, please, look honestly at situation at London with local Tea Party equivalent calling for UK to leave EU (and getting very close to forcing it) - my bet would be for England to be outside of EU before Scotland is, and in fact independence might be the only way for Scotland to remain in EU, the irony.

[Darth Tanner]

The reason for the decline in UK industry was illustrated very well by the recent near-closure of the Grangemouth complex. This time the union backed down right at the point of no return, but only because brave Conservative leadership managed to beat a tiny bit of sanity into them 30 years prior.

I can't argue that the union were idiots over that as their benefits and wages were comically good. However I think you can't ignore that INEOS came out of it very well off with lots of government development loans to receive shale gas from USA and a broken union to claw back money from - the idea that they shut the plant down solely to receive these benefits and break the union is not too far out there – they don’t have to purposefully make their books look so bad now either.
It had nothing to with Thatcher beating on the unions 30 years ago though!

On the other hand, a number of other countries might well be inclined to make things as easy for them as possible out of sheer spite.

Only takes one to shit in the pool. Not sure which countries are going to make it easier for their border regions to secede either.

I don't know, is it democracy when you can't influence who rules you, especially if elected government hates you?

We had quite a few years of Scottish lead New Labour, indeed Scotland has more representation than England seeing as its MP’s are representing less people per seat and it has a separate Scottish Parliament.

Also, please, look honestly at situation at London with local Tea Party equivalent calling for UK to leave EU (and getting very close to forcing it) - my bet would be for England to be outside of EU before Scotland is, and in fact independence might be the only way for Scotland to remain in EU, the irony.

UKIP have no electoral support, they just get lots of media attention and scare the Tories every so often at election time. They still don’t have a single sitting MP.

Also there is no realistic movement to actually leave the EU, UKIP are nowhere near close to forcing it… whatever that means. Most polls still put the population largely in favour of it despite the large 'mood' of anti EU sentiment the press stir up and the comical old fogies in the Tory party.

[Zaune]

*sigh* Look, I'll grant you that some of what was done in the Eighties was probably unavoidable; we couldn't have continued running mines and steel mmills at a loss on the taxpayer's dime indefinitely. But what could and should have been avoided was the complete failure to address the question of what everyone made redundant by the closures was going to do for a living afterwards, which no government since has really attempted in a systematic and proactive way; the Conservatives shrugged and called it someone else's problem and Labour-In-Name-Only papered over the cracks with borrowed money and hoped like hell they'd be safely in opposition when everything finally fell apart.

And now forty years later we still have that problem, and it's getting worse.

[Sharp-kun]

The problem with the Yes Group is that there is no debate. Question anything and Salmond or Sturgeon will accuse you of scaremongering and/or not believing in Scotland.

The problem with the No Group is they're too quick to diss everything and everything.


Look at the shipyards issue. The UK Government has quite sensibly postponed deciding where the new Destroyers will be built until after the referendum. This means that if a Yes vote happens they can choose to reverse the cutbacks at Portsmouth and have them built there if they choose (as well as scoring massive political win points for saving industry etc). If there's a No vote they'll certainly go to Govan.

Ask the SNP what their plan is in the event the Destroyers aren't awarded to the Clyde. The responses will be "the Clyde is best so there's no doubt they'll be built there", "you don't believe in Scotland" and "stop scaremongering". Very reassuring.

The response I would like to hear is "yes there is a risk however in the event Govan did not get the destroyer contract we would do x, y and z".


I'm in the no camp but could probably be persuaded to vote yes if there was a solid argument with pro's and cons. The yes camp won't give me that.

[Irbis]

Hope Salmond isn’t relying on people whose jobs rely on Faslane - shouldn’t think Salmond is planning to destroy more than 19,000 jobs or so.

Ask the SNP what their plan is in the event the Destroyers aren't awarded to the Clyde. The responses will be "the Clyde is best so there's no doubt they'll be built there", "you don't believe in Scotland" and "stop scaremongering".

Maybe I don't get something, but why you two act like RN is the only fleet to ever exist on the isles? Independent Scotland will need ships, navy bases, shipyards and jobs, too, these are not going to evaporate overnight.

UKIP have no electoral support, they just get lots of media attention and scare the Tories every so often at election time. They still don’t have a single sitting MP.

Also there is no realistic movement to actually leave the EU, UKIP are nowhere near close to forcing it… whatever that means.

I am not talking about UKIP, I am talking about Adam Afriyie and his cronies. You didn't heard about their attempts to force Cameron to pledge referendum before 2015? They're UKIP in all but name, so yeah, it makes little difference if there are zero "official" UKIP MPs.

As for support for EU, do pray tell, why Cameron decided to drum up support with that nationalist nonsense about 'opening job markets being a huge mistake' and 'EU resident leeches' when A) his own experts shown UK budget gained net 22 billion pounds from EU nationals work after deducing all benefits, and B) when vast majority of problems with employment and benefits caused by foreign people are caused by non-EU citizens, these from former Empire, but funnily enough, Cameron decided to attack EU ones only.

Really, after these beacons of truth and objectivity, who even needs UKIP?

[Simon_Jester]

*sigh* Look, I'll grant you that some of what was done in the Eighties was probably unavoidable; we couldn't have continued running mines and steel mmills at a loss on the taxpayer's dime indefinitely. But what could and should have been avoided was the complete failure to address the question of what everyone made redundant by the closures was going to do for a living afterwards, which no government since has really attempted in a systematic and proactive way; the Conservatives shrugged and called it someone else's problem and Labour-In-Name-Only papered over the cracks with borrowed money and hoped like hell they'd be safely in opposition when everything finally fell apart.

And now forty years later we still have that problem, and it's getting worse.

As I see it, this would tend to lead to a permanent underclass of welfare-dependent citizens, which is exactly what I'd think Starglider would be wanting to avoid.

[Sharp-kun]

Hope Salmond isn’t relying on people whose jobs rely on Faslane - shouldn’t think Salmond is planning to destroy more than 19,000 jobs or so.

Ask the SNP what their plan is in the event the Destroyers aren't awarded to the Clyde. The responses will be "the Clyde is best so there's no doubt they'll be built there", "you don't believe in Scotland" and "stop scaremongering".

Maybe I don't get something, but why you two act like RN is the only fleet to ever exist on the isles? Independent Scotland will need ships, navy bases, shipyards and jobs, too, these are not going to evaporate overnight.

Surely then their White Paper should cover this? I've skimmed it and I'm pretty sure there was nothing in the budget for building new ships.

What is the SNP's plan if Govan doesn't get the Destroyers. Are they going to place an order for new ships themselves to form the SDF and keep the yards going? Not a word on that, if you ask you just get told that Govan will defiantly get the order from the MoD and anyone who says otherwise is scaremongering.

I expected the White Paper to cover various eventualities, both positive and negative. It doesn't.

[Darth Tanner]

Maybe I don't get something, but why you two act like RN is the only fleet to ever exist on the isles? Independent Scotland will need ships, navy bases, shipyards and jobs, too, these are not going to evaporate overnight.

From what little the SNP have said about defence their fleet is going to amount to a small number of patrol craft for immediate patrol around Scotland - there will be no nuclear subs so no nuclear submarine base which is the source of most of those jobs. Any larger craft they are given from the Royal Navy are not going to have the infrastructure or budget behind them to keep them operational for long.

I am not talking about UKIP, I am talking about Adam Afriyie and his cronies. You didn't heard about their attempts to force Cameron to pledge referendum before 2015? They're UKIP in all but name, so yeah, it makes little difference if there are zero "official" UKIP MPs.

Would this be the motion that was defeated 249 votes to 15. I'm not denying the Tories have a loony right that would leave the EU and rebuild the Empire, I'm just not seeing how you can support it being dominant of their politics.

As for support for EU, do pray tell, why Cameron decided to drum up support with that nationalist nonsense about 'opening job markets being a huge mistake' and 'EU resident leeches' when A) his own experts shown UK budget gained net 22 billion pounds from EU nationals work after deducing all benefits, and B) when vast majority of problems with employment and benefits caused by foreign people are caused by non-EU citizens, these from former Empire, but funnily enough, Cameron decided to attack EU ones only.

That’s got nothing to do with leaving the EU but rather limiting movement of labour from new EU member states and welfare access. Something most other EU members do as well. In the 2004 round of EU expansion the UK was one of the few large EU members not to limit the job options open to migrants.

[Zaune]

As I see it, this would tend to lead to a permanent underclass of welfare-dependent citizens, which is exactly what I'd think Starglider would be wanting to avoid.

That's pretty much exactly what it has led to. I think it was Ian Duncan-Smith who kept banging on about families where three generations have never worked, and he's probably not wrong about their existence even if he's wrong about the reasons.

[Irbis]

*sigh* Look, I'll grant you that some of what was done in the Eighties was probably unavoidable; we couldn't have continued running mines and steel mmills at a loss on the taxpayer's dime indefinitely.

Some of that was probably unavoidable, yes, but what Thatcher did was to destroy everything (instead of reforming it like Germans did) in her worship of the idols of privatization and 'post-industrial service economy'. Then came further and further blows as Scots stopped voting conservatives and the north become convenient scapegoat for further cuts and 'sad but unavoidable mistakes of FREE MARKETS'. It was like that shamefully forgotten part of UK anthem was true again:

Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the Queen!

Really, even if I didn't believe people I was talking to, in some places dilapidation and lack of energy was plainly visible. Bad, broken public transportation, beautiful, old buildings that on continent would be prize residence of rich elite decaying abandoned, 60 year old water system with two taps and no central heating in a lot of places - it took really hard work to transform one of most loyal parts of UK into something contemplating independence.

[Simon_Jester]

As I see it, this would tend to lead to a permanent underclass of welfare-dependent citizens, which is exactly what I'd think Starglider would be wanting to avoid.

That's pretty much exactly what it has led to. I think it was Ian Duncan-Smith who kept banging on about families where three generations have never worked, and he's probably not wrong about their existence even if he's wrong about the reasons.

Yeah. If you create a society where virtually all economic productivity comes from a small economic elite, especially financiers, and the mass-employing industries have shriveled up as being "obsolete," you really only have three ways to configure your economy.

1) Tax the financiers and other wealthy people heavily, in perpetuity, to pay for the support of all the people who can no longer find jobs because the jobs no longer exist. The financiers will predictably object to this, and argue that:

-Society would be better off if everyone worked for their own upkeep.
-Taxing them to buy food for poor people is socialism, and removes free market incentives on the poor to work harder and contribute to society.
-Many of the poor people in question are socially dysfunctional and appear undeserving of state benefits, on account of irresponsible living habits, being ignorant or violent, having criminal records, etc.

The hell of it is, these arguments are at least partially true, in that they align with facts on the ground. The problem is that they neglect the causes of the problems, and neglect to propose a realistic way of making the problem go away.

2) Usually a response to the rich-people arguments, a society can choose to not do (1). They must then accept that the poor are completely disaffected from the current political system and will cheerfully support its overthrow, because there's nothing in it for them, and possibly a lot to gain from a change. OR they can...

3) Actually work to find ways to keep your society's workforce in work. This may or may not require taxation or subsidies. Some of these payments will come from the same class who were paying under (1). But at least it means every citizen is doing something useful, and has an income that reduces their direct dependency on transfer payments.

[Zaune]

Quite. But Option 3 is getting more and more difficult as technology improves. Just to pick one grimly apt example, back when I first had to apply for what we optimistically term Jobseeker's Allowance, the process required a quite large staff of call-centre operatives in a variety of locations around the UK. Nowadays you're expected to fill the whole immensely tedious and complicated form out yourself online instead of dictating your answers over a phone line after anything up to half an hour of listening to this on an endless loop. Better for the mental health of the claimants, undoubtedly, but a lot of extra claimants were undoubtedly created in the process.

Oh, and did I mention most of those call centres were situated in the North to provide some local employment opportunities while the private sector was otherwise occupied?

[energiewende]

What statistical manipulation must I do to correlate this unemployment rate with the per capita GDP?