SNP’s model of independence “is broken beyond repair”

November 18, 2015 at 1:36 am (economics, populism, posted by JD, scotland, SNP, truth)

writes  a former adviser to Alex Salmond, Alex Bell:

images-6

The SNP’s 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 …

 

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 doesn’t 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. (Watch from 0930 onwards)

This shift in the party’s purpose from independence to being ‘Scotland’s 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 Scotland’s 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 party’s success has been built on hard work and spin. Behind the scenes she isn’t 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 SNP’s 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 isn’t.

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 that’s 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. There’s 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 doesn’t 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 couldn’t 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 it’s probably long wiped from any computers by prudent officials.

What the official paper was getting at is that the SNP’s 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, it’s 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 doesn’t 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. That’s 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 Party’s version of Scotland’s 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 SNP’s 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. It’s 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.

Scotland’s 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 isn’t about Scotland, its about the SNP. The electorate aren’t 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 don’t bother to research one is arguably immoral. More so when there is an explicit party policy not to reverse all cuts upon independence. The SNP’s ill-prepared version of independence does not plausibly offer any real alternative.

11 Comments

  1. Political Tourist said,

    I suppose one consolation was it killed off the rotten empty shell of SLAB.

  2. Steven Johnston said,

    The SNP jumped the shark from day one. Independence does not provide the answers to the problems of capitalism.
    But fair play to them, they fought a brilliant campaign and deserved their victory.

  3. kb72 said,

    A couple of witty Scots tories:-

    “they tried to hoodwink us with Scotland’s very own dodgy dossier.
    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/ruth-davidson-snps-case-independence-6852321#ICID=sharebar_twitter

    Professor Tomkins:-
    “That anagram of “Scotland’s Future” turned out to be accurate then: Fraudulent Costs”

    • Steven Johnston said,

      Ach, who believes the promises of a politician? Can any of them give cast-iron guarantees of spending, employment levels etc.

  4. John R said,

    At this moment, let us remember the “guarantees” that the Radical Independence Campaign were telling people that an indy Scotland would bring.

    Let’s look at one figure – 200,000 new jobs.

    I assume this “guarantee” comes from a Nov 2013 SNP report which said –

    “SCOTTISH independence could lead to the creation of almost 200,000 jobs by transforming the country’s economy, according to a report published by the SNP.”

    Among the policies leading to the increase in jobs were “cutting corporation tax by three percentage points” and “increased exports”.

    Other “guarantees” were the living wage, ending of benefit sanctions and free child care.

    The RIC’s “guarantees” were obviously nonsense. How the SNP were to cut tax and, at the same time, defend benefits and increase public sector jobs (and wages) is just completely beyond me.

    I guess the RIC’s “guarantees” were meant to be some kind of “transitional programme” which would spur the masses on to overthrow capitalism in Scotland.

    However, it can just be seen for what it is – lying bullshit.

    https://socialismfirst.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/ric.jpg?w=625&h=469

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-could-lead-to-job-creation-1-3194126

    • Steven Johnston said,

      Were they saying anything different from the labour party? Who claimed they would create jobs, cut taxes and defend benefits too. Not just in Scotland but over the whole of the UK.

      • John R said,

        Political parties offer up all sorts of promises to try and be elected and the electorate then decide who to go for.

        The cynicism of the RIC leaflet was they were giving a radical veneer to the SNP (corporation tax cutting) programme. If the RIC had said “Vote Yes and fight for socialism”, that’s honest but they didn’t.

        Instead, they put thousands of these leaflets out knowing ithe 200,000 jobs “guarantee” was all pure misty-eyed speculation on the part of the SNP.

        The only “guarantee” the SNP did offer for an independent Scotland was to cut corporation tax. Everything else was cross your fingers, hope to die, maybe everything will be alright on the night, Jimmy, and we’ll tak’ the high road to a better tomorrow.

        Now, depending where you are on the political spectrum, cutting corporation tax may be good or it may be bad. It’s the first time I’m aware of though that a group from a Trotskyist tradition has said it would “guarantee” 200,000 new well-paid jobs, an end to the Bedroom Tax and free child care for all.

        Curiouser and curiouser.

  5. Andrew Coates said,

    And there’s this, which some have not forgotten.

    “SNP chief Nicola Sturgeon backtracks on her vow to give a home to Syrian refugees. Said she would be ‘absolutely happy’ to help refugees on September 6 But a spokesman said there were no plans for that to happen this week.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3250573/SNP-chief-Nicola-Sturgeon-backtracks-vow-home-Syrian-refugees.html

    Now there were a lot of people who said the same thing, out of generosity, and they did not carry out the offer.

    But they did not try to make political capital out of a public display of kindness.

    • Glasgow Working Class said,

      Andrew what happens is the refugees are put in council houses or private rented well away from suburbia and the middle and upper middle classes. They have to survive amongst the like of me and they do. You see Andrew there is no way refugees can stay in the fashionable estates as there are no houses for them unless you requisition the gardens of the better aff and bulid on them.
      So Sturgeon like all politicians before her use the working class areas as dumping grounds. But she knows that.

      • Political Tourist said,

        Do you know where the FM lives?
        It’s hardly the Home Counties ffs.

      • Glasgow Working Class said,

        She lives in Scotland what is your point?.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: