I am heading to Scotland this morning. Not because of the referendum debate, because the debate I am taking part in is strictly neutral on the subject, although it is bound to come up. And I am most certainly not going because the party leaders are. I am going to discuss Reinventing the Economy, and that is something that is needed north and south of the border and irrespective of what happens next week and yet the referendum debate provides a context for that opinion which is important.
Whatever happens next week Scotland is going to reinvent itself, and so too is the rest of the UK (rUK) whatever happens. I say that in the context of a discussion I had at the ICAEW yesterday where Charham Hiuse rules applied so that comments cannot be attributed, but where quite a lot of quite influential people in UK tax (plus me) were gathered.
During that meeting it was said, that what business craves with regard to tax is certainty and that for all practical purposes what that really means is that however imperfect the existing model of taxation they want nothing to change.
This was a powerful and fascinating insight in a meeting where the tone of discussion was, I think, largely negative. It was problem focussed with very little insight on what solutions might be with a surprising willingness on view to pass the expectation of change to the one politcian - Margaret Hodge - who was present, or to pin that expectation on remoter power, mainly in the form of the OECD, whose work was, however, seen as inevitably doomed in the light of opposition in the US Congress.
Rebecca Benyworth of the ICAEW tax faculty spoke powerfully and insightfully, but as I have now named her I can't say what she said.
And I offered hope that the thing that was needed was deliverable. I made clear that despite being told on many occassions over the last decade or so that what I wanted from the tax system was completely undeliverable many were now happening. I'm not saying they are all being delivered as I want but I've been told that country-by-country reporting, a general anti-avoidance principle, automatic information exchange, registers of beneficial ownership of companies and more were technically and politically impossible to deliver and progress is being made on them all. Of course that's not all down to me; far from it, but I could argue (and am arguing) that of all the philosophies present in the room yesterday then tax justice was the most successful precisely because we laid out an apparently impossible aim, and have begun to deliver.
What has this to do with Scotland? Quite a lot, actually. The No campaign is based, as I see it on three things. The first is conservatism with a small c: a fear of change. The second is an establishment based desire to maintain power. And the third is a lack of vision of any alternative to what we have, which is precisely how with a week to go the No campaign can suddenly offer all sorts of imprecisely formed reforms with no obvious delivery mechanism or thought through integration processes.
That is, of course, a caricature, but these things matter. Life is not evidence based in the sense that we spend our time rationalising facts. Life is a narrative we weave for ourselves in which we mesh the stories we tell with those of others to seek an understanding that is plausible for the time being.
In that context the No campaign makes little sense. It is offering a story without hope. It is saying 'we're in a mess and you know you're paying the price for it, but stick with it anyway because it's the best mess we've got'. It is, to put it bluntly, not a great sell.
The Yes campaign, on the other hand, can tell a story of a hope for change. Some of those changes, like the SNP's corporate tax policy, seem to me to be both profoundly unwise and unhelpful, and an issue that will need to be fiercely debated over coming periods by those with a concern about the future of corporate taxation and a race to the bottom, but people have, I think, put such details aside. They are instead saying that these is a hope of change if there is an independent Scotland, and that is why they will take the risk of the unknown.
Precisely for the reason that big business is wedded to there being no real change in taxation - which is that what exists is obviously flawed but very clearly works for big business - people in Scotland (and very obviously, elsewhere too) want change because what we have is flawed and very clearly does not work for them.
I am not convinced that a vote for Yes in Scotland is a vote for the SNP. I would expect a vibrant and pluralistic democracy to emerge in Scotland after a Yes vote, if that were to happen, in which there is no guarantee that the SNP would win. Salmond would be wise to recall that Churchill won a war but lost an election and one of the main reasons for voting SNP may have gone once a referendum is won.
And this is precisely the point I am making, I hope. People are, of course, voting for a wide range of reasons in the Scottish referendum (and I will not be) but when it comes down to it there are, I believe, just two prevailing themes which are being lost in all the noise, and they are the 'keep the status quo, bad as it is' campaign and the 'I think we can do better than this' campaign.
It's not a for or against the Union issue.
Or a for or against the SNP issue.
Although it is a for or against Westminster issue, because that is core to the argument.
It is about vision, passion, and a desire to change by rocking a rotten boat that is so comfortable for a few that they'd rather not reform its obvious flaws.
And shockingly, surprisingly, and sufficiently, people are sending a massive message, whatever happens, that they have had enough of 'some more of the same please'. In England they're doing this via UKIP with a resigned and rightfully heavy heart. In Scotland they have a better option and they are taking it.
There's a massive lesson to learn there, which is that people want change. What is more, unless they get it they might eventually impose it. Those seeking the status quo should take note.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Hit the nail bang on the head Richard. IMO one of the strongest drivers behind the rise of the Yes vote in the Scottish Referendum has been the utter lack of positivity and hope offered by Westminster. Are the Lib Dem trusted anymore to keep to any commitment and how much of substance will really change if there is a small majority) Labour Government? Meantime we have the vista of UKIP ans assorted possible coalitions arising. What hope progressive politics in all of that?
I cannot accept your analysis Richard – the whole ‘union’ debate is being shrank into a ‘we do not like the Cameron government’ which of course is narrowly limited to the last 4 years. Under Labour Scotland had devolution and many other things besides including freedoms to operate a more social democratic model as with student fees, prescriptions etc., It was all the UK tax payers led by the brave Gordon and Alastair which rescued RBS and HBOS as they were of course UK banks.
What Scotland decides next week will last many, many years long after Cameron and Osborn are gone but when our House Of Commons are depleted of our Scottish friends. What a massive duplication of resources will be needed to set up their new sovereign state and the energy, economics and time needed on both sides of the border – much of which is re-directed from the things which we the UK can do together. The media are trivialising this whole affair into a personalisation story , the economic, political and sociological analysis is superficial not least the future of the feasibility of the Scottish economy given what the FT has been anxiously reporting for the last few days but hardly get covers by say the BBC/LBC as they trot out silly personality titbits.
For those of us on the progressive Left/Centre Left the secession of Scotland is a horrific nightmare as it leaves the English ( less the Welsh) open to a disproportional Right Wing hegemony as the next Essex by-election will show. Together we help each other divided well its frightening…
I understand all those concerns.
My head believes in No
If I was Scottish my heart would believe yes
I am sure there ate many who will tussle with such a divide
But let’s be clear, the divide has not been created in Scotland, it was created elsewhere
I went past Grangemouth yesterday and felt that is dis in many ways symbol use the form of capitalism imposed on Scotland that so many up here very obviously hate
Whatever the outcome of next week the need is to reform, radically, north and south
That.s the real challenge for the left. But who will rise to it, especially if Cameron can play the role of saviour of the Union, as of it were his Falklands?
For those of you on the progressive left it should be the Labour party that IS the progressive nightmare, not the possibility of a YES vote. The so-called ‘progressive’ left needs to look at itself and ask why it won’t challenge neo-liberalism and the slide into corporate fascism. As I said below-it took at least six months of silence before Labour even voiced a clear response to the bedroom tax. NO doubt they did survey after survey before they felt ‘safe, to do so. And to keep the press ‘happy’ they continue the culture of benefit bashing and subsidised ‘crap’ jobs – the Scots don’t want this garbage from them!
Leslie-the so-called ‘Left’ needs to develop a bit of reflexivity on this issue!
With respect Leslie, if I understand you correctly, you offer a wrong description that IMO reflects much of the unlearning and denial within the ranks of the Labour movement. At the outset you cite this all being shrank into a we hate the Cameron Government, ‘which of course is narrowly limited to the last 4 years’. The process of disenchantment with the clientelism of how Labour ‘managed’ Scotland has run deep and long. The SNP actually fist became a serious contender awhile as long ago as the 970s before a reverting to cliques and expellings (all under a rather odd leader). Since then it has been a case of a steady recovery and rise in the SNP. But far more significant has been the growth in pro-independence sentiment outside or alongside the SNP – it’s instructive that the steady growth in the Green vote in Scotland has also steadily risen in this period. It is this aspect of civic nationalism that the Westminster political management system cannot properly comprehend or deal with.
Much else of what you assert, IMO, could be taken as reflecting the decade-long unlearning and continued denial within the Establishment Labour ranks. It is foolhardy to proclaim as some sort of electoral positive that, ‘It was all the UK tax payers led by the brave Gordon and Alastair which rescued RBS and HBOS’. Reality on the Referendum ground is that those two individuals are figered as among those culpable for the credit crunch et al in the UK, and the used taxpayers money to do so (when the Icelandic elite tried that on they were faced with an instant on-the-streets popular revolt). Moreover Brown and Darling threw in the taxpayers lifeboat without any real conditions or substantial reforms demands of the sector (hence we still have the bonus culture, miss-selling scandals, huge cash balance sheets whilst industry is starved of lending etc.) without any significant restructuring or reform of the banks or financial services. RBoS is indeed a UK bank, although in the ‘Better Together’ narrative it continues to be wrongly described as ‘Scottish’ – and so now th elatst stunt under Project Fear is that RBoS will be among those moving to London under a Yes vote (BTW there’s a far bigger game-on; Wall Street banks are already implementing contingency plans to move out of the City of London to Dublin becuase of the sharply increasing risk that Anglo Westminster will take the UK out of the EU.
You say, ‘the FT has been anxiously reporting for the last few days but hardly get covers (sic)’. Reality is that I among others have complained in the comments columns of the FT since January of this year about subjective, demeaning, dismissive, London-centric trite in the form of features that fell way below the normal editorial standards of the FT. Among the less-offensive outputs in these ‘features’ was the usual tired canard of ‘wee subsidy-consuming Scotland couldn’t do without us’. Reality is that the FT content usually does ‘hardly get covered’ – that included the emergency near-midnight on a Sunday statement rushed out by Danny Alexander as UK Treasury Secretary – assuring the Money Markets that the UK would honour all National Debt up to the point of independence. That was a pragmatic recognition that the Money Markets will determine what currency arrangements will apply after a Yes vote. That is no longer a decision in the hands of Westminster or the Bank of England. Osborne’s utterances, with reprehensible Labour support, on no-currency-deal are either economically illiterate, a denial of political reality or as the SNP have it ‘a bluff’.
Finally you assert, Together we help each other divided well its frightening…’ But what have we together? Trident replacement, two aircraft carriers (construction started by Labour) we can’t even afford to provide the planes for, likely to return to more quasi-imperial wars with the USA, substantially unreformed House of Lords (including some morally well-dodgy Labour Peers) and the surrounding political system of patronage, the imposition of austerity as a cloaked attack on the State and public services and – most of all – a society with some of the worse or growing levels of unmerited inequality in wealth and income among advanced economies.
I repeat: One of the strongest drivers behind the Yes vote in the Scottish Referendum has been the utter lack of positivity and hope offered by Westminster. Are the Lib Dem trusted anymore to keep to any commitment and how much of substance will really change if there is a small majority) Labour Government?
This morning’s FT editorial on Scotland is evidence for your case
Your conclusion is sound
The Labour party is showing zero insight into this issue and the utter betrayal of the people of Scotland by their 46 MP’s. The Labour party has not questioned the neo-liberal narrative, have allowed the Tories to lead it and have cowered with fear before the press and opinion polls. It took Labour at least six months of fear-induced silence before they had the guts to respond to the bedroom tax, and issue of great social injustice that has been one of the drivers of the SNP campaign.
And yesterday the sight of that trio of non-entities talking to the Scots in patronising, disingenuous tones was utterly sickening -why they were not booed out of the place ,I don’t quite know.
I think Richard is right, this not a simple question of the Union but one of the state of Westminster.
“the secession of Scotland is a horrific nightmare as it leaves the English ( less the Welsh) open to a disproportional Right Wing hegemony”
Leslie48 – I’d be interested in further details from you of the disproportinal nature of the right wing vote.
Historically speaking it has been the left that has punched above its weight
Certainly the conservatives got 10.7m votes (36.1%) in the 2010 UK election and couldn’t get a majority and Labour got 9.5m votes (35.2%) in 2005 and had a comfortable working majority.
Why not complain that Scotland might be at the mercy of a disproportional left wing hegemony?
A cynic might conclude you are happy when voting vagaries work in your favour but cry foul when they do not.
Fair point – but my use of ‘hegemony’ is broader, as in the sociological/ideological sense and includes England’s particularly Right Wing Media where over the last 4 years or so Austerity, demonisation of public services & public employees, anti-welfare state, anti-European, anti-immigrants & pro-Neo-Liberalism has dominated so much of the media agenda including our Public Service Broadcaster. As most Europeans and Scots know our tabloids are some of the most Rightist, personal and propagandist in Europe. For many of us both in Parliament and in the electorate Scotland has been a balance to this virulence. But this proposal to split the UK is more than what the Coalition & Labour have done in the last 4 years but its been in Salmond’s interests to run as such.
I made points very like these in debate in Glasgow last night
leslie -“Austerity, demonisation of public services & public employees, anti-welfare state, anti-European, anti-immigrants & pro-Neo-Liberalism ” this is exactly what Labour have been propping up! Many Scots who were erstwhile labour supporters, now see Labour as ‘Tory Lite’ and I think that has fed into the Yes Vote. I agree we would be better together but Labour’s craven cowardice in the face of the press and a vox populi that has been sold benefit bashing and the Government is a household fallacy has increased the potential for a Yes vote. If Labour has staunchly opposes corporate capture, NHS privatisations, the gross injustice of the bedroom Tax and general austerity we would have a different scenario. I am utterly staggered that Labour is NOT taking any lessons from this.
Newly independent country with a large section of the population wishing for an old union with its neighbour – Ukraine or Scotland? 23 out of 26 of the Scottish Football squad ineligible for the Referendum, along with the vast Scottish diaspora.
Have we forgotten the historical divisions in Scotland, from Sectarian violence
almost as bad as N Ireland, way back to the treatment of Mary Queen of Scots and religious and clan fighting? But I say good luck to the Scots if they want to vote Yes, it will stop some of them (apart from my relatives!) blaming all their ills on the English!
Stephen
That is such a negative view of humanity
It us of course ultimately an Enlightenment view
And it shows his unEnlightened that really was
Richard