Scotland post-Brexit - what happens next?

[takno]

Well if you go to Eastern Europe I can find many places that did a great deal worse.
Also the US.

The changes being handled in Eastern Europe were nothing like the changes being handled here. Certainly the move to a market economy was handled pretty terribly in a lot of places - often worst of all in the ones which took a lot of Western advice, but it was a far larger and fundamentally more complex transition.

One reason why the effectiveness of approach in handling deindustrialisation is as matter of actual importance rather than historical curiosity, is that several of those countries are now entering a phase similar to where the UK was in the 80s, and it would be useful if they picked the right model to emulate.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think it's important to expand on that: Other countries handled the economic changes of the latter half of the 20th century onwards much better than we did.

I did a bit of study on this for my Masters. There are many short answers to this problem, but British deindustrialisation was increased by a number of unique structual problems in the British economy. One of these reasons was Imperial preference and the lack of exposure to global competition and the need to develop a planned economy after WW2 instead of modernising production as Europe/US/Japan did. Complacency was rife in British industry and even after the war, the idea of competing nations didn't seem to occur to management. Very likely, this was because for the first 100 years of modern industry Britain had no competition, it was *the* competition. You can also add to the mix the historical argument that deindustrialisation happened at first not post-war but in the late Victorian era. German chemicals production, for indstance, overtook Britain in the 1880s. One theory of this was because English society had not actually moved from a Fedual structure, and that the first industrialists in the late 18th-early 19th centuries had no ambition to continue with their businesses but to join the ranks of the British aristocracy.

This snobbery to industry lasted until Brexit, in my opinion. Only then was the missing link finally, just about realised between political discontent and regional economic imbalencenes. Sure, politically all governments were to blame. Although in my opinion, New Labour were the worst, who not only had no interest in industry because of their own political image-actually encouraged industry to decline due to their monetary policies and created an economic policy that favoured bland, 80s soundbites like "enterprise" which, obviously, could not be applied to entire towns like Sunderland.

 

[najaB]

Well if you go to Eastern Europe I can find many places that did a great deal worse.

As @takno points out, Eastern Europe wasn't just dealing with deindustrialisation but also and more importantly with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Communism. So they had to adapt from an economy where efficiency of production wasn't an issue and the market was dictated by what the State decided it was, rather than what was actually needed. There are numerous stories, many no doubt apocryphal, of factories being set production targets so out of line with actual demand that new cars/tanks/fridges were being sent directly from the factory to be scrapped to provide the raw materials for more production.

Shifting from the planned economy to a market based one was always going to be extremely traumatic and take at least a couple of generations.

 

[Senex]

German chemicals production, for indstance, overtook Britain in the 1880s. One theory of this was because English society had not actually moved from a Fedual structure, and that the first industrialists in the late 18th-early 19th centuries had no ambition to continue with their businesses but to join the ranks of the British aristocracy.

This theory takes the start of the British decline back a very long way. The argument is that the first generation establishes the business and makes the money — and then uses it to buy a house well away from the location of the business (a proper country mansion if the business were successful enough) and send the sons to boarding schools (which one again depending on the success of the business) to lose their local accents, mix with the right people, get jobs in the civil service or similar and just take an income from the business. I exaggerate, but that really is the line of the argument and there's an awful lot of evidence to support it. You could argue that takeovers and concentration of power and money in the capital was a consequence. In Germany that dissociation between the owners and their business generally didn't happen. Coupled with the very successful Technische Hochschulen, a stress on the worth and value of applied sciences, and much banking remaining local, this gave rise to the very successful Mittelstand that has been such a contributor to German economic success. (And you could argue that it all still goes on. Look how every College of Advanced Technology turned itself into a Polytechnic and then every Polytechnic turned itself into a University and then every such new university duly set about acquiring arts and social sciences departments ...)

 

[Sad Sprinter]

This theory takes the start of the British decline back a very long way. The argument is that the first generation establishes the business and makes the money — and then uses it to buy a house well away from the location of the business (a proper country mansion if the business were successful enough) and send the sons to boarding schools (which one again depending on the success of the business) to lose their local accents, mix with the right people, get jobs in the civil service or similar and just take an income from the business. I exaggerate, but that really is the line of the argument and there's an awful lot of evidence to support it. You could argue that takeovers and concentration of power and money in the capital was a consequence. In Germany that dissociation between the owners and their business generally didn't happen. Coupled with the very successful Technische Hochschulen, a stress on the worth and value of applied sciences, and much banking remaining local, this gave rise to the very successful Mittelstand that has been such a contributor to German economic success. (And you could argue that it all still goes on. Look how every College of Advanced Technology turned itself into a Polytechnic and then every Polytechnic turned itself into a University and then every such new university duly set about acquiring arts and social sciences departments ...)

Indeed. This is why I can understand the cognitive reasoning for Brexit, because it completely smashed, once and for all, the aristocratic snobbery to industry by placing the English middle and upper class in as precarious position as the provincal working class. There was no other way aside from Brexit that would have changed this, because the Cameronite era had, aside from a small period in the early 2010s as a consequence of the financial crisis, wholly brought into the false glory of British industrial decline. Britain's governance was set up to maintain the Empire and thrived in its closing decades on "invisible" goods such as shipping. The transition to a post-imperial economy was made but Britain just couldn't create a sufficent export environment that could compete with American, German and Japanese goods.

That said, in context of this thread, I would urge to think twice before jumping ship out of fustration of deindustrialisation. Brexit has fundamentally changed how the Labour and Conservative Party thinks, and the Thatcherite/Blairite concensus that was so toxic to Scotland and, er...everywhere outisde of the South East, has finally been put to bed.

 

[najaB]

That said, in context of this thread, I would urge to think twice before jumping ship out of fustration of deindustrialisation. Brexit has fundamentally changed how the Labour and Conservative Party thinks, and the Thatcherite/Blairite concensus that was so toxic to Scotland and, er...everywhere outisde of the South East, has finally been put to bed.

I wish that I could believe that is true.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

It has to be, the Tories are absoloutley not going to give up the Red Wall, and Labour wants them back. Anyone who stands in 2024 with a "duhhh free markets are cool" agenda are screwed. Especially when you have the SDP and Reform Party circuling like vultures. That's why Nicola Sturgeon needs Scotland to have voted yes by Christmas, before the Labour Party has the chance to do something awful like become a political party that can unite the Country. Almost seems like shes manipulating the Scottish opinion to further her own personal goal, but maybe I'm just paranoid.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I think a cooling-off period might be appropriate, maybe five years?

 

[najaB]

Almost seems like shes manipulating the Scottish opinion to further her own personal goal, but maybe I'm just paranoid.

If you substitute "personal" for "party" then I agree 100%. Not that I don't think that personal ambition is driving her as well, just that her personal success is totally aligned with achieving her party's stated purpose.

I think a cooling-off period might be appropriate, maybe five years?

It just so happens that 2021 is five years since the Brexit vote...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Feb 2021 ==

It seems likely that the SNP will hold an Indyref without Westminster approval, which will therefore be constitutionally illegitimate...

That is debatable, it's not entirely clear if the power to hold a referendum lies with Westminster or Holyrood. That's why they went the extra mile to grant the Section 30 order for the 2014 referendum.

A second Scottish independence referendum without a s.30 Order? A legal question that demands a political answer

In this blog Professor Tierney argues that the legality of a unilateral referendum organised by the Scottish Parliament is a grey area. He also offers personal reflections from his experience as a parliamentary adviser at the time of the 2014 referendum and contends that a referendum held...

www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

 

[RT4038]

Indeed. This is why I can understand the cognitive reasoning for Brexit, because it completely smashed, once and for all, the aristocratic snobbery to industry by placing the English middle and upper class in as precarious position as the provincal working class. There was no other way aside from Brexit that would have changed this, because the Cameronite era had, aside from a small period in the early 2010s as a consequence of the financial crisis, wholly brought into the false glory of British industrial decline. Britain's governance was set up to maintain the Empire and thrived in its closing decades on "invisible" goods such as shipping. The transition to a post-imperial economy was made but Britain just couldn't create a sufficent export environment that could compete with American, German and Japanese goods.

That said, in context of this thread, I would urge to think twice before jumping ship out of fustration of deindustrialisation. Brexit has fundamentally changed how the Labour and Conservative Party thinks, and the Thatcherite/Blairite concensus that was so toxic to Scotland and, er...everywhere outisde of the South East, has finally been put to bed.

I am not so sure that the 'South East' is quite right - a large swathe of middle England, stretching quite far north and west is also included.

 

[PG]

I am not so sure that the 'South East' is quite right - a large swathe of middle England, stretching quite far north and west is also included.

I'd say roughly anywhere South of a line from The Wash to The Severn Estuary.

 

[RT4038]

I'd say roughly anywhere South of a line from The Wash to The Severn Estuary.

However, it does include quite a lot of rural area ('Middle England') to the north of that line

 

[najaB]

For something that seems to be fact rather than emotion-based, a research paper indicates that independence could shrink the Scottish economy by around £11B/year. One thing they don't make clear is exactly what trading relationship they see for England/Scotland in the long term.

Independence could cost Scotland's economy £11bn a year, forecast suggests

Economists say impact of leaving UK’s common market would hit two to three times as hard as leaving EU

www.theguardian.com

 

[ABB125]

For something that seems to be fact rather than emotion-based, a research paper indicates that independence could shrink the Scottish economy by around £11B/year. One thing they don't make clear is exactly what trading relationship they see for England/Scotland in the long term.

Independence could cost Scotland's economy £11bn a year, forecast suggests

Economists say impact of leaving UK’s common market would hit two to three times as hard as leaving EU

www.theguardian.com

(Genuine question) What would be the result of that cut? Paying to go to university? No more rail electrification? Hospital parking charges introduced? Given that I don't live anywhere near Scotland I have no idea!

 

[21C101]

Catalonia held an unapproved referendum but that didn't seem to do any good. Not sure what Scotland can do differently that would end up with a different result.

If they do that I can't see Westminster doing what the Spanish did and jailing them all for sedition. That would be to repeat the errors of 1916.

More likely is if a refedendum bill was passed in the Scottish Parliament it would be quashed in a judicial review and if the Sottish goverrment went ahead in defiance of the courts certain named personages would held in contempt of court and surcharged to recover any public expenditure on it, possibly with the SNP getting the NUM treatment and having their assets sequestrated.

Unionist Parties would in any case boycott it making it fairly meaningless.

 

[Journeyman]

(Genuine question) What would be the result of that cut? Paying to go to university? No more rail electrification? Hospital parking charges introduced? Given that I don't live anywhere near Scotland I have no idea!

Put it this way, £11bn is a very sizeable chunk of the £14bn it costs to run the NHS in Scotland every year. That's pretty sobering.

I think nationalists really need to be grilled about this, and need to be held accountable for the misery that independence would cause to a lot of people. This is not "project fear" or "SNP baaaad", it's an identified likely outcome of Scottish independence making trade and business with England significantly harder, and trade with the EU not even remotely being sufficient to make up for it.

As someone only about 15 years away from retiring (hopefully), I'll be extremely p****d off if I have to suffer financially for the egotistical dreams of a bunch of useless politicians. Brexit was bad enough, we don't need this as well.

 

[GusB]

Quoting from the article:

Independence could cost Scotland's economy £11bn a year, forecast suggests

Economists say impact of leaving UK’s common market would hit two to three times as hard as leaving EU

www.theguardian.com

Suggesting that the worst economic effects would take several decades to take hold, the LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance said the impacts on its trade with both the UK and the EU would shrink Scotland’s economy in the long run by between 6.3% and 8.7%.

and

The authors stressed their analysis only covered the impacts of increasing trading costs, and excluded other economic or fiscal issues post-independence, such as cuts or increases in inward investment, changes in immigration, currency changes or tax changes.

So there are still a load of factors that are completely unaccounted for.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Put it this way, £11bn is a very sizeable chunk of the £14bn it costs to run the NHS in Scotland every year. That's pretty sobering.

I think nationalists really need to be grilled about this, and need to be held accountable for the misery that independence would cause to a lot of people. This is not "project fear" or "SNP baaaad", it's an identified likely outcome of Scottish independence making trade and business with England significantly harder, and trade with the EU not even remotely being sufficient to make up for it.

As someone only about 15 years away from retiring (hopefully), I'll be extremely p****d off if I have to suffer financially for the egotistical dreams of a bunch of useless politicians. Brexit was bad enough, we don't need this as well.

You clearly haven't had your daily dose of Nicola Sturgon's press briefings

 

[najaB]

(Genuine question) What would be the result of that cut? Paying to go to university? No more rail electrification? Hospital parking charges introduced? Given that I don't live anywhere near Scotland I have no idea!

That is the question of the day. My guess is that there would have to be cuts all around.

I could see the EU funding some projects to help diversify the economy (assuming they let us back in!)

 

[Journeyman]

You clearly haven't had your daily dose of Nicola Sturgon's press briefings

I haven't watched a single one. I don't want to end up with high blood pressure.

 

[PG]

I could see the EU funding some projects to help diversify the economy (assuming they let us back in!)

Just so long as we don't get Boris' slogan being reworked by the SNP to 'Let's get Brexit undone'!

 

[Journeyman]

So there are still a load of factors that are completely unaccounted for.

It still sounds like a bunch of risks I'm not willing to take.

 

[GusB]

It still sounds like a bunch of risks I'm not willing to take.

I respect that you have your position on the matter. Staying within the UK while Boris Johnson and the ERGs are at the helm is a bunch of risks that I'm not willing to take.

 

[21C101]

I respect that you have your position on the matter. Staying within the UK while Boris Johnson and the ERGs are at the helm is a bunch of risks that I'm not willing to take.

I suspect some of the comments here are driven by the fear that Scotland seceeding would result in Boris and the ERG (plus DUP when required) being permanently at the helm of rUK

If I were Scottish (theoretically I have a claim to that I suppose, as my Grandfather was born there (as his parents were stationed in Stirling Castle) and later served in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders), I think I would be in favour for much the same reason I am in favour of Brexit.

From a British/English point of view I would be sad to see it and from a geopolitical point of view it is worth the danegeld of the Barnet Formula to retain control of the whole island in defence matters etc.

The way the last referendum was conducted based on the votes of current Scottish residents only seems wrong though

Scots living in the rest of the UK and those Scots living abroad who have been resident in the UK in the last 15 years ought to have a vote too. That leads to a debate on who should qualify. It would probably be going too far if I qualified based on the above though.

 

[Butts]

I suspect some of the comments here are driven by the fear that Scotland seceeding would result in Boris and the ERG (plus DUP when required) being permanently at the helm of rUK

If I were Scottish (theoretically I have a claim to that I suppose, as my Grandfather was born there (as his parents were stationed in Stirling Castle) and later served in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders), I think I would be in favour for much the same reason I am in favour of Brexit.

From a British/English point of view I would be sad to see it and from a geopolitical point of view it is worth the danegeld of the Barnet Formula to retain control of the whole island in defence matters etc.

The way the last referendum was conducted based on the votes of current Scottish residents only seems wrong though

Scots living in the rest of the UK and those Scots living abroad who have been resident in the UK in the last 15 years ought to have a vote too. That leads to a debate on who should qualify. It would probably be going too far if I qualified based on the above though.

Not at all, Scottish residents will be impacted, not exiles boring everyone to death about how wonderful Caledonia is from their Home Counties retreat.

 

[GusB]

The way the last referendum was conducted based on the votes of current Scottish residents only seems wrong though

Scots living in the rest of the UK and those Scots living abroad who have been resident in the UK in the last 15 years ought to have a vote too. That leads to a debate on who should qualify. It would probably be going too far if I qualified based on the above though.

Why? If choose to move to a neighbouring council area, I wouldn't expect to be able to vote for councillors where I used to live. Likewise if I move to Wales, I would no longer consider myself entitled to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections.

Not at all, Scottish residents will be impacted, not exiles boring everyone to death about how wonderful Caledonia is from their Home Counties retreat.

Goodness me, we agree on something. The end of the world is nigh

 

[RT4038]

Why? If choose to move to a neighbouring council area, I wouldn't expect to be able to vote for councillors where I used to live. Likewise if I move to Wales, I would no longer consider myself entitled to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections.

That was the view taken with the Brexit referendum, so therefore not taking it with any Scottish independence referendum would be inconsistent.

However, my view is that this is rather unfair. This is a constitutional question, not something merely about local living conditions. UK citizens who had partaken in Freedom of Movement and moved into the EU were effectively disenfranchised about something which directly affected them and their security. Scots moving to England are in the same position.

It is clear why pro-Brexit and pro-Independence supporters would want to take their stance - these expatriates are more likely to vote for the status quo to protect their security (perceived or real).

 

[GusB]

That was the view taken with the Brexit referendum, so therefore not taking it with any Scottish independence referendum would be inconsistent.

However, my view is that this is rather unfair. This is a constitutional question, not something merely about local living conditions. UK citizens who had partaken in Freedom of Movement and moved into the EU were effectively disenfranchised about something which directly affected them and their security. Scots moving to England are in the same position.

It is clear why pro-Brexit and pro-Independence supporters would want to take their stance - these expatriates are more likely to vote for the status quo to protect their security (perceived or real).

Going by that logic, I could choose to settle in London, or Paris or wherever you care to mention and expect to have a say in the constitutional future of Scotland, even if I have no intention to move back?

 

[JamesT]

That was the view taken with the Brexit referendum, so therefore not taking it with any Scottish independence referendum would be inconsistent.

However, my view is that this is rather unfair. This is a constitutional question, not something merely about local living conditions. UK citizens who had partaken in Freedom of Movement and moved into the EU were effectively disenfranchised about something which directly affected them and their security. Scots moving to England are in the same position.

It is clear why pro-Brexit and pro-Independence supporters would want to take their stance - these expatriates are more likely to vote for the status quo to protect their security (perceived or real).

UK citizens living in Europe were only disenfranchised from the Brexit referendum if it had been more than 15 years since they had left. (I.e. the same rules as General Elections). Whereas the Scottish Independence referendum only looked at residence at the time.

 

[takno]

UK citizens living in Europe were only disenfranchised from the Brexit referendum if it had been more than 15 years since they had left. (I.e. the same rules as General Elections). Whereas the Scottish Independence referendum only looked at residence at the time.

My recollection is that they didn't get a vote in the Brexit referendum, which mattered because the result of it has seriously affected their ability to continue living their lives abroad. That is unlikely to apply in a Scottish referendum.

Perhaps more importantly, the European people living in the UK didn't get a say in the Brexit referendum, which has profoundly impacted a lot of their lives. Nobody is suggesting that only enthnic Scots get a vote in a Scottish referendum.