Scottish devolution in 1979

[Fletch]

Thatcher didn’t de-Industrialise for fun

No, I agree, she didn't. She had a very difficult desicion to make given the situation Britain was in at the time, in addition to which she had a moneterist vision which she followed through with agusto. Scotland, if you read the report I linked, would have a huge surplus in the balance of payments and no such monetarist in charge. As such government would lilely still subsidise industry. That is why I am saying the pits etc. would still be open north of the border.

I just dont see why this doesnt happen

There would be some de-regulation as it was going on globally but with probably a socialist/social-democratic government for the first decade or so it wouldn't happen under them. After that I am unsure but suspect change would be slower.

I did mention the USA as well. I think bringing Empire into this is “stupid bullshit” but I phased it in a polite way

I apologise for being rude, but the combination of the chronic surplus on the balance of payments and the social democratic system would make neither Libya or the USA comparible.

Ireland is a poor comparison due to the number of people that have died and are to a lesser extent still dyeing. I'll admit I know little of the others

Thats the thing. Scotland is hardly unique. Ireland was not a good comparison in any way, but then again you have brought it up in all of your posts until now as a comparison. Still, it left the UK. When was the last time they came knocking on the door of Westminster asking for re-admission to the union? The best comparison would probably be the Czechs and the Slovaks.

yes but this is just going to lead a Tory Goverment later with the same agenda

Possibly, but how many politicians do you know who would accept 3 million unemployed and continue their ploicies. Thatcher in her early years was extremely unpopular. The Falklands war helped save her, as did the split between Labour and the SDP/Liberal alliance. Circumstances change, and with those changes everything else becomes less certain.

That’s my point I think Scotland would be Screwed now.

Leaving everything else aside, this is the crux of it. I am stating that it is silly to equate the Scotland of today which has radically changed due to three decades of Thatcherism, alongside all the other changes in society to the Scotland of thirty years ago.

I apologise for getting my heckles up during my last post in case I sounded snippy, but one of my pet hates is people putting down that if x happens today then it must happen in an atl even if y changed everything else that lead up to the events. The changes in decisions in Scotland would change how Scotland develops today. Ditto in England and anywhere else. To state otherwise is wrong.

If the Scotland Lauded it over the UK when the Tory government post crash (I think there is still a good chance of that) is not going to be nice in its bailout if it gives one. If it does not the EU will have to do it ether way Scotland ends up dependant of someone and I didn’t mean Scotland if Forced to Join the UK out of economic need k just think a Public that is not particularly anti UK might after only 40 years of going it alone want to rejoin the UK

You are persistant if anything. Regardless of circumstance and change, all I am getting is that in your opinion the effects must be the same on the same banks and parts of the union.

 

[Lord Douglas]

No, I agree, she didn't. She had a very difficult desicion to make given the situation Britain was in at the time, in addition to which she had a moneterist vision which she followed through with agusto. Scotland, if you read the report I linked, would have a huge surplus in the balance of payments and no such monetarist in charge. As such government would lilely still subsidise industry. That is why I am saying the pits etc. would still be open north of the border.

Is that necessarily true? If Scotland were a member of the EEC they might have no choice but to withdraw subsidies, at least in certain areas - for example steel.

 

[theman from the ministery]

No, I agree, she didn't. She had a very difficult desicion to make given the situation Britain was in at the time, in addition to which she had a moneterist vision which she followed through with agusto. Scotland, if you read the report I linked, would have a huge surplus in the balance of payments and no such monetarist in charge. As such government would lilely still subsidise industry. That is why I am saying the pits etc. would still be open north of the border

I see where your coming from. yes Scotland would have the money (and yes Im reading your link inbewteen much GCSE resvion) but being able to do and going to do are very Diffrent, take Hugo Chávez he could modernise venezuelan Industry but is useing its oil money mainly to give out frebiese and easy Jobs

There would be some de-regulation as it was going on globally but with probably a socialist/social-democratic government for the first decade or so it wouldn't happen under them. After that I am unsure but suspect change would be slower.

so were Bill clinton , Tony Bliar and Groden brown

Thats the thing. Scotland is hardly unique. Ireland was not a good comparison in any way, but then again you have brought it up in all of your posts until now as a comparison. Still, it left the UK. When was the last time they came knocking on the door of Westminster asking for re-admission to the union? The best comparison would probably be the Czechs and the Slovaks.

you have me their sir for this TL befor the Celtic tiger and all that Ierland is not great comparison for TTL

Possibly, but how many politicians do you know who would accept 3 million unemployed and continue their ploicies. Thatcher in her early years was extremely unpopular. The Falklands war helped save her, as did the split between Labour and the SDP/Liberal alliance. Circumstances change, and with those changes everything else becomes less certain.

I agree but wont this Just lead to a harsher Thatcher mark 2 later in the UK ?

Leaving everything else aside, this is the crux of it. I am stating that it is silly to equate the Scotland of today which has radically changed due to three decades of Thatcherism, alongside all the other changes in society to the Scotland of thirty years ago.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Im just outlineing one way it couled go I think that the Scottish Goverment might not try and modernise Scottish Industry (just leave it as it is ) and Just let the oil do the work. follow the lead of the social-democratic government's in the USA, UK ect and let the banks do what they whant. then rejoining the now Tory UK. Is just one way it might go I'm not just saying TTL Scotland is the same as OTL Scotland

You are persistant if anything. Regardless of circumstance and change, all I am getting is that in your opinion the effects must be the same on the same banks and parts of the union.

Im not saying must I said in my first post "I can maybe see" not "this is the only way it can go" and I didnt claim to have a great knowlage of Scotland's econoimces but I do see this as a real possablity

 

[Fletch]

Is that necessarily true? If Scotland were a member of the EEC they might have no choice but to withdraw subsidies, at least in certain areas - for example steel.

I am not an expert in EU industrial rules, but the steel industry would have been a nationalised industry upon independence. I can't see how the EEC could stop the Scottish Government investing in a nationalised industry. That being said, until the 80s, the SNP was actually in favour of staying out of the EEC. Also, Scotland voted to stay out of the Common Market in the referendum. There would be a significant anti-EU lobby at this point.

 

[Dunois]

I would see myself as being a natural Liberal Tory but the issue of local government is another area where I believe Thatcher got it badly wrong. Andrew Marr covers this very well in a History of Modern Britain, local government has increasingly been seen as an opportunity for a consequence free protest vote against Whitehall. In the 1980's for many parts of Britain there was genuine anger at government policies but many people didn't want a strongly left wing Labour Party in government nationally. So they voted Labour for their councils, the nature of Labour at this time meant that Red Ken and Degsy Hatton were among the benificaries of this. Their far left platforms were everything Thatcher was aiming to combat and her reaction was to impose rate capping on councils and to reduce their responsibilities. This further enraged people in the cities and so they voted Labour more strongly setting off a vicious cycle that led directly to the Poll Tax.

The supreme irony of this as Marr explains was that for years the Tories had championed strong local government, but under Thatcher they inadvertently concentrated more power at the centre than anyone else. The consequences of that are still hurting the Tories in Northern England and Scotland to this day.

Agreed Thatcher ultra ideological attitude on the local government question, probably shows all by itself that she was not a conservative in the proper sense of the term (where pragmatism triumphs over ideology).

A better way to kill the devolution question would have been strong governance at the local level all over the United Kingdom. The 1972 local government reform was not complete and actually bad in some ways. By strong local governance, I am talking about devolving a lot of powers especially in education transporation and the like to local councils. At the same time these must be able to cover their costs, so give them all the revenues of VAT along with the power to set their own rate!

Personally I think that NSO saved Britain from having to face some extremely difficult choices in the 1970's, the sort of choices that are being debated right now. Had Scotland been independent then the moment of reckoning would have occurred 35 years ago.

Something which would have been way better than not doing any reforms over the last 35 years AND, wasting all the income provided by the North Sea Oil.

 

[Lord Douglas]

I am not an expert in EU industrial rules, but the steel industry would have been a nationalised industry upon independence. I can't see how the EEC could stop the Scottish Government investing in a nationalised industry. That being said, until the 80s, the SNP was actually in favour of staying out of the EEC. Also, Scotland voted to stay out of the Common Market in the referendum. There would be a significant anti-EU lobby at this point.

I'm pretty sure that EEC rules on subsidies apply to all corporations whether nationalised or not - exceptions exist for public services, emergency funding during periods of national crisis and specific grants for depressed areas (so industries couldn't be subsidised as a whole). None of these provisions cover nationalised industries in their entirety. It's possible that an independent Scotland may not be part of the Common Market, but it's false to say that Scotland voted against EEC entry - it did record a lower 'Yes' vote than the UK as a whole but the only regions to give a 'No' majority were Shetland and the Western Isles.*

I don't see how Scotland would just be able to ignore a ruling from the European Court if it subsidised industry in contravention of EEC regulations. Even with oil wealth Scotland would still be a small state with far less clout than France, Germany or the remnant UK - these nations aren't going to be happy seeing Scotland pouring money into nationalised corporations while they are forced to remove funding. In addition Scotland would probably be pressing for reform of the CFP, so obstruction over subsidies would weaken its position there.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...eferendum,_1975#National_.26_Regional_Results

 

[Fletch]

I'm pretty sure that EEC rules on subsidies apply to all corporations whether nationalised or not - exceptions exist for public services, emergency funding during periods of national crisis and specific grants for depressed areas (so industries couldn't be subsidised as a whole). None of these provisions cover nationalised industries in their entirety. It's possible that an independent Scotland may not be part of the Common Market, but it's false to say that Scotland voted against EEC entry - it did record a lower 'Yes' vote than the UK as a whole but the only regions to give a 'No' majority were Shetland and the Western Isles.*

I don't see how Scotland would just be able to ignore a ruling from the European Court if it subsidised industry in contravention of EEC regulations. Even with oil wealth Scotland would still be a small state with far less clout than France, Germany or the remnant UK - these nations aren't going to be happy seeing Scotland pouring money into nationalised corporations while they are forced to remove funding. In addition Scotland would probably be pressing for reform of the CFP, so obstruction over subsidies would weaken its position there.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...eferendum,_1975#National_.26_Regional_Results

I do stand corrected!

I never really took that much interest into the 1975 Common Market referendum, and was having an argument with a euro-sceptic Tory friend of mine a few years ago who told me Scotland voted no. I never dis-believed him so have parroted it a few times and never been corrected. Shows me to check me facts..

As for the industry law, I'm still unsure, I'm not disbelieving you but that would prohibit any nationalised industry progressing so will hold fire there.

 

[Dunois]

To be fair Fletcher a lot of countries have sometimes ignored the rules of the EU wth regards to industrial subsidies. France is one for a start and with regards to the steel industry, Italy is another one since they flooded their own industry with money for political purposes.

However, subsidies alone won't save the Ravenscraig steelworks. They were in a poor location away from most transport modes, meaning that importing iron ore in large quatities was costlier than in other places. The Scottish coal may also not be the best one available for making coke as well, requiring further importations of better quality coal from overseas. I would also like to point out that the Ravenscraig steelworks partly used open hearth furnaces. These are extremely inefficient both in terms of energy and manpower requirements.

It was possible to save heavy industry in Scotland, but by the 1970s it was probably way too late to achieve this.