Uk politics

The Scottish government will unveil its case for independence at 10am today. Already the Treasury is warning that voting 'yes' next autumn would cost the average basic rate tax payer an additional £1,000 in tax increases. Danny Alexander is also trying to undermine the SNP's claim that fiscal problems initially experienced by a newly independent Scotland would be overcome through increased growth. In a letter to Alex Salmond, Alexander writes: 'I was surprised to hear that the very next day the Scottish government proposed cuts to tax rates in the event of independence. Your Finance Secretary explained that an independent Scotland's fiscal problems would be fixed through additional growth.

There are now 33 MPs backing Nigel Mills's amendment to the Immigration Bill which calls for transitional controls on Romanian and Bulgarian migrants to be extended until 2018. You can read the full list of names below - the amendment will be debated at the report stage of the bill, which is expected to take place in the next few weeks.

From Fraser Nelson: David Cameron proposing delaying welfare payments to EU immigrants – which some might see as his listening more to Lynton Crosby and less to the likes of modernisers like Nick Boles (whose approach to politics Bruce Anderson critiques below). But Boles has advocated going far further: deporting EU immigrants who don’t work. He believes he has found a clause in EU law that allows it. Given that Boles is generally seen as an uber-moderniser,  I thought Coffee Housers may be interested in seeing another side to his political thought -  a deportation plan which is further than most right-wing Tory MPs would go.  The below is abridged from his book 'Which Way’s Up'? I have changed my mind about immigration.

For months now, Number 10 has been fretting about what to do about Romanian and Bulgarian immigration. From the end of this year, any Romanian and Bulgarian will be able to move here in search of work. Downing Street knows that if they come in large numbers it’ll negate everything that the government has done to try and get immigration under control. Fairly or not, it’ll be fatal to the Tories’ reputation for competence on this issue. David Cameron is, as today’s Times and Mail reveal, now planning a major intervention on this issue. He wants to achieve three things. First, show that his government is handling the issue better than Labour did.

The UK government knows that it plays into the SNP’s hands if it does anything which could be seen as trying to bully the Scots into voting no to independence. So, it has not said that the Scots would not be able to use sterling after independence but merely stated that this would be an issue for the rest of the UK too. The Welsh First Minister, though, has now come out and said that he would veto the creation of a sterling zone. This intervention by Carwyn Jones is one that the UK government had been waiting for, and expecting. It gets the message across without risking the accusation of bully-boy tactics or allowing the SNP to attack Westminster.

Another outbreak of the Tory Modernising Wars! What larks! Nick Boles's speech to Bright Blue, a newish think tank for metropolitan swells folk who think the Tory message needs rethinking, has, as it was designed to, caused a minor rumpus. Rod Liddle thinks Boles is off his head. Iain Martin is kinder but concludes the Cameroons are still obsessed with fighting the wrong battles. Other commentators are gentler still, conceding that Boles is asking the right question but that he's searching for answers in the wrong places. Nick Denys and, to some extent, Paul Goodman fall into this camp. On the other hand, Ian Birrell and Matt d'Ancona essentially agree with Boles while James Kirkup concludes that Boles has inadvertently conceded the failure of the Cameroon modernisation project.

Nick Boles has always been one of the most intellectually interesting Tory modernisers. Back in 2010, he caused controversy with his call for a formal electoral pact between the two coalition parties. But today, he has recanted that idea and instead proposed that the Tories create an internal coalition by reforming the National Liberal Party as their sister party. Boles concedes that his idea for an electoral pact was flawed because the Liberal Democrats aren’t a ‘Liberal’ party but instead a ‘statist party of the soft left’. In a sign of the loss of personal respect for Clegg even among liberal Tory ministers, Boles attacks the deputy Prime Minister as a ‘principle-free zone’ who is happy to cut a coalition deal with anyone however illiberal.

The first thing to be said about the Institute for Fiscal Studies' latest assessment of an independent Scotland's long-term fiscal well-being is that the IFS's assessments of the UK's long-term vitality are also pretty gloomy. Neither is terribly pretty. Much the same, of course, could be said of France and, in fact, most other western countries. An Age of Plenty is being replaced by an Era of Making Do. Reality stings. So the difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK is one of degree not kind. Moreover, it would be wise to remember that these are projections, not predictions, and that they are largely based on present trends and assumptions. These have a habit of changing. So, for that matter, does policy.

It has long been suspected that there are tensions between Ed Miliband and Ed Balls. The pair fell out badly over the third runway at Heathrow in government and when Miliband was elected leader, he conspicuously didn’t offer Balls the job of shadow Chancellor. But since Balls became shadow Chancellor the pair has largely succeeded in keeping their differences under wraps. But the leaked emails revealed by Simon Walters in the Mail on Sunday today, show what Miliband’s team privately thinks of Balls. Torsten Bell, one of Miliband’s most influential aides, calls Balls a ‘nightmare’ and complains about how complicated his message on the economy is. Tellingly, he isn’t rebuked for his tone by the other Miliband advisers on the email.

Somehow I managed to miss Iain Martin's praise for the manner in which David Cameron has "handled" the referendum on Scottish independence. Happily, John Rentoul has prompted me to take a keek at Iain's article which, somewhat uncharacteristically, concludes that the Prime Minister has "played a blinder". This, as Mr Rentoul cautions, is premature praise. We are asked to believe that Cameron has pursued a policy of masterly inactivity. It is also suggested that securing a single-question referendum was a masterstroke rather than, well, the obvious outcome of a negotiating process between Edinburgh and London that was much less dramatic, and much less important, than everyone agreed at the time to pretend it was.