Scotland's credit rating becomes an issue

Credit rating agencies warn that an independent Scotland may not inherit the UK's AAA rating.

The report in today's FT that an independent Scotland would likely not inherit the UK's AAA credit rating will be seized on by opponents of secession as further evidence that, in their view, independence would be economically damaging. One unnamed agency told the paper that it could expect to receive an investment grade rating some notches below triple A. As the FT's Martin Wolf noted in a recent column:

A newly independent small country with sizeable fiscal deficits, high public debt and reliance on a declining resource for 12 per cent of its fiscal revenue, could not enjoy a triple A rating.

In an act reminiscent of his pre-election tactics, George Osborne has already warned, with little evidence, that the threat of independence is damaging investment and that Scotland could be forced to join the euro (even without a formal opt-out, Sweden still hasn't joined after 17 years of membership).

Will Osborne now make play of the uncertainty over Scotland's credit rating? He may be wary of doing so, not least because there's an increasing chance that the UK could lose its own AAA rating. Others will rightly note that France and the US have seen little increase in their borrowing costs since their credit ratings were downgraded.

This hasn't stopped both Labour and the Conservatives going on the attack today. Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont said it was "extraordinary that the SNP have not even approached the credit agencies for a draft opinion."

Scottish Conservative finance spokesman Gavin Brown said: "Ratings agencies are taken extremely seriously by investors all over the world and this warning is therefore deeply concerning: three of the top agencies agree that a separate Scotland would not be guaranteed a triple-A rating."

It's worth bearing in mind, however, that such scare tactics may only work to Salmond's advantage. Those who oppose Scottish independence need to remember that making the positive case for the Union, as Ed Miliband did in his recent speech, is as important.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour's purge: how it works, and what it means

The total number of people removed will be small - but the rancour will linger. 

Labour has just kicked off its first big wave of expulsions, purging many voters from the party’s leadership rolls. Twitter is ablaze with activists who believe they have been kicked out because they are supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. There are, I'm told, more expulsions to come - what's going on?  Is Labour purging its rolls of Corbyn supporters?

The short answer is “No”.

If that opener feels familiar, it should: I wrote it last year, when the last set of purges kicked off, and may end up using it again next year. Labour has stringent rules about expressing support for other candidates and membership of other parties, which account for the bulk of the expulsions. It also has a code of conduct on abusive language which is also thinning the rolls, with supporters of both candidates being kicked off. 

Although the party is in significantly better financial shape than last year, it still is running a skeleton staff and is recovering from an expensive contest (in this case, to keep Britain in the European Union). The compliance unit itself remains small, so once again people from across the party staff have been dragooned in.

The process this year is pretty much the same: Labour party headquarters doesn’t have any bespoke software to match its voters against a long list of candidates in local elections, compiled last year and added to the list of candidates that stood against Labour in the 2016 local and devolved elections, plus a large backlog of complaints from activists.

It’s that backlog that is behind many of the highest-profile and most controversial examples. Last year, in one complaint that was not upheld, a local member was reported to the Compliance Unit for their failure to attend their local party’s annual barbecue. The mood in Labour, in the country and at Westminster, is significantly more bitter this summer than last and the complaints more personal. Ronnie Draper, the general secretary of the Bfawu, the bakers’ union, one of Corbyn’s biggest supporters in the trade union movement, has been expelled, reported for tweets which included the use of the word “traitors” to refer to Labour opponents of Corbyn.  Jon Will Chambers, former bag carrier to Stella Creasy, and a vocal Corbyn critic on Twitter, has been kicked out for using a “Theresa May” twibbon to indicate his preference for May over Andrea Leadsom, in contravention of the party’s rules.

Both activities breach the letter of the party’s rules although you can (and people will) make good arguments against empowering other people to comb through the social media profiles of their opponents for reasons to dob them in.  (In both cases, I wouldn’t be shocked if both complaints were struck down on appeal)

I would be frankly astonished if Corbyn’s margin of victory – or defeat, as unlikely as that remains in my view – isn’t significantly bigger than the number of people who are barred from voting, which will include supporters of both candidates, as well as a number of duplicates (some people who paid £25 were in fact members before the freeze date, others are affliated trade unionists, and so on). 

What is unarguably more significant, as one party staffer reflected is, “the complaints are nastier now [than last year]”. More and more of the messages to compliance are firmly in what you might call “the barbecue category” – they are obviously groundless and based on personal animosity. That doesn’t feel like the basis of a party that is ready to unite at any level. Publicly and privately, most people are still talking down the chances of a split. It may prove impossible to avoid.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.