This is the front page of The Sunday Times this morning:
And yet the Unionists want to deny all this, and the free choice that it demands. Such behaviour always ends in tears, or worse.
I sincerely hope that it does not here.
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:
Here in Scotland I very much consider independence to be in balance. Recent polls range from 52% to 58% in favour after excluding don’t knows. That’s well within reach of a good campaign. Not least because the BBC seems to be utterly captured. It was biased in 2014. It will be more biased in the next referendum that it was then.
And of course with Westminster set to deny a s30 order a referendum may be some time off. Who knows what the numbers will look like in 2030?
I support independence and campaign for it but sometimes I feel a little frustrated by fellow travelers who triumphantly announce “it’s in the bag.” If that were a good thing to say our opponents (like the Sunday Times) would not be saying it.
I think the route around S30 is now set
The SNP leadership realise that they have no choice
And as to legality, nothing in international law says s30 is required – read Joanna Cherry
Apparently Gordon Brown and Michael Gove are working together to stop Scottish Independence and save the world, again.
As if Brexit was not enough
Don’t you find it weird that having divided and conquered us these last 10 years that the Government now wants to stop those divisions it has created reaching their logical conclusion? They love playing with us don’t they?
I will say this though because I have often lamented Scotland choosing to leave the Union and here’s actually why: I’d rather the UK split up when times are good and there more genuine motives for devolution than independence born of disagreements as we seem to be heading for at the moment.
It does not augur well for me, nor do I think for Scotland if she is not vigilant and heterodox right from the very start.
Again, I’m not saying that Scotland does not have the brains to be like that – my main concern is the conduct (or lack of) of Whitehall. ‘Good faith’ is a term that I think English rulers are no longer familiar with.
It isn’t Whitehall which is the real problem but Westminster and No10/11. I think the spirit of fair play still exists in the civil service even if it’s under extreme strain. If a UK PM tried to restrain us through extra legal means he/she might find their hands are hampered. By Mandarins and the Generals if nothing else who will recoil.
There is also no UK wide police force, paramilitary like the Guardia Civil or the Gendarmerie. So the army is the only possible tool and that is fraught and the Generals will very likely kibosh it.
A Scottish FM will have to charged under Scots law. Salmond’s administration building up to the indyref removed the crime of sedition from Scots law. Also Polis Scotland was made unitary and under Holyrood’s control. Good luck with all that PM.
If only we had a brave, determined FM with good statecraft. The current FM is busy persecuting the last one we had like that. Lying civil servants get to dial into the Salmond Inquiry but the man himself despite being medically vulnerable has to turn up in person. They’re trying to kill him now.
I’ve said it before but I think Johnson’s next step will be to try and reintroduce National Service – probably under the pretext of some Covid emergency contingency plan or, and this really pains me, a back up measure for November’s upcoming UN Climate Change Conference due to be held in Glasgow.
I see Larry Elliott’s finally admitted in so many words he’s a member of the Dodds and Starmer led Economics Section of Qanon which now argues if you chant the word “sensible” long enough the public will actually believe that you are. Give me strength!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/24/labour-bids-to-be-seen-as-able-and-competent-not-bold-and-radical
Remember there;s a difference from commenting on it and endorsing it – and Larry is a member of the Green New Deal Group and closest to me and Colin Hines in it for a reason – but what is said about Dodds and Starmer is clearly true
I see no evidence whatsoever of Larry Elliott balancing his article by explaining that Dodd’s doesn’t answer MMT’s arguments! Why make excuses for him? What exactly is the point of having an Ofcom balancing policy?
I was making the point, which I have discussed with him, that sometimes as a journalist (which he is, and a columnist decidedly secondarily) he reports what people say and analyses it but does not have to offer the alternative. He did not do a balancing policy here for that reason. So I’d suggest he is doing the opposite of an Ofcom policy.
Saying which, I can disagree with him, in private as well as public but on this occasion I think he drew appropriate attention to a situation, and fairly pointed out that they do not but MMT. They don’t. Wasn’t that the analysis, well that and the fact that this is status quo ism?
I suppose on reflection I should be pleased to read Larry Elliott’s article referenced above if only to witness that his and the Labour Party leadership’s economic strategy has given up making any evidence based arguments and now relies on the mantra chanting of “sensible”, “sensible”, “sensible” like a set of children! Can anybody explain to me the difference between this and Trump supporters mindlessly chanting “electoral fraud”?
But didn’t he just draw attention to the fact that this was what they were saying?
I note that Larry Elliott’s Wikipedia page has been altered. It used to say he had a history degree not an economics degree. Now it only says he went to Cambridge University.
The reason I checked Wikipedia again was because as an historian and as a journalist specialising in economics he ought to know that the significance of the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694 was that it commenced the issue of banknotes in large quality which lead to the “Country Banks” also issuing banknotes the totality of which led to a huge increase of currency in circulation.
The significance of this was that it helped replace the unreliability of ordinary workers running up credit tabs and especially when the Royal Mint also filled in the denominational gap below banknotes with lower valued coins. All of this re-designed currency led to an increase in demand from top to bottom of British society and drove the world’s first industrial revolution.
MMTer’s will recognise this as Abba Lerner’s Functional Finance argument even Hjalmar Schacht’s MEFO certificate solution for Hitler. It’s the direct opposite of the Conservative and Labour party leaderships pretending that the UK government operates on a credit card.
Larry Elliott never counter-balances his articles by explaining the above to his readership. I would argue this is because he doesn’t understand his own country’s economic history let alone MMT!
Again, I think you misunderstand his role. He is employed as a journalist, not as a columnist. So he reports arguments, and does not usually make them.
And don’t trust Wikipedia. Larry would no more go near his page than I do. Given he has no clue about social media I suspect he does not even know it exists. Mine is hopelessly inaccurate, or was when last I looked, and I am happy to leave it that way. If I see someone who must have used it as a source I know they have done no real research.
Mz Schofield,
“…. as an historian and as a journalist specialising in economics he ought to know that the significance of the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694 was that it commenced the issue of banknotes in large quality which lead to the “Country Banks” also issuing banknotes the totality of which led to a huge increase of currency in circulation.”
I understand your conviction. Like you I am currently pondering the history of late 17th century banking and monetary theory; and I note that you also link it to Lerner and Schacht; but do you think that this history, and the relevance of these connections are widely discussed and understood by most mainstream economists; or indeed the importance of the anthroplogical insights that Graeber and the French ‘promordial debt’ school have brought to the party? Somehow, I doubt it. I will not claim total insight, but I suspect most economic textbooks are still peddling the barter-origins conjecture, just for example.
I understand your exasperation, and I detect your enthusiasm and excitement, but pause for a moment; you a riding a wave that is, perhaps some way ahead of ‘the curve’ of the general understanding of contemporary mainstream economists. I offer that merely as a hypothesis; I could of course be wrong.
I too can get excited whilst being ahead of the curve
I know the feeling…..
And of course the Country banks in England and Wales misbehaved and issued too much script not backed by deposits. So the BoE was made sole script issuer in E&W. The Scottish and Irish banks didn’t lose the right to issue script. So we have Scottish and Northern Irish pound notes. Part of why the coinage has elements from all the constitutive elements of the union.
They are of course constrained since they have to deposit securities or cash with or near the BoE equal to the value of their script. There are people here in Scotland who think we already have our own currency. Note the lack of acceptance of Scottish notes south of the border just reinforces that.
Post indy we can let the banks continue to issue script subject to deposits and securities in Edinburgh. Then we just need a coinage sufficiently different from rUK coins because coin operated machines. We can leave that up to the specialists.
Having read the article, I think it probably accurately depicts Starmer’s position.
Whether it will be enough is another thing?!
Hopefully the Biden $1.9 Trillion stimulus package may shift ideas of what is possible.
Re Scotland, it occurs to me that if, as some have suggested, the UK passes a bill prohibiting an IndyRef without an S30, (which they won’t give anyway), then this might actually be an advantage as it will galvanise the Yes movement and the Scottish Gov to go for a plan B, the “Kosovo” solution.
Agreed
I have recently read Serhii Plokhy’s The Last Empire: The Last Days of the Soviet Union told from a Ukrainian perspective. Makes the point that it was Ukraine who killed the idea of a strong centre by refusing to countenance anything else at the Minsk conference. Which led to the CIS with a secretariat based in Minsk rather than Moscow.
The Ukrainians declared independence subject to a confirmatory referendum with union law suspended in the meantime. They appointed a foreign ministry and started recruiting a militia and sounding out Red Army units via a popular general named as defence minister. Most of the RA elements in Ukraine became the Ukraine army.
We don’t have much in the way of non Scottish army elements in Scotland. So that issue doesn’t really arise. It does wrt the Navy and Air force. But that’s an issue for negotiation.
Kosovo’s problem is that Serbia who they seceded from refuses to recognise them and therefore so does Russia. Ukraine had to engage in diplomacy to get recognition. Bush Snr faced problems at home with the diaspora complaining about his tardiness. The State Dept remembers that that lost them influence.
Recent press in EU countries seems to be preparing them to push their govts to recognise us by explaining our legitimacy as an ancient nation seeking to regain our full statehood. If we can get FUK surrounded by states recognising us it’s game over b/c they can cut up rough and difficult over trade unless FUK come to the table.
This is a really important issue Richard namely getting as much money focused on dealing with the causes of climate change. On that we’re agreed. We’re also agreed that the human desire to save and try to protect savings against the ravages of inflation (dealing with by government being an uncertain science) can be aligned with a Green Investment product or financial instrument which is backed up by the promise of a government created money guarantee which in turn is backed up by a second taxation guarantee which doesn’t have to necessarily back up the first guarantee with full retirement. (The first fumblings in getting to understand both these methods took place at the end of the 17th century in England making this country ahead of the world. These lessons now seem to be now forgotten in the UK.)
What we should also be focused on is arguing that tackling the causes of climate change should also be supported by government created money that can come from nowhere without liability to anyone else. It’s this that Colin Hines and Larry Elliott don’t appear to understand the importance of – a twin funding strategy. It’s this that gets me mad! For lack of mental effort they endanger the planet whilst simultaneously claiming to be doing their best to save it!
I actually am nit sure I agree with you
The stuff I am talking about right now is wholly understood by Larry. That may not come over in his writing, I agree. Colin is very pragmatic. He reluctantly learned MMT, but gas got it. He also recognises how hard it is to sell. Green QE is his pragmatic compromise. He’d do MMT if he spicule sell it. He’ll sell government created money as green QE if he can’t.
But in truth I don’t see them a miles apart from where I am. Or you, really. But colin in particular has always lived by policy delivery. And the accept the impurities that follow.
This is what Larry Elliott wrote:-
Guardian Economics viewpoint
“… Dodds made clear that there was no question of a Labour government giving orders to the Bank of England, which would remain fully independent. She clearly has no time for modern monetary theory, the idea that central banks can be ordered to finance government spending and that the only constraint on them doing so is rising inflation.”
Elliott could have written:-
“… Dodds made clear that there was no question of a Labour government giving orders to the Bank of England, which would remain fully independent. She clearly has no time for modern monetary theory, the idea that central banks can be ordered to finance government spending and that the only constraint on them doing so is rising inflation. MMT economists on the other hand believe by not properly understanding how the UK’s monetary system works she is undermining the country’s potential not merely economically but tackling climate change effects quickly and effectively.”
I agree, but that isn’t journalism, as I said
I would wish for your version though
The Martin Keating peoples action court case may have an influence on events no matter what the outcome. Judges decision due next week. This story is being given a wide berth by most of the MSM except RT. My wife and I contributed to this action through crowdfunding. It is likely this will go to appeal. Anyone interested in democracy can contribute to the crowd funder.
link
https://twitter.com/MartinJKeatings/status/1353378241558552583?s=20
Thanks for posting the link here Pentlander, I meant to do it myself before but forgot – I’m contributing to it too, and it should be noted that Martin Keatings went ahead and authorised the start of the procedings before it was fully crowdfunded, so he’s taken on quite a burden there.
Judicial Reviews are one of the last bastions of the public’s right to question government – but it’s very costly (especially when government delays things on purpose to run up costs). Of course, Westminster is trying to change the legislation to make Judicial Review impossible for the ordinary citizen, and this will have a knock-on effect in Scotland because civil law is so closely aligned.
So this might be one of the last publicly funded Judicial Reviews you’ll ever see! Get involved now (Martin Keatings emails regular updates),,, and be part of history.
The link to the Crowdfunding page is: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/pas30/
Reading Larry’s article, then taking Helen’s observations into account, I think that a plausible political future for us is basically a “sensible” one-term Labour government that gives the Tories time to rid themselves of what they consider the more disasterous aspects of Johnsonism, reinvent themselves again, then, after Labour disappoints yet again, win the ensuing general election and continue with business as usual.
Terrible………
I see that one of the Tory 5 point plan to save the Union is to highlight the benefits of the Union. It’ll be amusing to see how they try to spin the total exclusion of Scotland from anything involving Brexit. In 2014 the Unionist case was, like their case for brexit, all verbal diarrhea and downright lies with no substance – ‘broad shoulders’,’send £350m to NHS’ etc. Without any genuine case for the UK, no doubt the bogus GERS deficit will be centre stage pretty fast, but I suspect that this ploy will be seriously countered the next time when they try that one again. Plenty of others, including Richard, already have. Besides Brexit has shown just how much trust can be placed on Unionist politicans words or numbers.
Above all though, I don’t see how a case can be made for the Union when another of their 5 point plan issues is to oppose even holding a referendum. If the UK is that great, let both sides make their case and then put it to a vote. Without that, all talk about the benefits of the Union is just one meaningless lie.
In 2014 it was about whether to be in the UK & EU – yes to both
In 2016 it was about whether to be in the EU – Yes in Scotland
The question that now needs an answer is whether to be in the UK or the EU ?
Well all these people think the UK is over. See if you recognise anyone.
https://www.facebook.com/yesinverclyde1/videos/the-streets-of-edinburgh/510556113098583/