I might not feel like writing much this morning, but I have a column in The National this morning suggesting that it is time for politicians to take on banking because it is a threat to democratic control of the economy as it is organised at present.
As I conclude there:
I believe Scotland can thrive as an independent nation. It has the resources, the ingenuity, the talent, and the appetite for building a more equal and sustainable society. But to realise that promise, its politicians must be willing to confront those who benefit from the present system, not just in Westminster, but also in the banking halls and trading rooms that hold so much power over Scottish life.
Scotland can take back control of its future. But to do so, it must take back control of its banks. They must become the servants of the Scottish people, not their masters.
Independence is about democracy, dignity, and direction. It is about deciding together what kind of country we want to be. And for that decision to mean anything, the power to create and allocate money must belong, through capital controls, to Scotland and to the people who call it home.
The whole article is behind a paywall, but I would suggest that a subscription is worth having.
And the argument holds true for the rest of the UK as well, whether as a single or multiple nations.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The Green Party (GPEW) is clearly agreeable to independence for the constituent nations of the UK. Its Manifesto 2024 is clear, if low key on this. A Green Party UK government would allow independence referendums at the instigation of the constituent countries, excluding England.
The mere accession of a progressive government, agreeable to independent constituent UK nations, would accelerate the independence issue, including the Irish Unity issue.
The Green Party is also in favour of Proportional Representation for general elections, without committing to any specific system, and without questioning whether there should be single or multi-member constituencies. It has made no commitment to holding a referendum on the voting system with the choice between a specific PR system and FPTP.
As a party which prides itself on a belief in democracy, it would be strange indeed if a Green Party government, or a progressive government with a strong Green Party element, did not conduct a referendum on PR versus FPTP.
There needs to be an overall strategy to sequence the possible scenarios. For example, would the independence referendums precede any vote on PR? If so, a subsequent PR vote, excluding the nations that opted for independence, could require a simple majority.
If a PR vote preceded one or more independence referendums, which resulted in Yes votes, then the legitimacy of the PR vote requiring a simple majority could be called into question.
These two interrelated issues should have far more salience than they currently do.
Clear informative article, with articulate debate in comments below.
I subscribed earlier this year on your recommendation, it has been refreshing (and the puzzles are enjoyed in our household).
I’m heartened by result of poll on your 12 questions video.
I’m sorry to hear you’ve been smitten with a lurgy – having published several pieces this morning, could you authorise someone in your household to tell you to stop working? Curl up with a book, or watch some footage of birds?
I have been doing something much more boring. The accounts…..
Accounts? My deepest sympathy (being dyscalculic)
No wonder you don’t feel well…!
Take care of yourself and get better soon.
Aye – it should!
An excellent article and a real warning with advice to the independence campaign.
What is surprising to me is how timid the Scottish assembly has been in using its autonomy that has been allowed it.
For example in health it has largely repeated what the NHS in England and Wales does.
They may be capable but there is precious little evidence that the Scottish assembly have very many ideas.
Roger, I don’t understand your assertion that the NHS in Scotland has largely repeated the decisions of NHS England and Wales. They may collaborate on determination/approval of new medications etc, but NHS Scotland is run along very different lines from England & Wales. For instance it did away with the Tory notion of an internal market at the first opportunity, it employs a single national A&E system which means that staff can be interchanged in an emergency without having to be retrained to adapt to a different system, the performance data in Scotland are expressed in a single, national format which enables the production of reliable uniform data for all regions. This was eminently seen during Covid when all of Scotland’s data conformed to a single, national model. Likewise, for A&E data, where the clock starts ticking across all Scottish locations when a patient is registered on arrival, not when the patient is triaged or when first assessed by a specialist. This means that in Scotland the waiting times reflect the full, true, patient waiting times.
When you refer to ‘the Scottish assembly’ do you mean the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood? It has very limited powers, especially in relation to financial matters, where the Barnett Consequentials result in Westminster decisions on English financial matters being alloted to the devolved nations on a pro-rata population basis. So austerity decisions in England are applied to the devolved nations regardless of their internal policy decisions. Then there’s the UK Internal Market legislation which entitles Westminster to overrule perfectly legitimate devolved legislation. In Scotland we saw it twice under the Tories, where non-political Holyrood decisions on Gender Recognition and Recycling of Waste Products were overthrown without consultation. In the case of recycling glass, this was forbidden in Scotland by Westminster, but permitted in Wales. None of that makes any sense, so it is construed as intentional meddling for political ends. When you dig into the definitions of devolved powers it’s clear that devolution was designed to fail.
There is a colossal misunderstanding in Westminster and across the UK media of the devolved nations, their rights, their laws, their cultures, their languages and their histories. This is typified by the non-stop conflation of the UK with England, which, from a devolved nations’ perspective, is interpreted as an outright dismissal of their rights to their own identities.
Thanks Ken, and entirely agreed.
Roger, I’m not taking the mickey here, I’m just curious to know where you get your info on Scottish affairs? There’s only one which adequately covers Scottish politics: The National (whose economics contributor is Richard). The others (including the BBC, GB News, ITV etc) are all stacked against the concept of independence for Scotland and present distorted – or downright inaccurate – analyses. Just one example: virtually all the polls run by English-based polling companies still weight their outcomes with data deriving from the 2014 Independence Referendum despite these data being massively unrepresentative of current opinions of the Scottish electorate.
@ Roger,
The Scottish assembly [sic]? Telling.
The NHS, in England, has undergone major reforms on several occasions. Notably, since devolution began, under Milburn, Lansley and Hunt (and ongoing under Streeting); are you really trying to claim the Scottish Parliament just aped all of those? Every single one?