Xglasgow.com invites you to join with us in co-editing and debating 7 scripts on sustainability -please ask chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk to see latest version of dialogue of your choice or other queries

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Given that The Economist was founded by a Scot in 1843 to sack vested interests in parliament who were representing big empire not the peoples rights, this article in The Economist is a macroeconomic folly grandeur of the most dismal sort

It has however caused some opposing comments listed below

the whole Better Together campaign is wrongly conceived. They don't actually care about the lives of the Scots so much as prestige and power of the UK on the world stage

Often traveling in France and Italy and hear even educated people referring to Great Britain as "England". Why should the Scots stay with a nation that obscure their identity?

Nationalism in the sense of self-determination, such as is the case in Scotland, Catalonia, Flanders, is a key component of liberalism and democracy.

While rejecting nationalism, I am an enthusiastic supporter of Scottish independence. I want a more responsive and efficient government; I want better policy outcomes; I want better social and economic outcomes. Westminster has been failing for decades (relative to the rest of Northern Europe and other Anglosphere countries).

The Economist (TE) completely fails, as usual, to note that Scotland has a very strong economy without a drop of oil factored in. Scotland is already the third most productive part of the UK even removing on oil revenues. And Scots pay far more tax per head than the UK average, more than enough to pay for public services even if oil revenuers drop a little. Scotland will also save money from no longer paying for illegal wars, Trident, and so on.
Readers of TE who want to read the other side of the economic story should visit this website: http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/
What does TE mean by "Its best hope of remaining influential is to stay put, and fight the Eurosceptics. In reality, "Currently Scotland has zero influence in the EU. The UK, dominated by English politicians and MEPs, does. If EU laws are voted on that Scotland would oppose but England supports, currently Scotland has no voice to protect it's interests. But if Scotland and the RUK's interests coincide, the joint influence of two states will be greater than at present.
Most Scots are not Euroskeptic. But a substantial amount, even the majority, of the English are. Even if every Scot voted to stay in the EU they could easily be overrided by Euroskeptics in the rest of the UK. This democratic deficit is one of the main reasons so many Scots want independence.

2) The UK will not control banks, banks control the UK. Mark Carney has given a blank cheque to casino bankers. You can't run any country contrary to the interests of its people forever - unless you don't tell them. People in the UK have no idea of the risk they've taken onhttp://www.slideshare.net/LoudenDW/casino-bank-protection-090914
3) Norway has done a heck of a lot better than Scotland in recent years:
http://www.slideshare.net/LoudenDW/nbi-mv-hmt we can't do a more rubbish job than successive UK Governments have done
If Scotland succumbs to fear we'll see the next thirty years oil revenues not spent on diversifying Scotland's economy but rather being squandered on whatever mad scheme Boris dreams up next HS2 or an island airport or more cross-rail schemes or a Heathrow expansion. It will go on bailing out casino banks when Mr Carney's crazy unquantified and unlimited risk-fest ultimately crashes and bankrupts the UK.
We're not better together, we're better getting out now while we still can.
My preference would have been for "devo max". Of course we weren't offered that (are we now - maybe, who really knows?), which surely drove many into the 'Yes' camp. Can we now trust Westminster? I think I'd rather not have to.
There's much discussion of heart-v-head. But there's so little clarity over many factual points (currency, EU), and relatively little fundamental difference between Scotland's and the UK's economics that it probably does come down to a gut instinct: do you think we have the ability and the ambition to be a better place (accepting that there will be obstacles and setbacks), or are you a sceptical, risk-averse and happier settling for the Union? The difference between leadership or management, perhaps?
My view is that anyone who says it's an obvious choice isn't worth listening to. Sadly, that includes the politicians who haven't really served us well.

The British pushed the boundaries of academia and science to the limits - a world class legacy, but this has also been tempered especially in the upper classes and the media with the notion they are so much more moral and more wise than other people, coupled with the arrogance and self righteousness that has especially characterised much of their governance abroad. Maybe it just stems from a colossal naivety of non British culture and customs.
Unfortunately this Colonial Office mantle of arrogance and self righteousness has since been passed on to the BBC, also with all the naivety.

Just as the mainstream media has avoided covering Scottish independence in anything other than nationalistic & jingoistic terms (complete misrepresentation), so they have also avoided granting voice to resentments in the rest of the UK.

 In Quebec, 40 years of squabbling over independence has taken the economy out of the public sphere. But no more! And that's where supporters of independence fail - on bread-and-butter issues, which sidetrack from fantasy identity politics.

This summary of some of England's transgressions against Scotland is available at wiki at this page:

With great recent innovations from pharmaceuticals to Skyscanner to the distributed internet, Scotland's private sector is dynamic and promising.
We should vote for independence, so that we can have a dynamic, technologically modern and socially inclusive public sector to complement it.

It is more and more certain that we will have adjust maps of Europe after next week`s decision of nation. Cheers for Scots!

There is also a continual massive transfer of money to SE England for supposedly 'national' - non-regional - purposes.
This includes the BBC, The National Gallery, the ministeries, defense spending, ...
The Scottish fishing industry was considered 'expendable' in the CAP negotiations, in the interests of East Anglian wheat farmers.
I can't imagine say the Irish regarding their milk industry as 'expendable', or the Danes their bacon.

As a Unionist living and voting in Scotland - and who has also lived and worked in England - I have despaired of Westminster politicians, who from the first have patronised and bullied and failed to offer any positive case for the continuation of the Union. Have you tried bullying someone? It doesn't work does it.

London's metro population is now 14 million - nearly a quarter of the UK population and approaching three times Scotland's population.
The UK should go ahead focus where it matters:
- release greenbelt land for new construction around London
- reform laws to allow for more high density new construction (processes for acquiring bundles of real estate, compulsory purchase orders, change planning permission)
- invest in London rapid transit systems (underground lines, light rail, raised gauge cycle paths, more efficient road intersections, etc)
- a new eight-runway London mega-airport
The London government isn't just out of touch with Scotland; Westminster is even managing to fail London. No wonder we want to form a new independent state (while remaining in the EU, common market & free movement area; while continuing to share many aspects of British Isles culture).
Uniting under the English crown was a way for Scotland to secure a stable political and economic environment at the time (300 years ago). The alternative was a series of weak alliances with European powers (chiefly France) who weren't prepared or capable to defend Scotland and would always be prepared to give up Scotland to secure peace with the English.
Times change. Scotland no longer feels politically threatened by anyone, and the EU provides an economic framework in which it can live. Facing no existential threat, Scotland can afford to indulge in nationalism. And beyond nationalism, subsidiarity applies. Why should Scotland be ruled from London, and not Edinburgh? Surely the parliament in Edinburgh is more aware of Scottish needs and desires.
There is a natural entropy to any non-homogenous nation. Only external threats (political or economic) hold them together. There is a reason this didn't happen when the North Sea first produced oil: the Cold War. Look for more of the same in Catalonia, Corsica, Belgium and Italy.

Yes, the referendum will turn on (mystic) identity and (greedy) power. Not only in Scotland. Look at the ferment in Catalonia, in Veneto. If this goes on for another ten years Italy will return to be a "geographic expression". Why are national States unable to avoid their disintegration? What is wrong with them? What could / should they do to restore faith? How come that so many people prefer some times folkloristic local politicians to the traditional power elite? Why are so few capable and courageous women and men in the first line? Where do they hide? What should be done to get them in, selected, coopted, elected? Henri writing from Milan

In the EU, Italy and Belgium are the two states which would most benefit from regional breakup.
In Belgium, it's Flanders and Brussels that create all the wealth; Wallonia exists as a malign parasite. Wallonia's presence in Belgium results in higher taxes and transfer payments away from productive parts of the Belgian economy (retarding business activity, investment, consumption, public investment & growth). Wallonia's concentrated receipt of transfer payments results in a bloated public sector and prevents the region from developing economically.
Likewise on the North-South split in Italy (with the extra dynamics whereby bureaucracy, broken courts and a dysfunctional Rome government are destroying the vast wealth of Italy's North).
For more competition, economic growth and prosperity, we need to stop the inter-regional transfer payments. In extreme cases that requires breakup.
(If you are a proud Italian, you should probably demand the breakup of the Italian nation state. You can still enjoy Italian culture, business connections, frequent travel & friend/ family associations without a centralized and unitary state. Rome has failed and is killing the Italian economy.)
This article has the sad scent of hypocrisy which has permeated the half contemptuous somewhat alarmed response to what is essentially a watered down version of Russia's attitude towards Ukraine.
I would sum it up as 'why would you do that it is not in our - sorry we meant your interests'. It smells of self interest dressed up as mutual interest.
Many departing spouse's and progeny as well as almost every detaching national regions going on to an independent and adult suffer similar arguments the emotional core of is - how dare you think of yourself as separate of me. Your leaving diminishes me subordinate / dependent / chattel.
I don't have a dog in this fight but throughout I have heard something rare in the economist - a false tone , self interest dressed up as objective analysis or friendly advice.
What right do the English have 'to be furious' that the Scots - long an independent nation themselves before subdued to junior partner status have decided to stand on their hinder legs again stop blaming Westminster for all their ills and toss away the nappy under the kilt.
The self righteous and self seeking tone of the No campaign and the paternalistic streak demonstrated over the last months had not just diminished my respect for the objectivity of the Economist but much of the English Establishment.
I initially thought the Scots might be doing something foolish I now see they probably are better being out of this not as much abusive but more patronizing
I now feel it will be healthy for both (ex) partners

I think you have to hear what Scottish citizens are trying to say. To me the view seems to be 'we are tired of being pushed around by our larger cousin, where the bottom line is, we have ultimate say in what should be the predominant policies in your state.' I think it is right to want to hold onto ones culture, and be the ultimate authority in ones homeland. That should not mean the centuries of cooperation and shared identity should stop, however, we would be an independent country who works in very good friendship with their cousins to the south.

There are risks to 5 million people separating their economy from 50 million but nobody (IMF, EU etc) has any right to bully people out of building their future. The fact is the EU (with its politicians lobbied by bad bankers) has destroyed futures of next generations of periphery countries. Its done nothing relevant for Scottish identity.It should.nt behave like a big brother bully to Scotland. Indeed it should celebrate where regions have entrepreneurial identities that focus on trades distinctive from that which gets under-invested in when conglomerated in a larger country

But be v clear Scots need to identify their strengths. Some are obvious like being 1% of region of Europe accounting for 20% of fishing

Others need seize advantages of win-win knowledge trades. Scotland can liberates hundreds of million s of jobs around hte world by leading the nearly free nursing college movement and making a scottish version of the bbc the smartest public media of the net generation. And Scotland can lead the world of adam smith economics  http://valuetrue.com which is very different than te macroeconomic destruction that has drowned out so much of the net generation's potential around te world

A key question is how can the majority of scots who live outside scotland help the country develop its unique trades and prevent it from the bullies are behaving badly because they dont like a places people demonstrating how broken bureaurcrat banking and economics has bepome