Much as others may disagree, I believe that Scotland has been a defacto Colony since 1747, with Proscription and 600 Troop Cantonment's throughout the Highlands. Even now with a Devolved Parliament, the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting as a Viceroy can Veto any legislation passed therein. Much as in India during the colonial period. If Scotland could prove its treatment by the British State was colonial in nature, then under UN Rules, a Decolonisation process would proceed, which cannot be stopped by the British State. The process takes about two years, and comes with reparations.
No reason not to say it - this is what Salvo/Liberation Scotland are doing, and have just announced that we do indeed have a formal Liberation movement and organisation.
Yes Bruce, the shift from an independence movement to a liberation movement has already occurred. The people are starting to realise there are only two options with for a colonial society; either the people and nation are liberated or they perish. Independence is merely the prelude to self-recovery and liberation.
What an insult to people who suffered terribly under the British Empire. Of course the Scots were leading the charge and were integral to the cruelty metted out. That’s just a historical fact.
Yes, Scots joined the British Army, and many of them did so because they had been thrown off their crofts for sheep, and had families to support. Some others took advantage of the situation, as people under the control of another Nation have done throughout history. Rome with its Hispanic Legion, being a classic example.That doesn't mean that they were not colonised, just that made the best of the situation.
“Currency is well in hand” 😂 Thank goodness for that, I was a bit worried about that! Have you seen the trouble that borders are causing businesses at the moment after the disastrous Brexit ( supported by Mr Sillars). Scexit, by any logic would be Brexit x 10. Central Bank? I’ve read we would be using the Bank of England until we had taken years to set up our own. No independent monetary policy there then!
You assume that only the SNP can formulate a currency policy. It will be up to the Scot Gov elected in the transition period to take forward the new Scottish state. I might remind you that many central banks start life as private banks, including the BoE. The Scottish Currency Group has set out to give this newly elected Scot Gov the full suite of choices including introducing our own currency on day one of independence. Planning is underway and our own currency is the only choice that makes sense if the goal is independence from Westminster control and building a resilient Scottish state.
Come out of retirement Jim & lead the way . If not I think we should try & make devolution work better in the meantime give it more powers to do more. Maybe make Scotland and the rest of the UK more federal . Keep those things that work within it well and do our own wee thing in our own wee corner until the conditions is met for independence and the majority would want it. But the hard reality case is gaining the trust not just the momentum, considering the day to day running of Scotland not just Westminster’s failings . There is work to do plenty of it before it would come a reality. That way people will put their trust in you and will decide to go for it. The downside is that the SNP have made Scotland a laughing stock being involved with the Greens. If you can turn things around you will gain the trust of the voters both nationalists and unionists. Until then it will remain a pipe dream. That’s my personal opinion of how independence for Scotland stands at the moment. I wouldn’t rule it out it will happen at some point in time , when I don’t know I haven’t a crystal ball to read the future. Just now I think we have to do the best for Scotland’s interests within the UK with a devolved parliament. I don’t know who could replace Alex Salmond no one had his charisma his charm .
Jim Sillars's optimism for Scotland's cause appears to derive entirely from what he perceives - almost certainly correctly - as the decline and collapse of the English state. As if the restoration of Scotland's independence automatically follows from this decline and collapse. I see problems with this analysis.
Firstly, I think it may be a mistake to equate the English state with the British state. The latter is undoubtedly barely distinguishable from the former, it is true. This is an effect of the "numerical dominance" of England to which Jim refers. But this doesn't necessarily imply that they are entirely separate entities. I have long maintained that there exist a British state which is quite apart from both the english and Scottish states. It is more apart from the latter than the former. But it overlays both. It is imposed on both.
This British state is best defined - with a nod to the late William McIlvanney - as the structures of power, privilege, and patronage which serve the interests of the few at whatever cost to the many. It is this British state which parasitises the nations under its sway. That it parasitises Scotland to a greater - or at least, more evident - degree is a function of the richness of our resources relative to England.
If the existing constitutional arrangement serves England's state interests, then it is difficult to explain the decline and imminent collapse of that nation. However, the conditions of both England and Scotland are amply explained by the existence of a third entity - the British state - whose interests are always paramount.
It should be understood that the British state as i envisage it, is not separate from the English and Scottish states in the same sense as a 'foreign power' would be. In fact, the British state is thoroughly integrated with both. And that is the problem. Where the British state integrates with the states it overlays is predominantly at the points of greatest power and influence. It is thus that the British state's interests can be favoured over those of the other states.
Scotland is a nation. England is a nation. The British state is not a nation but a system. That system permeates and dominates the political, economic, social, and cultural elites of of both. In effect, both are colonised by the British state. If England lacks many of the essential characteristics of a colony it is because England gave birth to the British state. Scotland was merely the sperm donor.
Another issue with Jim Sillars's analysis is the question of what constitutes the collapse of a nation such as England. The decline bit is all too evident. But, at what point does this decline become collapse? And however collapse is defined, how does it trigger an end to the Union? In what way is the collapse of the English state a necessary and sufficient cause for the restoration of Scotland's independence?
Such question take on a particular significance in the context of the existence of a British state, as descibed above. Because while the English state is undoubtedly in decline, and while Scotland is certainly being dragged down as well, the British state is thriving. The structures of power, privilege, and patronage which define the British state are not weakening. On the contrary, unaccountable power gets less accountable; unearned privilege increases; and unregulated patronage continues to be rife. The parasite grows fat while the host (England) withers. Scotland in turn suffers as England strives to combat the decline occasioned by the parasitic British state by increasingly and more openly drawing on Scotland's resources.
Jim Sillars's optimism for Scotland's cause may be misplaced. Not only does independence not follow from England's decline absent a Scottish political elite with the wit and the will to take a stand against our nation's exploitation, but the British state's imperative to maintain England's access to Scotland's resources grows stronger. The British state and its proxy - England - will go to ever greater lengths to prevent Scotland prioritising its own interests over theirs.
These are not factors which inspire optimism for Scotland's cause. Rather, these factors should prompt a thorough and urgent review of how we defend Scotland's interests against the depredations of an increasingly aggressive British state. As I pointed out as long ago as 2020, what we are engaged in is an existential battle (https://peterabell.scot/2020/12/13/an-existential-battle/). Nobody can sensibly pretend that Scotland's current political leadership is fit for that fight. They inspire only pessimism for Scotland's cause.
Nicely written, but really just wishful thinking. As soon as you examine the case in any depth the same unaddressed issues will emerge. Currency, the deficit, no central bank, the EU, borders. Many years of turbo austerity to try and sort all of this out. Not to mention the fact that it won’t be the social democratic heaven that many people anticipate. Look at the rise of Reform in Scotland and the fact that Trump was supported by more people in Scotland, than any other country in Europe, apart from Italy. Deluded, I’m afraid.
I was pleased to read John Mason’s scepticism, which is understandable considering that all the policy work now being done has been under the political radar, with very little of its content, if any, in the wide public domain. None of the policy areas he mentions are great barriers to independence. Other countries such as the Baltic states faced them in extricating themselves from an all-encompassing union, in their case Soviet Union, with success.
As I am a socialist and not a social democrat, I cannot comment on his dismissal of “a social democratic heaven” awaiting us on independence. I was taught in the Ayrshire labour movement to look at a country’s resources in any assessment of its prospects, and ally policies based on those resources to priorities. What is fundamental to a modern economy is the quality of its human capital and its consistent secure level of energy supply. The latter is particularly important in the age of AI.
The quality of Scotland’s human capital depends on how our children are educated, and on continuing education, formal and informal, for all of us in the course of our lifetimes. The position this side of independence is not good. It is an open secret in our universities that the product of our primary and secondary education system is producing students who are less able to handle the rigours of an academic life than was the case, say,10-15 years ago. But none who should be the leaders at the highest levels of our intellectual life have the guts to tell the truth. Unless that truth is faced and we admit to the deficiencies of our whole education system, then we shall carry that handicap into independence. Education should be front and centre of the 2026 election.
Our school system was recently the laughing stock of the world when it was reported that there is a child insisting he/she is a Wolf, and being accommodated as such, in one classroom. It never crossed the education minister’s mind to remind the relevant local authority and parents that we educate children and do not train animals.
The Herald newspaper has carried in-depth articles on the crisis in our colleges, and universities. Here’s two question for everyone reading this: name the minister for higher education, and can you remember anything he has said?
I now turn to the question of Scotland and its other resource – energy. We really would need to be the saftest of the international family if we made a mess of our economic life on gaining independence. The lifeblood of an economy is energy. Scotland has, and will continue to have an abundance, and in that I include oil and gas in the North Sea and west of Shetland where the Clair field is a giant (7 bn barrels). The policy needed for independence is how Scotland gets its share of wind and oil, of which in the case of the latter we don’t own at present even a cupful and in the case of the former a single wind turbine.
Others commenting on John Mason have pointed to the policy work done and under way. There is, however, one area so far neglected that should get attention this side of campaigning: the negotiation brief when our representatives sit down at the table with our English neighbours and set out the terms of the Treaty that will set relations between us in the future.
John Mason may continue to think this is all delusional. I see it as the application of intellectual rigour in pursuit of addressing the issues inherent in achieving and making a success of independence. The application of intellectual rigour was something else I was taught in the Ayrshire Labour movement. Its absence in that bit of the movement called the SNP is the reason the July disaster happened.
Oh dear, Jim, the policy work is being done under the radar. After ten years they are still trying to work out what to do. It is probably best kept under the radar, as it will no doubt again melt under any scrutiny. To compare the Baltic countries to our own situation is simplistic as well. Totally different system a not comparable to a three hundred union in a mature, democratic advanced economy. If there were no great barriers, you would still be trying to work out how to get over them. I well remember the SNP Growth Commission promising fifteen to twenty five years of austerity.
My Social Democratic heaven comment related to the Riddoch faction who see Scotland as a left leaning, liberal nirvana who just needs to rid itself of big, bad England to prove it. It’s another self praising scotch myth. Yes, Scots in genaeral don’t like the Tory brand, but they are generally social conservatives and plenty are economic conservatives too. You call yourself a socialist, but you’re quite content in a party led by a centrist conservative and indeed wanted an economic and social conservative to lead it, someone whose views wouldn’t be out of place in the US Republican Party. You also quote populist Daily Mail type nonsense of an isolated incident of a boy identifying as a wolf to condemn the Scottish education system. I’m more concerned about a friend, who is a headteacher, current battling racism in her primary school in “progressive” Scotland. I confidently predict that Scotland would have a right wing populist government with ten years of independence, given the social conservatism, the austerity that would follow and the backlash to the immigration we would need to survive an aging population. It will never be proved though, as we’re not going to see it in either of our lifetimes.
There is already a valid plan for a Scottish currency immediately after a Declaration of Independence and that will enable us to collect our own taxes in that currency. It will also give us a base foreign currency reserve from the British pounds that Scots can exchange for Pounds Scots plus the funds currently held in the vaults of the Bank of England to support the current Scottish Banknotes.
You better plan for a lot higher taxes then, because we spend a lot more than we take in. There’s barely an economist of any standing that says otherwise.
If we had control of the resources currently being used for the benefit of England' we would have a decent economy and a decent standard of living. We could pay older folk a better pension than the UK and probably considerably younger as thestatists would not be skewed by the high life expectancy of the very wealthy in SE England (for how much longer?). Britain is currently a failing state, unable and unwilling to help out the vulnerable in our society. Education is unequal with the already privileged given more resources than othersections of society. Our government foes not keep proper accounts yet does not see it as a problem and does nothing to stop the fraudulent underpaying of tax that is due as it's unwilling to find the staff to prevent this theft.
Spending is not dependent on or restricted to taxes raised for a currency issuing state. You are thinking of the old household finances analogy which I thought everyone knew did not apply to national Governments with their own currency. How can taxes possibly be "taken in" without the Government first spending the money into the economy? Would you consider yourself a good judge of "economists of standing"?
Well, clearly you failed to "examine the case in any depth", because there are answers to all of those issues. Could it perhaps be this is just some Unionist trying to appeal to the more ignorant voter? Has it occurred to you that such people do not actually read the likes of this and those that do also know you are full of it? Time waster.
Jim provided a detailed and courteous reply. You on the other hand come from the abusive wing that usually debates along the lines of “that’s sh*te”. Unionist wasn’t even a term when I was campaigning.for Jim in South Ayrshire, but solidarity was a word we used with working people all over the UK. We wanted to help people based on their circumstances, not their nationality. Remember you need “unionists” to change their minds to get your wish.
You clearly haven't read up on anything since 2014, so pardon me if you come across to me as Unionist who hasn't updated his patter since then - when you're actually worse - you're a supposedly pro-Indy voter who hasn't and may as well be a unionist with those horribly outdated and ill-informed views. You sound as though you fell for it all.
We don't need unionists to change their mind. They are actually a minority. We just need the more open-minded who don't identify as such to be convinced that the pro-Indy side has solid policies going into it with - and despite SNP propaganda saying it's been "4 years" since we had majority "Yes" polling (haven't you heard?), it's actually been less. Where we might have agreed, is whether or not the SNP actually have all the right policies. But seeing as you continue to sound more like a "These Islands" infiltrator, I will happily ignore you instead.
“You’re supposedly a pro Indy voter”……..err no! Can’t you read? I’m happy to discontinue our conversation as well as you seem to be hard of understanding and full of the nationalist arrogance that is so off putting to people. You know nothing about me and what I have read. Merry Christmas.
Aye, because you made sooo much sense, Mr "campaigning.for Jim in South Ayrshire" and referring to issues already sorted out or at least improved upon. Go back to your dark, ill-informed cave where you want the rest of us to be.
Not really, I don’t want to try in the first place. I’m on the side of ordinary people in the whole of the UK, not millionaires and landowners just because they are Scottish. Two of my children were born in England, and funnily enough I don’t differentiate between them and my child born in Scotland 👍
Much as others may disagree, I believe that Scotland has been a defacto Colony since 1747, with Proscription and 600 Troop Cantonment's throughout the Highlands. Even now with a Devolved Parliament, the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting as a Viceroy can Veto any legislation passed therein. Much as in India during the colonial period. If Scotland could prove its treatment by the British State was colonial in nature, then under UN Rules, a Decolonisation process would proceed, which cannot be stopped by the British State. The process takes about two years, and comes with reparations.
No reason not to say it - this is what Salvo/Liberation Scotland are doing, and have just announced that we do indeed have a formal Liberation movement and organisation.
Yes Bruce, the shift from an independence movement to a liberation movement has already occurred. The people are starting to realise there are only two options with for a colonial society; either the people and nation are liberated or they perish. Independence is merely the prelude to self-recovery and liberation.
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/05/25/the-three-phases-of-decolonization-lessons-for-scotland/
What an insult to people who suffered terribly under the British Empire. Of course the Scots were leading the charge and were integral to the cruelty metted out. That’s just a historical fact.
Yes, Scots joined the British Army, and many of them did so because they had been thrown off their crofts for sheep, and had families to support. Some others took advantage of the situation, as people under the control of another Nation have done throughout history. Rome with its Hispanic Legion, being a classic example.That doesn't mean that they were not colonised, just that made the best of the situation.
Jim is correct and knows how many credible groups are well down the solution road. Just waiting to be drawn together.
Currency is already well in hand with
Tim Ridout and colleagues .
Don’t need EU - join EFTA
Common Weal is awash with sound policies on bread and butter issues.
Salvo dealing with Constitutional matters.
Why worry about Borders? Every country has them!
This is just a fraction of what is going on without any Political Party.
“Currency is well in hand” 😂 Thank goodness for that, I was a bit worried about that! Have you seen the trouble that borders are causing businesses at the moment after the disastrous Brexit ( supported by Mr Sillars). Scexit, by any logic would be Brexit x 10. Central Bank? I’ve read we would be using the Bank of England until we had taken years to set up our own. No independent monetary policy there then!
You assume that only the SNP can formulate a currency policy. It will be up to the Scot Gov elected in the transition period to take forward the new Scottish state. I might remind you that many central banks start life as private banks, including the BoE. The Scottish Currency Group has set out to give this newly elected Scot Gov the full suite of choices including introducing our own currency on day one of independence. Planning is underway and our own currency is the only choice that makes sense if the goal is independence from Westminster control and building a resilient Scottish state.
Bravo Mr Sillars. Hope this is widely read. Every word true.
Come out of retirement Jim & lead the way . If not I think we should try & make devolution work better in the meantime give it more powers to do more. Maybe make Scotland and the rest of the UK more federal . Keep those things that work within it well and do our own wee thing in our own wee corner until the conditions is met for independence and the majority would want it. But the hard reality case is gaining the trust not just the momentum, considering the day to day running of Scotland not just Westminster’s failings . There is work to do plenty of it before it would come a reality. That way people will put their trust in you and will decide to go for it. The downside is that the SNP have made Scotland a laughing stock being involved with the Greens. If you can turn things around you will gain the trust of the voters both nationalists and unionists. Until then it will remain a pipe dream. That’s my personal opinion of how independence for Scotland stands at the moment. I wouldn’t rule it out it will happen at some point in time , when I don’t know I haven’t a crystal ball to read the future. Just now I think we have to do the best for Scotland’s interests within the UK with a devolved parliament. I don’t know who could replace Alex Salmond no one had his charisma his charm .
Jim Sillars's optimism for Scotland's cause appears to derive entirely from what he perceives - almost certainly correctly - as the decline and collapse of the English state. As if the restoration of Scotland's independence automatically follows from this decline and collapse. I see problems with this analysis.
Firstly, I think it may be a mistake to equate the English state with the British state. The latter is undoubtedly barely distinguishable from the former, it is true. This is an effect of the "numerical dominance" of England to which Jim refers. But this doesn't necessarily imply that they are entirely separate entities. I have long maintained that there exist a British state which is quite apart from both the english and Scottish states. It is more apart from the latter than the former. But it overlays both. It is imposed on both.
This British state is best defined - with a nod to the late William McIlvanney - as the structures of power, privilege, and patronage which serve the interests of the few at whatever cost to the many. It is this British state which parasitises the nations under its sway. That it parasitises Scotland to a greater - or at least, more evident - degree is a function of the richness of our resources relative to England.
If the existing constitutional arrangement serves England's state interests, then it is difficult to explain the decline and imminent collapse of that nation. However, the conditions of both England and Scotland are amply explained by the existence of a third entity - the British state - whose interests are always paramount.
It should be understood that the British state as i envisage it, is not separate from the English and Scottish states in the same sense as a 'foreign power' would be. In fact, the British state is thoroughly integrated with both. And that is the problem. Where the British state integrates with the states it overlays is predominantly at the points of greatest power and influence. It is thus that the British state's interests can be favoured over those of the other states.
Scotland is a nation. England is a nation. The British state is not a nation but a system. That system permeates and dominates the political, economic, social, and cultural elites of of both. In effect, both are colonised by the British state. If England lacks many of the essential characteristics of a colony it is because England gave birth to the British state. Scotland was merely the sperm donor.
Another issue with Jim Sillars's analysis is the question of what constitutes the collapse of a nation such as England. The decline bit is all too evident. But, at what point does this decline become collapse? And however collapse is defined, how does it trigger an end to the Union? In what way is the collapse of the English state a necessary and sufficient cause for the restoration of Scotland's independence?
Such question take on a particular significance in the context of the existence of a British state, as descibed above. Because while the English state is undoubtedly in decline, and while Scotland is certainly being dragged down as well, the British state is thriving. The structures of power, privilege, and patronage which define the British state are not weakening. On the contrary, unaccountable power gets less accountable; unearned privilege increases; and unregulated patronage continues to be rife. The parasite grows fat while the host (England) withers. Scotland in turn suffers as England strives to combat the decline occasioned by the parasitic British state by increasingly and more openly drawing on Scotland's resources.
Jim Sillars's optimism for Scotland's cause may be misplaced. Not only does independence not follow from England's decline absent a Scottish political elite with the wit and the will to take a stand against our nation's exploitation, but the British state's imperative to maintain England's access to Scotland's resources grows stronger. The British state and its proxy - England - will go to ever greater lengths to prevent Scotland prioritising its own interests over theirs.
These are not factors which inspire optimism for Scotland's cause. Rather, these factors should prompt a thorough and urgent review of how we defend Scotland's interests against the depredations of an increasingly aggressive British state. As I pointed out as long ago as 2020, what we are engaged in is an existential battle (https://peterabell.scot/2020/12/13/an-existential-battle/). Nobody can sensibly pretend that Scotland's current political leadership is fit for that fight. They inspire only pessimism for Scotland's cause.
The years from 1945 onwards were not years of "managed decline" as said here.
1945 -1973 were the years described by Eric Hobsbawn as the Golden Years of marked improvement on all economic and social fronts
Nicely written, but really just wishful thinking. As soon as you examine the case in any depth the same unaddressed issues will emerge. Currency, the deficit, no central bank, the EU, borders. Many years of turbo austerity to try and sort all of this out. Not to mention the fact that it won’t be the social democratic heaven that many people anticipate. Look at the rise of Reform in Scotland and the fact that Trump was supported by more people in Scotland, than any other country in Europe, apart from Italy. Deluded, I’m afraid.
Jim's response to John Mason:
I was pleased to read John Mason’s scepticism, which is understandable considering that all the policy work now being done has been under the political radar, with very little of its content, if any, in the wide public domain. None of the policy areas he mentions are great barriers to independence. Other countries such as the Baltic states faced them in extricating themselves from an all-encompassing union, in their case Soviet Union, with success.
As I am a socialist and not a social democrat, I cannot comment on his dismissal of “a social democratic heaven” awaiting us on independence. I was taught in the Ayrshire labour movement to look at a country’s resources in any assessment of its prospects, and ally policies based on those resources to priorities. What is fundamental to a modern economy is the quality of its human capital and its consistent secure level of energy supply. The latter is particularly important in the age of AI.
The quality of Scotland’s human capital depends on how our children are educated, and on continuing education, formal and informal, for all of us in the course of our lifetimes. The position this side of independence is not good. It is an open secret in our universities that the product of our primary and secondary education system is producing students who are less able to handle the rigours of an academic life than was the case, say,10-15 years ago. But none who should be the leaders at the highest levels of our intellectual life have the guts to tell the truth. Unless that truth is faced and we admit to the deficiencies of our whole education system, then we shall carry that handicap into independence. Education should be front and centre of the 2026 election.
Our school system was recently the laughing stock of the world when it was reported that there is a child insisting he/she is a Wolf, and being accommodated as such, in one classroom. It never crossed the education minister’s mind to remind the relevant local authority and parents that we educate children and do not train animals.
The Herald newspaper has carried in-depth articles on the crisis in our colleges, and universities. Here’s two question for everyone reading this: name the minister for higher education, and can you remember anything he has said?
I now turn to the question of Scotland and its other resource – energy. We really would need to be the saftest of the international family if we made a mess of our economic life on gaining independence. The lifeblood of an economy is energy. Scotland has, and will continue to have an abundance, and in that I include oil and gas in the North Sea and west of Shetland where the Clair field is a giant (7 bn barrels). The policy needed for independence is how Scotland gets its share of wind and oil, of which in the case of the latter we don’t own at present even a cupful and in the case of the former a single wind turbine.
Others commenting on John Mason have pointed to the policy work done and under way. There is, however, one area so far neglected that should get attention this side of campaigning: the negotiation brief when our representatives sit down at the table with our English neighbours and set out the terms of the Treaty that will set relations between us in the future.
John Mason may continue to think this is all delusional. I see it as the application of intellectual rigour in pursuit of addressing the issues inherent in achieving and making a success of independence. The application of intellectual rigour was something else I was taught in the Ayrshire Labour movement. Its absence in that bit of the movement called the SNP is the reason the July disaster happened.
Oh dear, Jim, the policy work is being done under the radar. After ten years they are still trying to work out what to do. It is probably best kept under the radar, as it will no doubt again melt under any scrutiny. To compare the Baltic countries to our own situation is simplistic as well. Totally different system a not comparable to a three hundred union in a mature, democratic advanced economy. If there were no great barriers, you would still be trying to work out how to get over them. I well remember the SNP Growth Commission promising fifteen to twenty five years of austerity.
My Social Democratic heaven comment related to the Riddoch faction who see Scotland as a left leaning, liberal nirvana who just needs to rid itself of big, bad England to prove it. It’s another self praising scotch myth. Yes, Scots in genaeral don’t like the Tory brand, but they are generally social conservatives and plenty are economic conservatives too. You call yourself a socialist, but you’re quite content in a party led by a centrist conservative and indeed wanted an economic and social conservative to lead it, someone whose views wouldn’t be out of place in the US Republican Party. You also quote populist Daily Mail type nonsense of an isolated incident of a boy identifying as a wolf to condemn the Scottish education system. I’m more concerned about a friend, who is a headteacher, current battling racism in her primary school in “progressive” Scotland. I confidently predict that Scotland would have a right wing populist government with ten years of independence, given the social conservatism, the austerity that would follow and the backlash to the immigration we would need to survive an aging population. It will never be proved though, as we’re not going to see it in either of our lifetimes.
Have a merry Christmas and a happy new year 🧑🎄👍
Always amuses me when people who wouldn’t vote for Independence in a million, think their opinion matters on the Pro Indy case.
There is already a valid plan for a Scottish currency immediately after a Declaration of Independence and that will enable us to collect our own taxes in that currency. It will also give us a base foreign currency reserve from the British pounds that Scots can exchange for Pounds Scots plus the funds currently held in the vaults of the Bank of England to support the current Scottish Banknotes.
Indeed there is
You better plan for a lot higher taxes then, because we spend a lot more than we take in. There’s barely an economist of any standing that says otherwise.
If we had control of the resources currently being used for the benefit of England' we would have a decent economy and a decent standard of living. We could pay older folk a better pension than the UK and probably considerably younger as thestatists would not be skewed by the high life expectancy of the very wealthy in SE England (for how much longer?). Britain is currently a failing state, unable and unwilling to help out the vulnerable in our society. Education is unequal with the already privileged given more resources than othersections of society. Our government foes not keep proper accounts yet does not see it as a problem and does nothing to stop the fraudulent underpaying of tax that is due as it's unwilling to find the staff to prevent this theft.
Aye, yon houdies aye croak for doom. As you demonstrate, the main task of the colonizer is to make any prospect of liberation appear impossible.
Some economists have already identified the extent of colonial plunder from Scotland, which amounts to £150 billion+ a year:
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/03/19/the-real-economic-price-of-the-uk-union-for-scots/comment-page-1/
If the economists you listen to are the ones that advise the UK government's, blue or red, they are talking rubbish!
Spending is not dependent on or restricted to taxes raised for a currency issuing state. You are thinking of the old household finances analogy which I thought everyone knew did not apply to national Governments with their own currency. How can taxes possibly be "taken in" without the Government first spending the money into the economy? Would you consider yourself a good judge of "economists of standing"?
Well, clearly you failed to "examine the case in any depth", because there are answers to all of those issues. Could it perhaps be this is just some Unionist trying to appeal to the more ignorant voter? Has it occurred to you that such people do not actually read the likes of this and those that do also know you are full of it? Time waster.
Jim provided a detailed and courteous reply. You on the other hand come from the abusive wing that usually debates along the lines of “that’s sh*te”. Unionist wasn’t even a term when I was campaigning.for Jim in South Ayrshire, but solidarity was a word we used with working people all over the UK. We wanted to help people based on their circumstances, not their nationality. Remember you need “unionists” to change their minds to get your wish.
The 'Union' is and always has been a colonial hoax, 'Britishness' a cultural illusion. This means there are no 'Unionists', only colonialists.
You clearly haven't read up on anything since 2014, so pardon me if you come across to me as Unionist who hasn't updated his patter since then - when you're actually worse - you're a supposedly pro-Indy voter who hasn't and may as well be a unionist with those horribly outdated and ill-informed views. You sound as though you fell for it all.
We don't need unionists to change their mind. They are actually a minority. We just need the more open-minded who don't identify as such to be convinced that the pro-Indy side has solid policies going into it with - and despite SNP propaganda saying it's been "4 years" since we had majority "Yes" polling (haven't you heard?), it's actually been less. Where we might have agreed, is whether or not the SNP actually have all the right policies. But seeing as you continue to sound more like a "These Islands" infiltrator, I will happily ignore you instead.
“You’re supposedly a pro Indy voter”……..err no! Can’t you read? I’m happy to discontinue our conversation as well as you seem to be hard of understanding and full of the nationalist arrogance that is so off putting to people. You know nothing about me and what I have read. Merry Christmas.
Aye, because you made sooo much sense, Mr "campaigning.for Jim in South Ayrshire" and referring to issues already sorted out or at least improved upon. Go back to your dark, ill-informed cave where you want the rest of us to be.
Ach well, let’s just give up then John, shall we? 🙄
Not really, I don’t want to try in the first place. I’m on the side of ordinary people in the whole of the UK, not millionaires and landowners just because they are Scottish. Two of my children were born in England, and funnily enough I don’t differentiate between them and my child born in Scotland 👍