Really? The removal imprint, as with the original poster's imprint, will be embedded in the electronic document. Nothing is ever lost from the internet!
Also, there will be a string of emails, hosted by at least 2 servers (Uni and Govt) detailing the timeline. Freedom of Information request anyone?
This is the first time I have read something that I can actually understand. I am a voter for independence,but reading this just confirms !my beliefs in my country . And this should be shared by everyone.!
I do not believe the real issue relates to whether Scotland could become a successful independent nation. it is already a successful and important part of a world class independent country comprised of four proud nations nations. The SNP wants to change something that has developed and matured over 300 hundred years in order to advance their own limited political careers as MSP's in a devolved parliament to one that offers the potential of a more elevated and powerful career as national ministers of a newly independent nation This is the true motive of the political movement for independence in Scotland regardless of the economic uncertainty and consequences that may be inflicted on the people of Scotland.
You appear to ignore the fact that the Scottish Electorate consistently return the SNP to power, both at a national level and in local government. The political nous of the Scottish people is also higher than in other countries and we are well aware of the economic and political benefits of independence. Scottish independence is a grassroots movement much greater than the SNP who are seen as a political tool to achieve independence, and their future in an independent Scotland would not be assured.
> Scottish Electorate consistently return the SNP to power, both at a national level and in local government
Indeed. Scots vote one way, but get a different government UK-wide. Many Scots see it as a problem being ruled by a Tory government that (1) Scots didn't vote for and (2) Scots cannot vote out. Many see this as a negation of democracy.
Independence would solve this problem
So might the creation of a federal UK with a higher level of devolution, but I not think Westminster is prepared to offer that.
I would favour the federal option. It will be interesting to see if any proposals are brought forward on that post election. It is a UK wide issue, as is returning power to local authorities/councils etc who have currently been neutered by both Westminster and Holyrood.
I do not agree about UK Govs that we cannot vote out. If Scotland voted Labour then Scotland would get a party it voted for consistently. Since WWII Scotland has backed UK Govs 24 times out of 50 elections. Pretty fair democratic return. That all changed with the SNP of course and their refusal to work with labour down south unlike the DUP and the Tories.
"Since WWII Scotland has backed UK Govs 24 times out of 50 elections. "
Which means a country has failed to get the party it voted for 26 times. We get what we want as long as it aligns with what England elects. I'm not sure you thought that through.
In a federal UK would Scotland have stayed in the EU after the referendum as thatโs what they voted for? If not then itโs time the federal fairy went back to sleep.
Well said, in fact, after a short term of transition under an iScottish SNP government, its actually unlikely the SNP would survive in its current form. More likely, it would split into 2 parties along currently united (by neccessity) wings of the party.
New political parties would appear to replace the 3 no longer existent unionist parties, as all 3 are NOT Scottish parties, they are accounting units of Uk entities, and unless they legally split from their uk entity, they are automatically banned from operating in an iScotland.
This is why I really do not understand Labour in Scotland.
If Labour in Scotland announced they were legally splitting from uk labour, and were now fully backing Scottish Independence, and were urging all their supporters to vote Yes to indy, they could, with a fairly reasonable bit of justification, claim that 'labour got indy over the line' and as a result, would be a political contender to win a post indy Scottish Election a lot quicker than if they watch Scotland become indy THEN realise labour in Scotland has to join the iScotland party by legally splitting and registering in Scotland after the fact.
That route might mean new iLabour, would never be trusted to win more than a tiny number of seats.
Tories will be no loss, nor will the libdems.
Labour have a massive opportunity here, stick with tory light uk labour, and hope for rare pockets of power,when even the English tire of tory greed and sleaze, or get the chance to join the iScotland revolution, and in the mid term (after fostering some trust) be part of a government running one of the pro rata, richest nations on earth, at THE most exciting time in our entire history.
That refusal to get on board, by Labour in Scotland, is absolutely baffling, and an admission that labour in Scotland does not believe in themselves, a point noted and driven home at every election in Scotland.
World-class? Really? The UK is an international laughing stock that has just committed economic suicide, and you think it's world class? Telll that to the kids in Scotland living in poverty bevause of Tory dismantling of social security.Or do you want to blame that on the SNP as well? This article shows Scotland will be a successful independent country, rid of this poisonous union once and for all.
Brexit is hardly โeconomic suicideโ - although it may impact growth for a while. As the article points out, Scottish independence comes with significant short term costs. Both it and Brexit are essential gambles that the long run performance will justify the short term pain
That might have been the case if there was a Brexit 'Plan'. None exists, the ad hoc trading schemes entered into ( Faroes, Australia) had Britain negotiating in weakness.
Britain's trade has been described as a 'Train Crash'
If you can see it coming, why not get off the train.
Your point dissolves instantly when you consider that many SNP members believe that the party would cease to exist in its current format. The role of the party within the framework of the UK is to govern Scotland while pushing for independence and secession from the Union. The latter part of that role would cease to exist following a YES vote, subsequent transitional period of dissolution negotiations and final ratification. One would need to be severley ill-informed to be unaware of that.
Although the SNP membership and support comes mainly from the former Labour spiritual heartland of social democratic left leaning electorate it also contains former conservative centrists, former Liberal Democrats and manifold independent visionaries who seek a common cause; Independence for Scotland and an end to the failed experiment of the unequal union.
When the first elections in an independent Scotland are announced we will have a better picture of the true political leanings of the Scots. We will see a rebirth of social democratic parties to the fore though unlikely many would like to associated themselves with the Scottish Labour who sold Scotland for Ermine. Campaigning and results will be the divining rod. There is no pot of gold or lifetime reward promised for those who pushed for the inevitable victory. The reward will be the contribution to the global status of Scotland, a worthy nation among nations.
GB is not a country. The treaty created a state which comprises 2 signatory sovereign nation states who ratified the treaty as equal partners with equal authority. There are 3 countries within the treaty of GB and a province. Both Wales and Northern Ireland come under England. Scotland is independent within GB though it refuses to act as such. In fact the English government put out a paper during indyref which even stated that fact when discussing what form of independence Scotland would take. One of their arguments was that Scotland could essentially have a devo-max form of independence rather than fully reasserting its statehood.
Oct 11, 2021Liked by Pontifex Minimus ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ณ๓ ฃ๓ ด๓ ฟ
โSomething that has developed and matured over 300 yearsโ many people would strongly disagree with that assessment. In fact itโs just a sound bite that says nothing and means nothing. I am not an SNP politician, but I want Scotland to be an independent country to allow it to fulfil itโs true potential as a normal independent country. This would have the added advantage for the average English person that they would no longer need, as they claim, to subsidise the Scots, they could spend the money saved on their NHS instead.
I wish they addressed the former Soviet context of Czechoslovakia. That omission is strange as I find it difficult to make genuine comparisons with iScotland without it. I do not think the Velvet Revolution compares well to any future Scottish independence in terms of the necessary economic changes, challenges and opportunities. The IMF described the Velvet Rev as shock therapy or a big bang. That was January 1991. The dramatic shift from exporting to the Eastern bloc to Western economies cannot be overstated. Scotland would not benefit from such a dynamic change. With Germany on its northern border becoming it anchor trade partner, this is like Scotland gaining England as a trading partner, not loosing it (or reducing it). The New Czech state currently exports 32% of its total to Germany, its no.1 trade partner (that being part of a total of 84% with EU states in 2016). You cannot really compare Scotland's 60% trading relationship with England and 20% with the EU. So I am not sure this article assists the economic case for Independence as the narratives are too different. 1990 Eastern Europe is too far removed from our current context.
The right to independence stuff I do not disagree with. Legally it all seems to stand up. I do however doubt other states willingness to back Scotland when it is still part of the UK, even if a total majority of the population vote SNP. That would be seen as meddling in the internal affaires of another state. Note how nobody backs the Catalans for instance
What you say mostly makes sense But you destroy your own arguments at the end of your statement Nobody backs Catalonia because Catalonia is not a country Catalonia is a region of Spain Which was incorporated into Spain in the 18th century Scotland is a nation in it's own right
> The dramatic shift from exporting to the Eastern bloc to Western economies cannot be overstated. Scotland would not benefit from such a dynamic change.
Under Brexit, Scotland's trade with EU has greatly suffered. Once we leave UK and join EFTA/EEA (which we could do very quickly after indy, we will have broken the shackles currently holding Scotland's economy back.
> With Germany on its northern border becoming it anchor trade partner, this is like Scotland gaining England as a trading partner
Scotland will be gaining the whole EU (population 450 million) as a frictionless trading partner while losing rUK (population 60 million) as one. Sounds a good deal to me. over the long term, we have more potential for trade with an economy of 450 million than one of 60 million, because it is a lot larger.
It cannot be emphasized enough that in geopolitics, size matters.
And its not like Scotland will actually stop trading with England, Independence merely dictates HOW we trade with different places.
Initially, until we rejoin the EU/Temporarily join EFTA, there are zero reasons for any change to how we trade currently with England (apart from charging them for our excess energy generation, of course).
We will have a short term continuation of Brexit related trade complications as at present (thanks England) but I am absolutely convinced that the EU and Scotsgov post indy, will come to a 'special arrangement' which will grant Scotland 'interim' single market access as soon as possible.
The EU will be very keen to embrace Scotland back into the EU, as we hold even more oil and gas reserves than EFTA nation, Norway, just for one example.
Scotland will build Interlocators to connect Scotland to the European/Scandinavian power grids, to enable smooth flow of energy exports and imports, ensuring both supply and demand between all our closest trading partners.
I would actually wager that you will struggle to find someone who admits to voting No, within 5 years of Independence.
Our economy, free of WM shackles/oppression, will soar post indy, and our biggest issues will be controlling the strength of a Scottish Pound.
England particularly, might struggle to afford our goods as the English pound will not fare well in exchange rates with our Scots Pound.
Of course (tongue in cheek here) Scots could go on 'gloating' holidays to England, and it would be super cheap to do so, even in London. You may even find they will tell Scots visitors they would prefer to take the Scottish Pound instead of the relatively worthless English Pound...๐๐
For one, the dramatic shift to return to full trading with the EU because of Brexit, somewhat in decline (without significant replacement arrangements to non-UU countries) fits exactly what you'd deny. I think you just don't want Scottish Independence (which is a point of view) but please acknowledge, as David Cameron did, that it is economcally feasible,
I donโt believe there is such a thing as the Settled Will of the People. Itโs just a sound bite used by politicians to shut down further discussion. People are always changing their minds, if we have a referendum and people vote for independence then thatโs the majorities will at that particular time. If in future the people differently then that will be reflected by who they vote for in elections.
Er, you don't think it was the settled will of around 50 ex British colonies to prefer independence? I ask, because not one has ever changed their collective minds and asked back.
Any decision made by the Sovereign Scots People, is their expressed and settled will, up to and including the next time they are asked the same question.
Aug 23, 2022Liked by Pontifex Minimus ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ณ๓ ฃ๓ ด๓ ฟ
This is the type of information the Scottish government should be sharing when they push for the next referendum, its information that clearly outlines how Scotland can stand on it's own.
Good article
So was it the authors who took it down and if so why?
I think it was taken down on the orders of the British government. Not that they would admit to it.
Not that you could ever prove it
Really? The removal imprint, as with the original poster's imprint, will be embedded in the electronic document. Nothing is ever lost from the internet!
Also, there will be a string of emails, hosted by at least 2 servers (Uni and Govt) detailing the timeline. Freedom of Information request anyone?
Care to re-comment Guth?
First time I have heard/read a decent essay on the subject of Independence,very well explained.
Once you get passed all the propaganda coming out of Whitehall, the possibilities in the article highlight that where there is a will, there is a way.
This is the first time I have read something that I can actually understand. I am a voter for independence,but reading this just confirms !my beliefs in my country . And this should be shared by everyone.!
I do not believe the real issue relates to whether Scotland could become a successful independent nation. it is already a successful and important part of a world class independent country comprised of four proud nations nations. The SNP wants to change something that has developed and matured over 300 hundred years in order to advance their own limited political careers as MSP's in a devolved parliament to one that offers the potential of a more elevated and powerful career as national ministers of a newly independent nation This is the true motive of the political movement for independence in Scotland regardless of the economic uncertainty and consequences that may be inflicted on the people of Scotland.
You appear to ignore the fact that the Scottish Electorate consistently return the SNP to power, both at a national level and in local government. The political nous of the Scottish people is also higher than in other countries and we are well aware of the economic and political benefits of independence. Scottish independence is a grassroots movement much greater than the SNP who are seen as a political tool to achieve independence, and their future in an independent Scotland would not be assured.
> Scottish Electorate consistently return the SNP to power, both at a national level and in local government
Indeed. Scots vote one way, but get a different government UK-wide. Many Scots see it as a problem being ruled by a Tory government that (1) Scots didn't vote for and (2) Scots cannot vote out. Many see this as a negation of democracy.
Independence would solve this problem
So might the creation of a federal UK with a higher level of devolution, but I not think Westminster is prepared to offer that.
I would favour the federal option. It will be interesting to see if any proposals are brought forward on that post election. It is a UK wide issue, as is returning power to local authorities/councils etc who have currently been neutered by both Westminster and Holyrood.
I do not agree about UK Govs that we cannot vote out. If Scotland voted Labour then Scotland would get a party it voted for consistently. Since WWII Scotland has backed UK Govs 24 times out of 50 elections. Pretty fair democratic return. That all changed with the SNP of course and their refusal to work with labour down south unlike the DUP and the Tories.
"Since WWII Scotland has backed UK Govs 24 times out of 50 elections. "
Which means a country has failed to get the party it voted for 26 times. We get what we want as long as it aligns with what England elects. I'm not sure you thought that through.
In a federal UK would Scotland have stayed in the EU after the referendum as thatโs what they voted for? If not then itโs time the federal fairy went back to sleep.
Well said, in fact, after a short term of transition under an iScottish SNP government, its actually unlikely the SNP would survive in its current form. More likely, it would split into 2 parties along currently united (by neccessity) wings of the party.
New political parties would appear to replace the 3 no longer existent unionist parties, as all 3 are NOT Scottish parties, they are accounting units of Uk entities, and unless they legally split from their uk entity, they are automatically banned from operating in an iScotland.
This is why I really do not understand Labour in Scotland.
If Labour in Scotland announced they were legally splitting from uk labour, and were now fully backing Scottish Independence, and were urging all their supporters to vote Yes to indy, they could, with a fairly reasonable bit of justification, claim that 'labour got indy over the line' and as a result, would be a political contender to win a post indy Scottish Election a lot quicker than if they watch Scotland become indy THEN realise labour in Scotland has to join the iScotland party by legally splitting and registering in Scotland after the fact.
That route might mean new iLabour, would never be trusted to win more than a tiny number of seats.
Tories will be no loss, nor will the libdems.
Labour have a massive opportunity here, stick with tory light uk labour, and hope for rare pockets of power,when even the English tire of tory greed and sleaze, or get the chance to join the iScotland revolution, and in the mid term (after fostering some trust) be part of a government running one of the pro rata, richest nations on earth, at THE most exciting time in our entire history.
That refusal to get on board, by Labour in Scotland, is absolutely baffling, and an admission that labour in Scotland does not believe in themselves, a point noted and driven home at every election in Scotland.
World-class? Really? The UK is an international laughing stock that has just committed economic suicide, and you think it's world class? Telll that to the kids in Scotland living in poverty bevause of Tory dismantling of social security.Or do you want to blame that on the SNP as well? This article shows Scotland will be a successful independent country, rid of this poisonous union once and for all.
Brexit is hardly โeconomic suicideโ - although it may impact growth for a while. As the article points out, Scottish independence comes with significant short term costs. Both it and Brexit are essential gambles that the long run performance will justify the short term pain
That might have been the case if there was a Brexit 'Plan'. None exists, the ad hoc trading schemes entered into ( Faroes, Australia) had Britain negotiating in weakness.
Britain's trade has been described as a 'Train Crash'
If you can see it coming, why not get off the train.
Your point dissolves instantly when you consider that many SNP members believe that the party would cease to exist in its current format. The role of the party within the framework of the UK is to govern Scotland while pushing for independence and secession from the Union. The latter part of that role would cease to exist following a YES vote, subsequent transitional period of dissolution negotiations and final ratification. One would need to be severley ill-informed to be unaware of that.
Although the SNP membership and support comes mainly from the former Labour spiritual heartland of social democratic left leaning electorate it also contains former conservative centrists, former Liberal Democrats and manifold independent visionaries who seek a common cause; Independence for Scotland and an end to the failed experiment of the unequal union.
When the first elections in an independent Scotland are announced we will have a better picture of the true political leanings of the Scots. We will see a rebirth of social democratic parties to the fore though unlikely many would like to associated themselves with the Scottish Labour who sold Scotland for Ermine. Campaigning and results will be the divining rod. There is no pot of gold or lifetime reward promised for those who pushed for the inevitable victory. The reward will be the contribution to the global status of Scotland, a worthy nation among nations.
GB is not a country. The treaty created a state which comprises 2 signatory sovereign nation states who ratified the treaty as equal partners with equal authority. There are 3 countries within the treaty of GB and a province. Both Wales and Northern Ireland come under England. Scotland is independent within GB though it refuses to act as such. In fact the English government put out a paper during indyref which even stated that fact when discussing what form of independence Scotland would take. One of their arguments was that Scotland could essentially have a devo-max form of independence rather than fully reasserting its statehood.
โSomething that has developed and matured over 300 yearsโ many people would strongly disagree with that assessment. In fact itโs just a sound bite that says nothing and means nothing. I am not an SNP politician, but I want Scotland to be an independent country to allow it to fulfil itโs true potential as a normal independent country. This would have the added advantage for the average English person that they would no longer need, as they claim, to subsidise the Scots, they could spend the money saved on their NHS instead.
I wish they addressed the former Soviet context of Czechoslovakia. That omission is strange as I find it difficult to make genuine comparisons with iScotland without it. I do not think the Velvet Revolution compares well to any future Scottish independence in terms of the necessary economic changes, challenges and opportunities. The IMF described the Velvet Rev as shock therapy or a big bang. That was January 1991. The dramatic shift from exporting to the Eastern bloc to Western economies cannot be overstated. Scotland would not benefit from such a dynamic change. With Germany on its northern border becoming it anchor trade partner, this is like Scotland gaining England as a trading partner, not loosing it (or reducing it). The New Czech state currently exports 32% of its total to Germany, its no.1 trade partner (that being part of a total of 84% with EU states in 2016). You cannot really compare Scotland's 60% trading relationship with England and 20% with the EU. So I am not sure this article assists the economic case for Independence as the narratives are too different. 1990 Eastern Europe is too far removed from our current context.
The right to independence stuff I do not disagree with. Legally it all seems to stand up. I do however doubt other states willingness to back Scotland when it is still part of the UK, even if a total majority of the population vote SNP. That would be seen as meddling in the internal affaires of another state. Note how nobody backs the Catalans for instance
What you say mostly makes sense But you destroy your own arguments at the end of your statement Nobody backs Catalonia because Catalonia is not a country Catalonia is a region of Spain Which was incorporated into Spain in the 18th century Scotland is a nation in it's own right
> The dramatic shift from exporting to the Eastern bloc to Western economies cannot be overstated. Scotland would not benefit from such a dynamic change.
Under Brexit, Scotland's trade with EU has greatly suffered. Once we leave UK and join EFTA/EEA (which we could do very quickly after indy, we will have broken the shackles currently holding Scotland's economy back.
> With Germany on its northern border becoming it anchor trade partner, this is like Scotland gaining England as a trading partner
Scotland will be gaining the whole EU (population 450 million) as a frictionless trading partner while losing rUK (population 60 million) as one. Sounds a good deal to me. over the long term, we have more potential for trade with an economy of 450 million than one of 60 million, because it is a lot larger.
It cannot be emphasized enough that in geopolitics, size matters.
And its not like Scotland will actually stop trading with England, Independence merely dictates HOW we trade with different places.
Initially, until we rejoin the EU/Temporarily join EFTA, there are zero reasons for any change to how we trade currently with England (apart from charging them for our excess energy generation, of course).
We will have a short term continuation of Brexit related trade complications as at present (thanks England) but I am absolutely convinced that the EU and Scotsgov post indy, will come to a 'special arrangement' which will grant Scotland 'interim' single market access as soon as possible.
The EU will be very keen to embrace Scotland back into the EU, as we hold even more oil and gas reserves than EFTA nation, Norway, just for one example.
Scotland will build Interlocators to connect Scotland to the European/Scandinavian power grids, to enable smooth flow of energy exports and imports, ensuring both supply and demand between all our closest trading partners.
I would actually wager that you will struggle to find someone who admits to voting No, within 5 years of Independence.
Our economy, free of WM shackles/oppression, will soar post indy, and our biggest issues will be controlling the strength of a Scottish Pound.
England particularly, might struggle to afford our goods as the English pound will not fare well in exchange rates with our Scots Pound.
Of course (tongue in cheek here) Scots could go on 'gloating' holidays to England, and it would be super cheap to do so, even in London. You may even find they will tell Scots visitors they would prefer to take the Scottish Pound instead of the relatively worthless English Pound...๐๐
For one, the dramatic shift to return to full trading with the EU because of Brexit, somewhat in decline (without significant replacement arrangements to non-UU countries) fits exactly what you'd deny. I think you just don't want Scottish Independence (which is a point of view) but please acknowledge, as David Cameron did, that it is economcally feasible,
How do we measure the Settled Will of the People?
I donโt believe there is such a thing as the Settled Will of the People. Itโs just a sound bite used by politicians to shut down further discussion. People are always changing their minds, if we have a referendum and people vote for independence then thatโs the majorities will at that particular time. If in future the people differently then that will be reflected by who they vote for in elections.
Er, you don't think it was the settled will of around 50 ex British colonies to prefer independence? I ask, because not one has ever changed their collective minds and asked back.
Any decision made by the Sovereign Scots People, is their expressed and settled will, up to and including the next time they are asked the same question.
Excellent article and makes Independence even more desirable. ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ณ๓ ฃ๓ ด๓ ฟ๐๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ณ๓ ฃ๓ ด๓ ฟ๐
Geoffrey Chapman and RIchard MacKenzie-Gray Scott did not take down their own paper.
It was deliberately printed as such to imply that the authors had indeed taken it down.
But the authors did no such thing!
It was taken down by the same body , the L.S.E. , that put it up on the Internet in the first place!
Pressure from Whitehall might have made the LSE take it down, though Westminster refuses to deny urging deletion.
Their integrity cannot be questioned of course!
Months of work created that article.
The last thing the authors would ever have done is take down months of thorough research on said subject.
Excellent paper
incoherent gibberish
Expand?
Yes, what you said is.
This is the type of information the Scottish government should be sharing when they push for the next referendum, its information that clearly outlines how Scotland can stand on it's own.
I believe Scotland would prosper and would achieve a fairer healthier country for all of its people