The less-deserving pro-independence website

Wings Over Scotland


A state of dependence

Posted on July 28, 2015 by

On last night’s surprisingly feisty Scottish Labour leadership debate, one thing the two candidates firmly agreed on was that Scottish Labour should NOT become a fully autonomous party able to form its own policies. So it probably won’t come as any great shock to find that they’re both out of step with public opinion.

indylab

In fairness, it should be noted that a narrow majority (40% to 28%) of Labour’s own voters still want the Scottish branch office to be ultimately controlled by the UK party, as do Tory and Lib Dem supporters. More disturbing is probably the 29% of all Scots (including 13% of Labour voters) who think it doesn’t matter either way.

Whoever wins, we suspect they shouldn’t get their hopes up.

Print Friendly

2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 28 07 15 11:18

    A state of dependence | Speymouth

  2. 30 07 15 09:46

    A state of dependence | Politics Scotland | Sc...

70 to “A state of dependence”

  1. Les wilson says:

    Yes I can hear it now,” Keiza/ Ken or whoever, this is London labour HQ, here is what we want you to do…..

    YES BOSS!

  2. Helena Brown says:

    Well I would say regardless of which of the candidates get in they will be subservient to who so ever gets in Darn South. They are all creatures who do as they are telt.

  3. DerekM says:

    Yea Rev i was unfortunate to have seen this last night was at my mates house(he is still Labour,though after last night i dont think he will be for much longer)he was going nuts at the TV as they dodged every important question with the necromancers book on how to be evasive,no commitment to anything a lot of hot air.

    I just laughed and said see i told you they were hopeless they cant do anything unless London tells them to.

    And i think the 29% who said it doesnt matter are right since they are going to get thumped either way in 2016 even their new shining light Jeremy isnt going to stop it.

  4. Dr Ew says:

    I suspect the two Ks would balk at the responsibility not to mention the inevitable civil war that would ensue. The developing race down south may precipitate that anyway so they don’t want it getting any more complicated – or some Cromwellian figure might step in and have their heads.

    Also, the cost of starting a new party almost from scratch would be more than just financial, giving the union’s the perfect excuse to shed the dead wood of a dying party. So, on balance, remaining branch office of the UK cadaver is probably the lesser of two evils, though hardly a principled or long-term strategy.

  5. Connor McEwen says:

    How about concentrating on getting rid of Mundane [Mundell] and showing up Dastardly Cameron and Muttley Osborne.
    Now and again.

  6. Brian Powell says:

    Dugdale claims she regrets working with the Tories during the Referendum, however gave not the smallest hint of this at the time. Like a bank robber ‘regretting’ robbing a bank after being caught.

  7. Nana Smith says:

    Same old same old.

  8. Peter Campbell says:

    Just checked out that debate, I’m a bit alarmed that Ken MacIntosh said that the Tories have now adopted the living wage – is he seriously suggesting that the new minimum wage is actually a living wage. Has he decided to use the Tory propaganda, that it’s a living wage, to further his own ends?

  9. Macart says:

    Well that would be that then and if there was ever any doubt, its been removed by the leadership candidates. Though you have to ask yourself, leadership of what?

    There is no and will be no such entity as Scottish Labour.

  10. Andy Nimmo says:

    Sorry I missed the debate.
    Were either Ken or Barbie asked their views on Jeremy Corbyn?
    I feel that it would be interesting to note their stance now and then monitor it as the momentum continues to gather pace down south.

  11. Bugger (the Panda) says:

    My takings on that is the affiliation is irrelevant and they are fucked any way they go.

  12. galamcennalath says:

    Firstly, SNP voters seem a remarkably decent bunch! 48% think SLab should be independent when that probably isn’t in SNP/Indy’s interest. Attached to London and doing their bidding should make SLab less of a threat. In reality it’s probably because SNP folks think any break with London is good.

    A majority, 40% of rump SLab voters like being part of the London party. Clearly true Unionists.

    Similarly, a majority of Con and LibDem voters think as Unionists. Literally, together is better.

    28% of rump SLab voters want to detach from London. Interesting. Is that an indication that they might be pursuadable for further London detachment?

    And again, a significant number of Tories and LibDems think detaching from London at a party level is good. Shows some positive thinking!

  13. Chic McGregor says:

    Both fully signed up members to the Dependency Tendency project.

  14. Democracy Reborn says:

    I’m sure I heard Kez say that the Scottish Parliament should have the power to determine the level of the minimum wage….. as long as it was the same as England’s.

    That’s home rule, Labour-style.

    Meanwhile, unionist hacks such as Farquharson suggest that the SNP should put its social justice money where its mouth is by raising income tax and utilise all the vast ‘new powers’ in the Scotland Bill, to compensate for Tory welfare cuts.

    So, let me get this logic right:

    • vote ‘No’ to protect UK welfare provision
    • get a Tory government Scotland hasn’t voted for
    • Tories implement welfare cuts
    • if Scotland wants to increase the minimum wage to mitigate the effects? Tough : the Jocks can just pay more tax instead

  15. Muscleguy says:

    @Dr Ew

    I suppose it depends on how inevitable you view Independence to be since once we are independent and even after a Yes vote the unionist parties will have to separate. I can’t see Holyrood allowing foreign political donations and control. But I suppose if you are still in Labour you are probably discounting the longevity and penetration of Lamont’s ‘Branch Office’ jibe. I bet they get together and bemoan that us voters just won’t ‘leave it behind and move on’.

    I can’t wait for SLAB to chap our door. I’ll look surprised, point south, tell them they are off reservation and and that Embra South is ‘thataway’. Sadly reports say the party here in Dundee is almost defunct. Nobody chapped our door in the GE, at all.

  16. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “How about concentrating on getting rid of Mundane [Mundell]”

    How is it that you’d propose we go about doing that?

  17. De Valera says:

    I would like to see all paties in Scotland being independent of London ( of course I really want the whole country independent of London, but thats not on offer just now). But I am torn between wanting the Labour branch office to break away or to stay as it is and go even further into oblivion.

    Neither of these two will be in the job after May 2016 so they really are caretakers (undertakers maybe?). I too gat annoyed with the “Scottish Labour” thing, it really should always be referred to as “Labour in Scotland”.

  18. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    Connor McEwen at 10.52

    We are doing this all the time. Perhaps you hadn’t noticed.
    Be useful if the Labour Party joined us in our efforts instead of hiding and abstaining in case they annoy south of England voters.

  19. Joemcg says:

    Why was that programme even broadcast across Scotland last night when they have one sitting MP and will be wiped out at Holyrood very soon? Oh, that’s right, it was on BBC. Stupid question.

  20. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    De Valera at 11.26

    Or,better “London Labour In Scotland”

  21. Midgehunter says:

    They tried to cover it up in the Referendum, Jim Murphy in the GE tried every contortion and body swerve known to mankind to avoid it, but now everyone and their dog knows it – Scot. Labour is only a branch of London Labour and the Ken/Kezia muppet show is a farce.

    Nicola is gonna rip them to pieces when FMQ’s starts again. 🙂

  22. Dan Huil says:

    So, Labour in Scotland will continue to put Westminster’s wants above Scotland’s needs.

  23. Dr Jim says:

    One lady complained about wanting to vote for Labour in order to avoid a one party SNP state
    Which kinda puzzles me, the Tories won an overall majority and now do anything they want to everybody

    Now that’s a one party state
    Everybody else can say what they like but it means nothing

    A (Not) one party state would surely be a coalition and that didn’t work out too well either

    Although if Labour ever did come back (In around 15 years)
    That might constitute a coalition because of the BBC setting policy
    Democracy doesn’t work well, that’s why we have the Pretendy kind for the masses to feel better about it

    Benign dictatorship with other parties complaining about stuff seems to be the ultimate goal in politics
    Trouble is we never get a Westminster lot that includes the Benign Bit

  24. HandandShrimp says:

    How about concentrating on getting rid of Mundane [Mundell]“

    How is it that you’d propose we go about doing that?

    I’m leaning to highly trained stealth rats….if that is possible.

  25. Mealer says:

    Ken was convinced that Kez had supported the idea of abstaining on the welfare bill.He raised the matter several times and said she had written in the Daily Record supporting the idea of abstention.Kezia denied this.Whats the truth of the matter?

  26. Pam McMahon says:

    Dr Ew@ 10.51 am

    The two Ks? Shame Katy Clark isn’t standing; they could’ve had a proper KKK debate, where somebody was hanged and set fire to. Apart from themselves.

  27. HandandShrimp says:

    The UK Labour leadership has come alive because there is a possibility that the one candidate the establishment doesn’t want might win. The Scottish election is just dull. Kezia is way out of her depth and Ken couldn’t set heather on fire with a flame thrower. It doesn’t matter which of them wins it will SLab branch office as usual.

  28. schrodingers cat says:

    Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “How about concentrating on getting rid of Mundane [Mundell]“

    How is it that you’d propose we go about doing that?

    um, we could club together all of our cigarette coupons and buy a daktari gun 🙂

  29. Al-Stuart says:

    Labour are looking more irrelevant, and the SNP occupying the Labour frontbench opposition seats for a few minutes in the Commons maybe as good as it gets – as far as Scotland and Westminster goes.

    According to Dave Cameron, the Scots are NOT being allowed to hold an Independence Referendum before 2020…

    http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/david-cameron-rejects-scottish-referendum-before-2020/ar-AAdzPE8?ocid=mailsignoutmd

    Shame the Tory prime minister still fails to understand that arrogantly telling Scots what to do from his luxury home in Downing street is not a good idea.

    Especially when Dave seems to lack a basic understanding on how democracy works.

    Dave, if, on 5th May 2016, we vote for an SNP government in Holyrood on the basis they promise a referendum, who are you with your shrivelled majority at Westminster to tell us otherwise?

    The soon-to-be-enobled, two-year-to-P45-time prime minister, maybe listen to the ultra-right arch Tory Noman Tebbit when he says:

    “seems pointless to just irritate Scots by shouting at them from Westminster”

  30. Grouse Beater says:

    From as much I can glean from his history Corbyn is a ferocious democrat. Fair play and anti-extreme capitalism has been for him a life-long battle.

    But he’s also a UK-united advocate – which implies he believes in the Union but perhaps might acknowledge Scotland’s historical lack of economic and social progress lies in Westminster retaining far too much power, and that has to be rectified.

    If he’s the politician I think he is, he’ll volunteer as little as possible of his views on Scotland too early in his election campaign. If elected he’s liable to offer an olive branch to the SNP … and who knows what might come of it.

  31. Connor McEwen says:

    Feeling better already.
    Caltonjock and Wings allways buck me up

  32. Joemcg says:

    O/T just started the Ponsonby book on BBC bias. Great stuff but not good for the blood pressure! Nae wonder she is known as Union Jackie.

  33. Les Wilson says:

    Ref getting rid of Mundell, I would suggest campaign of posters with him giving a suitable smirke look opening the foodbank. With a hard hitting caption.

    Filter them out, annoyed folks will put them up.
    The first one on his office!

  34. cearc says:

    HandandShrimp,

    ‘Ken couldn’t set heather on fire with a flame thrower.’

    In all fairness, most of us would have difficulty with that this ‘summer’!

  35. George S Gordon says:

    Both Ken and Kez said minimum/living wage should be common across the UK – except for London of course! The reason advanced was to prevent a race to the bottom. I can’t get my head round that. What possible advantage could there be in lowering statutory wages. Why were they not pressed on this?

    They both added the rider that Scotland should be able to top it up – WTF?! Do they really think that preserves solidarity?
    It can’t be common and different at the same time. An excellent example of SLAB “logic”.

    Am I missing something here?

  36. r baxter says:

    a daily dose of figs. mundane doon the drain.

  37. ronald alexander mcdonald says:

    George S Gordon

    You beat me to it. It appears their master plan is to get us, the taxpayers, to fund the difference, instead of companies paying a decent rate.

  38. heedtracker says:

    Hey dont be mean to Fluffie, he’s doing a great job as England’s Viceroy Governor General of their Scotland lands.

    Watch with awe as BBC Pacific Quay creep show prostrates itself at his silly little feeties, as he legs out the back door of soup kitchens what he proudly opens.

    “I name this soup kitchen the Queen Elizabeth 2 Soup Kitchen, rejoice”

    “Foodbanks however are a common feature in all major western countries. Wealthy countries like Germany have foodbanks so the issues and reasons behind them are complicated.
    “It would be much better if we could all work together to tackle those than being in constant confrontation.”

    Which quote is actually the dafties?

    Hint. Fluffie’s spent over three grand in UKOK expenses having photos taken of himself.

  39. caz-m says:

    The simple truth about why Scottish Labour could never go it alone, is because the are skint. They could never afford to be an Independent Party.

    That is why you hear Kez coming away with all this bullshit about the UK pooling and sharing, she is talking about pooling and sharing London Labours money.

    Isn’t that right Kez.

  40. HandandShrimp says:

    Hint. Fluffie’s spent over three grand in UKOK expenses having photos taken of himself.

    He clearly is a man who lives in hope.

    I fear disappointment may be his reward.

  41. gordonbrownsbeard says:

    SLAB puppets on the London HQ string. Liars and Anti Scotland scum!

  42. Scoter says:

    The reason slab leadership wants to remain under UK control is because they are devoid of ideas and incapable of coming up with anything themselves due to their poor quality. It’s easier having someone telling you what to do rather than making your own decisions.

  43. DannyM says:

    This is ridiculous !!! Look at the question the 1002 people were asked. “…or remain what former leader JL called a ‘branch office’ “. That’s what’s called a FULLY LOADED QUESTION.
    A fair question would be simply “Scottish Labour is currently debating whether it should become a fully independent party or remain part of the UK Labour Party. Which is closest to your view?”
    Imagine the referendum question… “Should Scotland become an independent country or remain more prosperous as part of the UK?”

  44. Thepnr says:

    Both candidates for leader of the Scottish branch office are guilty of making the same mistakes as the three Tories vying to win the UK leadership contest.

    None of them will give a straight answer to any question. It is little wonder that no one will trust them.

  45. heedtracker says:

    HandandShrimp says:
    28 July, 2015 at 1:32 pm
    Hint. Fluffie’s spent over three grand in UKOK expenses having photos taken of himself.

    His great british excellence Viceroy Fluffie to the Scotland region

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5413036/David-Mundell-Claimed-more-than-3000-on-MPs-expenses-to-take-photographs-of-himself.html

    This starts ridiculous and only gets funnier. Arise Sir Fluffy.

    “The “Out and About” section of his website displays more than 700 pictures, mostly of Mr Mundell in various different parts of his Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale constituency.”

    For just this one UKOK dork alone, thanks again proud Scot buts.

  46. Lesley-Anne says:

    I may be wrong here but methinks that the First Viceroy of Scotland, Fluffy, is in a wee bit of hot, if not boiling, water after his little venture into Dumfries last Friday. 😀

    https://www.facebook.com/RichardArklessSNP/posts/379435748919471

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61402/ministerial-code-may-2010.pdf

  47. frogesque says:

    O/T : Just for a bit of light relief.

    http://www.frogesque.com/sewel.jpg

  48. heedtracker says:

    Future ViceRoy of Scotland Sir Fluffie Mundell’s cv

    Mr Mundell was ranked among the worst performers in an analysis of MPs’ value for money by The Sunday Telegraph.

    oooh

    He came in 587th place for 2007/08 based on his contribution in parliament as he attended 47 per cent of votes, spoke in only 11 debates and submitted just 16 written questions in the year while claiming £169,187 in total expenses, including travel, home, office and staffing costs.

    aaah

    Most pictures on Mr Mundell’s website appear to be the work of an amateur, but he does also employ professional photographers and claims back their fees on expenses.

    Cantona

    In March 2006, he hired one to photograph a school visit to the Palace of Westminister at a cost of £117.50.

    And why wouldn’t you! I mean one. Why wouldn’t one!

    The same photographer was on hand in October 2007 to capture the Scottish Agricultural College’s visit to the House of Commons for £99.87.

    In Scotland, another professional photographer was paid £140 in October 2007 “to photograph David around Peebles and Lead Burn Junction”.

    Ofcourse one did. Why else would one hire one.

    Also that Westminster typo in there is the Torygraph, not me:D

  49. frogesque says:

    Now you’ve seen the Branch Office Manager’s debate, imagine either of those two pitted against Jeane Freeman!

  50. Marcia says:

    frogesque

    I wonder if Michelle Moner gave him that bra?

  51. nodrog says:

    I am in the “It does not matter” group because Labour or even Scottish Labour only matter to BBC Scotland. The rest of us could not give a toss!!

  52. Derek Henry says:

    All central banks work the same way it just depends if they have a soverign fiat currency or not with a floating or fixed exchange rate or pegged to a currency or in a currency union.

    The only real option is a sovereign curreny with a floating exchange rate. Anything else and you are just a currency slave.

    Scotland is a currency slave to London. Greece and Ireland and Spain etc are a currency slave to the ECB. Most are currency slaves to the dollar.

    How these central banks control the workers in each country is they know what each country’s tax take is. So they can choose to force these country’s into a budget surplus which is economic suicide.

    For example…

    The ECB and the IMF knew what Greece’s overall tax take was. Let’s for talking sake say Greece’s overall tax take was 10 trillion Euros. To force Greece into a budget surplus all the ECB needed to do was just give Greece 9 trillion Euros to use in their overall econonomy.

    The people of Greece overall or in aggregate would then not be able to meet their tax liabilities. There is only 9 trillion Euros in circulation but they have to find 10 trillion Euros so they can all pay their taxes.

    So overall or in aggregate they have to first use their savings to meet that 1 trillion shortfall and once their savings are exhausted then borrow to meet their overall tax liability.

    Once the people of Greece get more and more in debt to meet that liability as this has been going on for 6 years or more they eventually run our of money and can’t pay their debts.

    Eventually the ECB threatened in the end to not give them any Euros at all never mind 9 trillion. They threatened to cut off the currency supply altogether. The ECB controlled Greece from the very beginning.

    This is why some Scots are saying the Smith Commision is a trap. It is not the VOW that was promised which was home rule.

    The Bank of England knows Scotlands overall tax take and they could starve Scotland with the currency it needs and force them to run a budget surplus. It is a gold standard type set up like Greece and unfortunately taxes in Scotland do fund spending. The Bank Of England could do to Scotland what the ECB did to Greece and then send the asset strippers in to finish Scotland off.

    This is why the only option for Scotland is for us to leave the currency slave set up and form our own central bank issuing our own currency with a floating exchange rate. Then nobody can touch us not even the neoliberal markets.

    We could just buy up most of our sovereign debt ourselves ( borrow from ourselves) with currency created from nothing by nothing. Like Japan and China have done for 40 years. The bond markets can’t touch them.

    When we float our currency the new Scottish central bank protects our currency as decribed below. If you understand all of that then you will clearly understand that this merely amounts to substituting a non-interest bearing reserve balance at the Bank of ALBA for an interest-bearing Government bond sold by the Bank of ALBA. That transaction can never present any problems of solvency for a sovereign government.

  53. Derek Henry says:

    The crazy thing about these trade deals is that they are nothing of the sort.

    They’ll say…

    ” We are going over here, there and everywhere to sell British goods and create British jobs and export more”

    When the reality is a low wage, export-led growth strategy sacrifices domestic policy independence to the exchange rate – a policy stance that at best favours a small segment of the population. No surprise there then.

    First, exports are a cost – we have to give something real to foreigners that we could use ourselves.

    Second, imports are a benefit – they represent foreigners giving us something real that they could use themselves but which we benefit from having.

    In economics it’s always better to recieve than to give. Going to work to produce real goods and services to export for someone else to consume does you no economic good at all, unless you get to import and consume the real goods and services others produce in return.

    Put more succinctly: The real wealth of a nation is all it produces and keeps for itself, plus all it imports, minus what it must export.

    So, on balance, if we can persuade them to send more ships filled with things than we have to send them in return (net export deficit) then that is a net benefit to us.

    So how can we have a situation where foreigners are giving up more real things than they get from us (in a macroeconommic sense)? The answer lies in the fact that our trade blalance deficit “finances” their desire to accumulate net financial claims denominated in £’s.

    Think about that carefully. The mainstream conception is exactly the opposite – that the foreigners finance our profligate spending patterns.

    In fact, our trade deficit allows them to accumulate these financial assets (claims on us). We gain in real terms – more ships full coming in than leave! – and they can in terms of their desired financial portfolio. So in general that seems like a good outcome for all.

    The problem is that if they change their desire to accumulate financial assets in our currency then they will become unwilling to allow the “real terms of trade” (ships going and coming with real things) to remain in our favour. Then we have to adjust our export and import behaviour accordingly. If this transition is sudden then some disruptions can occur. In general, these adjustments are not sudden.

    Neo-liberal myth: British consumers have to borrow £billions from foreigners to keep consuming.

    Reality: British consumers are funding £billions in foreign savings (accumulation of £-denominated financial assets by foreigners).

  54. Derek Henry says:

    Here is a transactional account of how this works which starts off with me buying a South East Asia car.

    I buy a nice little Asian car.

    If I pay cash, then my bank account is debited and the Asia car dealer’s account is credited – this has the impact of increasing foreign savings of £ denominated financial assets. Total deposits in the British banking system, so far, are unchanged.

    If I take out a loan to buy the car, then my bank’s balance sheet now records the loan as an asset and creates a deposit (the loan) on the liability side. When I hand over the cheque to the car dealer (representing the Asian firm – ignore intervening transactions) the Asian car company has a new asset (bank deposit) and my loan boosts overall bank deposits (loans create deposits). Foreign savings in £s rise by the amount of the loan.

    So the trade deficit (1 car in this case) results from the Asian car firm’s desire to net save £-denominated financial assets and sell goods and services to the UK in order to get those assets – it is the only way they can accumulate financial assets in a foreign currency.

    What if the Asian car company then decided to buy UK Government debt instead of holding the £-denominated bank deposits?

    Some more accounting transactions would occur.

    The Asian company would put in an order for the bonds which would transfer the bank deposit into the hands of the central bank (BOE) who is selling the bond (ignore the specifics of which particular account in the Government is relevant) and in return hand over a bit of paper called a bond to the Asian car maker’s lawyers or representative.

    The UK Government’s foreign debt rises by that amount.

    But this merely means that the UK Government promises, on maturity of the bond, to credit the Asian car firm’s bank account (add reserves to the commercial bank the car firm deals with) with the face value of the bond plus interest and debit some account at the central bank (or whatever specific accounting structure deals with bond sales and purchases).

    If you understand all of that then you will clearly understand that this merely amounts to substituting a non-interest bearing reserve balance for an interest-bearing Government bond. That transaction can never present any problems of solvency for a sovereign government.

    Dave isn’t going over there to sell British goods that’s a real cost to us. He’s going over there to sell financial assets probably London property.

    The Asians will buy London property

    A) So they can get their hands on £’s. £-denominated financial assets.

    b) Then use those £’s to buy British debt another interest bearing finacial asset.

    Not only do they make a handsome profit from the London Property they also make a risk free profit buy buying a 10 year goverment bond. Its a win win situation.

    We benefit because they bought our fictional reserve debt and the sellers of the property make a few quid.

  55. Derek Henry says:

    General MacArthur had proclaimed after World War II that since Japan had lost the war, they would be required to send the U.S. 2 million cars a year and get nothing in return, the result would have been a major international uproar about U.S. exploitation of conquered enemies. They would have been accused of fostering a repeat of the aftermath of World War I, wherein the allies demanded reparations from Germany which were presumably so high and exploitive that they caused World War II.

    Well, MacArthur did not order that, yet for over 60 years, Japan has, in fact, been sending the US about 2 million cars per year, and the US have been sending them little or nothing in return. And, surprisingly, the Japanese think that this means they are winning the “trade war,” and the Republicans in the US think it means that they are losing it.

    The reality is the US have the cars, and they have the bank statement from the Fed showing which account the new Japanese dollars are in. The Japanese can’t cash them in as we no longer work from a gold standard it’s against the rules. The Japs can either buy more goods and services in dollars or buy interest bearing financial assets and that’s it.

    Same with China – They think that they are winning because they keep our stores full of their products and get nothing in return, apart from that bank statement from the BOE showing which account the new Chinese pounds are in. And fiscal Conservatives agree and think we are losing. It is madness on a grand scale.

    We are benefiting IMMENSELY from the trade deficit. The rest of the world has been sending us hundreds of billions of pounds worth of real goods and services in excess of what we send to them. They get to produce and export, and we get to import and consume. Is this an unsustainable imbalance that we need to fix? Why would we want to end it?

    As long as they want to send us goods and services without demanding any goods and services in return, why should we not be able to take them? There is no reason, apart from a complete misunderstanding of our monetary system by our leaders that has turned a massive real benefit into a nightmare of domestic unemployment.

    The reality is We are not dependent on China to buy our debt or in any way fund our spending. What’s really going on is our domestic currency creation is funding foreign savings. As shown when I bought the Asian car.

    The bank loan – has funded the Chinese desire to hold a £’S. deposit at the bank which we also call savings. Where’s the “foreign capital?” There isn’t any!

    The entire notion that the U.K. is somehow dependent on foreign capital is absurd.
    Instead, it’s the foreigners who are dependent on our domestic credit creation process to fund their desire to save £U.K. financial assets.

    It’s all a case of domestic credit funding foreign savings. We are not dependent on foreign savings for funding anything. Again, it’s our spreadsheet and if they want to save our £’s, they have to play in our sandbox.

  56. Derek Henry says:

    It’s amazing the myths, lies and deceit that the fiscal Conservatives tell and get away with.

    Exports are a real benefit to the economy is another one of a long list of many.

    All because 90% of the population does not know how the simple double entry asset and liability spreadsheet operates in the reserve banking between the Bank Of England and commercial banks. As 90% of the population are taught to ignore it and forget it is there. It does not exsist. It is a mirage a figment of their immagination.

    I bet my last penny that 95% of the population thinks when we buy Japanese cars that we get the cars and Japan gets the money.

    Oh, they get the money alright but it stays in the country in £’s in a reserve account at the BOE. That can only be spent on other goods and services and financial assets that are sold in £’s.

    The smoke and mirror con trick of reserve banking.

    No wonder America will go to war with anybody who tries to get off the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. They benefit from it so much as all these countries send them trillions of barrels of oil and all they get in return is accounts at the FED filled with dollars.

    You can see now why Russia and China and India are wanting to create a new currency in Asia and Russia is starting to sell it’s gas in roubles.

    I Feel sorry for the little guys especially when the FED goes sorry guys we need to put the interest rate up. Suckers ! It’s just another way the neoliberals bring smaller country’s to heel.

    Rev,

    Why don’t you let me do a currency quiz over the weekend on this site ?

    So I can teach the people of Scotland the importance of us having our own sovereign fiat currency with a floating exchange rate.

    I’ve spoken With prof Bill Mitchell and he has given me the go ahead to use his material for this site.

    Bill Is delighted that the indpendece option is on the table and wants the people of Scotland to know the truth.

  57. manandboy says:

    With the rain teeming down as if summer was a thing of the past, there is little point in looking to David Cameron, or indeed any other Unionist politician for something to cheer us up. But perhaps we might try the OGA.

    Reported in The National today, The Oil and Gas Authority (OGA)awarded 41 new licences for oil and gas operations in the North Sea. This was confirmed yesterday, after 134 licences were announced in November last year.

    The UK oil and gas regulator said the move makes it one of the largest rounds in the five decades since the first licensing round took place in 1964 – a total of 175 licences covering 353 blocks.

    OGA chief executive, Andy Samuel said:”The UK continental shelf remains a world-class hydrocarbon province where significant resources and economic value remain to be realised.”

    “Industry, government and the OGA now need to work together to revitalise exploration activity across the basin.”

    Meanwhile the Unionist forecast for Scottish Oil is all doom and gloom and likely to remain so for the forseeable future.

    There is an economic ‘summer’ in Scotland, and a bright future as well, but with the Tories in control of the daily forecasts, you would think the North Sea oil industry was finished and Scotland had no future.

    With the Unionists, it doesn’t matter who is the leader, Westminster will make sure they piss on Scotland, come rain or come shine.

    Roll on IndyRef2.

  58. Derek Henry says:

    The damage of the Thatcher sea-change

    http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=31441

    As I sit here in reflection over a 45 year life time and ponder over the last few decades and something just not feel right. The question that always comes back to me over and over again is why was it so easy for Somebody like Thatcher who was a nowhere near a blue blood to do what she did to this country.

    Yeah, sure Thatcher changed the country forever but she didn’t do it alone. She wasn’t powerful enough and didn’t have the brains to plan what she did. The more I think about the changes made and all the evidence around me in the dying embers of what used be a great country. Makes me think she had the full force of the British establishment behind her. It was that hard power that wanted to change the country to suit their needs.

    The real question out of all of this is what public institutions have not been infested by this power over the last 4 decades ? I don’t think there has been anything that has not been hijacked by this power base. You could list them one by one great institutions that now work against the needs of the country. Yet, work for the establishment time and time again.

    My case in point is the evidence that has been kept in the dark or shelved by every news oulet for years now. That evidence is the complete disaster of fiscal Conservatism for the last 40 years now. We all know it if you’ve lived long enough. Yet, nobody dare say it in print or air the true results of this disaster. Why ?

    This was written by man who works 4 days a week as an economic professor and who still finds time to write an action packed fact full blog 7 days a week. Travel around the world giving lectures and helps to run a University in Holland. Yet, Larry Elliot and Phillip Inman can’t even bring themselves to write it with all the spare time they have. As they wait for political party press releases and fill pages on the Guardian with neoliberal and fiscal Conservative economists that are neoliberal to their bone.

    A recently released report (June 10, 2015) – The Macroeconomic Impact of Liberal Economic Policies – from researchers at the University of Cambridge was relased nearly two months ago.

    http://insight.jbs.cam.ac.uk/assets/2015_cbr-report_macroeconomic-impact-of-liberal-policies-in-the-uk.pdf

    The report lets us know more closely how damaging this period was and challenges the view that the best way forward is even more austerity and deregulation.

    Where is it ? Surely of all newspapers it would be in the Guardian ? It was released 2 months ago ?

    After all this report destroys everything after 1980.

    Britain’s own economic growth was lower from 1980 relative to the three decades previously and markedly so since 2007. They also note that the “deterioration in the growth of labour productivity after 1979 has been even more marked”.

    And while growth has slowed, it has also become more unstable since the 1980s, with “large waves in contrast to the ripples of the 1950s and 1960s”.

    Further, “since 1979, unemployment and inequality have been higher”.

    Most of the economic growth has come from the unsustainable increase in “consumer spending” and housing expenditure, driven by credit which has manifest in the “rises in household debt ending in financial crisis”.

    All the claims that “liberal market policies including lower tariffs and income taxes, free movement of capital, and labour, limited legal immunity for trade unions, privatisation, support for small firms and light-touch business regulation” produced higher growth in real GDP and productivity are rejected by the vast body of evidence that the authors of the Report have consulted and analysed.

    The powerful conclusion, is that when we get beyond the ideology and consider hard facts, it is impossible to conclude that this ‘liberal’ era has made us better off as a collective. Indeed, the evidence suggests we are now collectively much worse off than we would have been if the neo-liberal era had been bypassed.

    The pattern shown is similar for most advanced nations. The Post World War II period initially spawned high real GDP growth rates with strong productivity growth and real wages growth. National government fiscal deficits were the norm and supported strong private spending and saving patterns.

    That all came to an end once Monetarism antagonism to fiscal activism took hold in the 1970s and deregulation was pursued, first with large-scale privatisation, then attacks on the unions, and then full-scale financial market and labour market changes.

    The growth performance of the economy started to slide (as did productivity growth). As the neo-liberal policy mentality firmed in more recent decades growth took a further step downwards and politicians claim success at growth rates that are nearly 50 per cent below what was the norm during the Keynesian period.

  59. The Rev. is completely right to keep on keeping on helping the ‘Labour’ Party to dismember itself, and giving us more tools to prise the slow-of-learning away from SLab.

    The voters who can be swung towards pro-indy parties for SE2016, and towards Yes in indyref2 will come from the remnant SLab vote, not the tories or libdem.

    As the red tories implode: left leaning motr voters will go snp; ardent socialists will go ssp/green/solidarity; and ardent unionists, even poor ones, will be left with no option but the tories.

    There’s no point trying to turn the diehard unionists. All the others can potentially see the light once they’re weaned off Labour.

    So let’s keep kicking SLab while they’re down.

    O/T … good new articles from GA Ponsonby and Prof Robertson on newsnet today

  60. Lesley-Anne says:

    Marcia says:

    frogesque

    I wonder if Michelle Moner gave him that bra?

    Who do you think does her pre-market testing? 😀

  61. heedtracker says:

    I wonder if Michelle Moner gave him that bra?

    Great idea for Mone’s new lingerie line and her market just got a huge boost too. Even more toryboys at the trough for life.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/28/david-cameron-to-appoint-more-tory-peers-to-the-house-of-lords

    And lo, great cheers of rule britinnia rang out across the brothels of merry old London town. Coke dealers less so but maybe a tasty discount for regal regulars.

  62. geeo says:

    I heard there was a sign above Mundell at the New foodbank proclaiming that “every town should have one”!!

    Should that not read “no town should NEED one” ?

  63. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Imagine the referendum question… “Should Scotland become an independent country or remain more prosperous as part of the UK?””

    That’s a ridiculously poor analogy. Scotland’s “greater prosperity” within the Union is a matter of great dispute. That Johann Lamont said Scottish Labour was a “branch office” is an absolute fact, and is also the heart of the question.

  64. Derek Henry says:

    @manandboy

    Oil is all well and good but you have to understand it as a revenue stream. It would only be good for us if it was nationalised the revenue stream like Norway.

    First: Say we became indpendent and we done the right thing and created our own central bank issuing our own currency with a floating exchnage rate.

    Second : When Europe bought oil from Scotland all that happens is we send them billions of barrels of oil and in return we get billions of Euros in a reserve account at the European central bank. That’s it. We can’t cash it in as it is against the rules we no longer work from a gold standard.

    Third: We then have options we can either buy more goods and services that are offered for sale in Euros. Or buy interest bearing financial assets on sale in Euros. Like Euro bonds or Euro debt.

    That’s it plain and simple as my posts above show exports are a cost and imports are a benefit.

    The economic model we would use is what Norway uses

    http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=1352

    This is what Scotland could do in reality with oil and gas.

    Scottish Independence – a sovereign fiat Money analysis

    http://www.3spoken.co.uk/2014/03/scottish-independence-modern-money.html

  65. Clootie says:

    …don’t care

  66. arthur thomson says:

    Chic McGregor at 11.14

    I like the ‘dependency’ bit. It might be useful for us to refer publicy to the unionists as ‘the dependence parties’.

    Did the two K’S give their views on the stench that emanates from Westminster or are they not allowed to comment on anything outside of their area of expertise? Did they express their concern about the surveillance of Holyrood by the ‘intelligence’ agency?

    I think it would be helpful for everyone if a direct line to Labour HQ was installed in Holyrood. Then when their opinions are required the SLABS just have to phone up and ask what they are.

  67. ScottieDog says:

    @Derek,
    I absolutely think Scotland should be using a sovereign currency. We are ONLY independent IF we have our own currency and a monetary system which differs from the current one.

    There are a growing number of proponents of the government officially issuing sovereign money directly into the economy. I know different commentators have differing opinions about the exact role of money/banks would have in a newly designed monetary system e.g – MMT, Richard Murphy, Positive Money, Steve Keen etc but I think there is broad agreement that things have to change.

    So yes, we have to get the message out to people that the current arrangement we have with money is the worst possible.

    To do that we need as simple and hard hitting a message as possible. So we need people to sit down and watch things like this..
    http://positivemoney.org/videos/97-owned-monetary-reform-documentary/

    It’s very hard for people to shake their beliefs about money. I have had long discussions with pretty well educated people who simply refuse to believe that
    1) all but 3% of the money supply is issued by private banks (as debt)
    2) there is no need for national debt.

    I spoke to lots of people in the run up to indyref1 (including John Swinney) about the real need for a Scottish sovereign currency and continue to do so.

    Like I say the message has to be simple though.

  68. Phil Robertson says:

    The answer is to a pretty poor question. It should have ended with a full stop after independent party. The pejorative “branch office” casts a severe doubt on the pollster’s objectivity.

    Your definition of a narrow majority is also interesting. It is as near as dammit two-to-one.

  69. a2 says:

    What if london head office tells them to gtf?

  70. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “The answer is to a pretty poor question. It should have ended with a full stop after independent party. The pejorative “branch office” casts a severe doubt on the pollster’s objectivity.”

    And presumably also that of the FORMER SCOTTISH LABOUR LEADER who actually called it that. Hngh.

    “Your definition of a narrow majority is also interesting. It is as near as dammit two-to-one.”

    Ah, I see, you’re a lunatic.

    Twice 28 would be 56. That’s actually quite a lot more than 40 (to be precise, it’s 40% more), not “as near as dammit” the same.



Comment - new users please read this page first for commenting rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use the live preview box. Include paragraph breaks or I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




↑ Top