The moment when it clicks
I was introduced to politics at a very young age.
One of my first memories is of watching John Major giving a speech of some kind on television, possibly to do with Black Wednesday. I was only three at the time, so the conversation of the adults around me went somewhat over my head, but I learned early on that words like “government,” “Prime Minister,” and “economy” were important ones.
I was old enough to be aware of the palpable feeling of relief when Tony Blair won in 1997, and I remember celebrating with my mother when the double “Yes” result came in the same year. Devolution, I learned, was about getting the best deal for Scottish voters. But Scottish independence, for most of my life, simply never crossed my radar.
My real political awakening began at the age of 10. A friend of mine in school came from a decidedly Old Labour family. He was the sort of kid who had read Marx before his teens. Through him, his family and my mother, I learned about socialism, fairness and the importance of democracy. I learned about the idea that society as a whole is better off if basic needs are guaranteed, that the accumulation of vast wealth could only take place by taking it from the poor. I learned the idea that the only way governments can be fair is if they are as accountable as possible to the people they serve. Scottish independence, however, never featured.
Like many people around my age, 2003 was an important year. The invasion of Iraq was a moment where it seemed the entire country stood against the government. After much melodramatic debate with myself, I eventually did (gasp) skive off school to go on the anti-war march through Edinburgh. When I was there I watched a political speech in person for the first time.
It’s hard to imagine now, but Tommy Sheridan was then a respectable figure on the left, one who was leading an ascendant socialist movement in the Scottish Parliament. I don’t recall exactly what he said, but the force of the words stayed with me. He spoke of the will of the people, the risks this war was exposing us to, of respecting international law, and of the government in Westminster ignoring these things.
The Scottish Socialist Party, I realised, was the party for me. Its policies of taxing the rich to fund comprehensive public services, of nationalisation, spoke to my sense of social justice. Their campaigning credentials were, and still are, intimidating. But still, despite all this, the issue of Scottish independence wasn’t a consideration.
I learned at school that the electoral system in the Scottish Parliament was considerably more democratic than the one for Westminster, and I didn’t understand why people weren’t more angry about that. Why weren’t people in England up in arms about the fact that their government could barely be considered a democracy? For me, a fundamental assumption about the UK was broken.
My engagement with the SSP at least brought the subject of independence to my attention. Still, having grown up taking devolution for granted, I had no conception of the fight it had taken to even get this far, and was only dimly aware of the damage Thatcher and others had done.
My attitude for many years became one of indifference to independence. In my case, at least, George Robertson was proved correct, devolution had made independence a non-issue. We had some useful powers, we had a Labour government in Westminster and a Labour-led one in Scotland. It made sense, even if I distrusted New Labour.
Eventually, in my late teens I joined the SSP. I agreed with their manifestos, and found the people I met in the party to be an honest, committed group of activists. They were coming off the back of the Sheridan disaster with their heads high. But I found the party’s commitment to independence to be something of an oddity.
Surely, I thought, the aim should be to make Westminster a proportional government. If Westminster’s MPs reflected the true wishes of the British people, then surely some socialists could get in and begin to change things, right? Why bother with the effort of becoming independent if the whole of the UK could be reformed?
Frustratingly, I was (only just) too young to vote in the 2007 election, but the idea of an SNP administration intrigued me. I had little enough faith in New Labour. What with Iraq and having known about the rejection of Clause 4 before I hit double figures, their defeat only gave me a slight twinge of righteous glee. The utter shambles of their previous cabinet made me hopeful for a more reliable, competent government.
The fact that the SNP’s administration turned out to be far better in that regard, despite the handicap of lacking a majority, certainly made them rise in my estimation. But still, independence still seemed like a distraction, an irrelevance in the grand scheme.
Like many people, I was caught up in the excitement surrounding the run-up to the 2010 UK election, it looked like there was finally a chance for the Lib Dems to have a say in government, a proportional electoral system was on the horizon. I dutifully used my first-ever UK election vote and cast it for the Liberal Democrats.
What happened afterwards… well we all know what happened afterwards. I felt cheated, robbed of a chance to change things. The coalition was not only ideologically noxious to me, but I felt it was going against the spirit of the vote I had cast. I don’t think anyone voted Lib Dem wanting the Tories to get in. It all just seemed perverse.
Worse than that, the pathetic compromise that was the AV referendum was galling to me. The one chance in a generation to really change the way Westminster works was flushed away like a dead goldfish. Suddenly, independence started looking more interesting to me. Not a single constituency in Scotland changed hands between 2005 and 2010, and yet we somehow got two completely different governments.
Urged on by a friend, a member of the SNP since his teens, I started reading some literature around the debate. From sites like Bella Caledonia, Newsnet Scotland, Lallands Peat Worrier and the (sadly now defunct) Scottish Socialist Youth blog, I learned about the McCrone report, about the lies the unionist media spread, about the almost non-existent effect of the Scottish vote in Westminster, about Scotland’s increasingly different approach to politics.
All of a sudden, with an SNP government in Scotland, a Con-Dem coalition in Westminster, with the political hopes of a generation smashed on the rocks of a cynical UK government, with increasingly brutal reforms in the wake of the worst recession since the 1930s, it all clicked into place.
Before, I had questioned what use independence would be to a progressive approach to society. Now, in the months after May 2010 I began to see that there was no other option. The increasingly terrifying rhetoric from the London parties seemed foreign to me. The rise of UKIP and the new-found confidence of the right looked like a trend that will continue for the foreseeable future. More importantly, even if it doesn’t last, Scotland can do nothing to stop it.
Coming from Edinburgh I had never felt particularly Scottish. Edinburghers seem to inhabit a strange no-man’s land in some people’s minds. But in those months in 2010-11 I began to see that nationhood belongs to everyone living in a nation, that shared culture and belonging are important factors in people’s lives.
I began to see Scotland more as a nation – a social construct of course, but a meaningful one. I’ve never been a nationalist, but now, seeing the positivity in Scots and Gaelic revivalists, to the growing wave of a new, assertive Scottish cultural scene, spurred on by the referendum, I saw why nationhood was important. You only have to look at a Native American reservation to see what denial of nationhood can result in. I realised I wanted to live in a fair, greener, progressive country more than I wanted to see Westminster continue to rule.
When I finally made the conversion to “Yes” it seemed like an odd one to me – having sat on the fence on the issue for so long, I suddenly found myself strongly on one side of the debate. My desperation to have a reformed UK was based on the assumption that it was possible. The important realisation was that an independent Scotland, democratic and progressive, could do more good as an example than a tiny voice shouting into a right-wing hurricane.
Fear of Westminster’s turn to the extreme right may have been what first drove me towards independence, but hope for a better future, a better country to live and work in, are what convinced me of it.
Oh, now I feel really old! Black Wednesday was the day I attended my first-ever SNP branch meeting. (I set off with some trepidation, wondering what sort of fanatics might be there, and politics is a nasty business, isn’t it, and met some lovely people who are still friends to this day.)
Welcome aboard, Gabriel!
A new Scotland beckons and its ours to shape.
Hi Gabriel and thanks for that. Hopefully it helps a few more minds to click into place.
‘..to the growing wave of a new, assertive Scottish cultural scene, spurred on by the referendum, I saw why nationhood was important. You only have to look at a Native American reservation to see what denial of nationhood can result in’
Spot on. This is why the Unionists are ramping up their assault not only on our Scottish institutions – most particularly Holyrood – but also on the notion that Scotland has any form of distinct culture or language (viz ‘Lord’ Robertson).
Good to hear another “I CHOOSE HOPE!” story.
Is the picture above of Nick and Gordon on one leg demonstrating Masonic kowtowing to Master Cameron?
Great article Gabriel, thanks. The realisation that the UK is institutionally incapable of reform is a powerful one, but it takes time to comprehend. Coincidentally I have just posted about democracy and electoral systems in comparable nations to Scotland and the UK – it looks good for Scotland and very bad for the UK to see the figures side by side: link to scienceofindependence.wordpress.com
Someone mentioned the other day a book of these would be good. It really would. Great post Gabriel!
“demonstrating Masonic kowtowing to Master Cameron?”
You see a Masonic conspiracy. I saw Freddie and the Dreamers and now have “I’m telling you now” as an earworm
@ cath
I didn’t
Now I do
Good article Gabriel.
@Training Day
The comment by George Robertson about Scotland not having its own language or culture was revealing. I don’t think I have heard a Scottish Unionist actually explicitly say before that we do not have a language or culture. Of course they have implied it, but I cannot recall any of them saying it like it was a fact. What does Robertson think Gaelic or Scots is? We don’t have a Scottish culture? These types of comments are eerily similar to Reinhard Heydrich’s quote on independence. Obviously I am not comparing Scottish Unionists to the Nazis, but the sentiment is similar, even if the context and actions are very, very different.
First class article Gabriel and welcome aboard.
Strangely though I’m feeling the need to bulk order mint imperials and sterodent.
Great article Gabriel. I met Colin Fox recently at his ‘surgery’ outside Register House in Edinburgh so I know what you mean.
If you were at the Independence Rally in Edinburgh last year there was a moment on the Meadows when it seemed that every path converging on the gathering was full of people carrying saltires and other flags.
Seems to me that the YES campaign is like a series of converging roads, all coming form different places but all focusing on the same destination.
A book of these ‘Perspectives’ essays is a good idea.
Thanks Gabriel – good article.
Once the ‘scales’ fall from folk’s eyes – there is no going back,
We are an ever growing critical mass of Hard Yes Voters – I haven’t met anyone yet who has had a journey to voting Yes who would ever be able to return to a No position…
Vote Yes
“the accumulation of vast wealth could only take place by taking it from the poor”.
This. This is a universal truth. Never doubt it.
O/T
I believe Eck will appear on “The One Show” this evening. Could be interesting>
More O/T (Sorry Rev)
Have heard a rumour that the Blairs have Irish passports. The reason given that they felt safer abroad with an Eire ticket.
If they wait for a bit they could get Scottish ones as well which would be even safer!
@Muttley
Aye, Muttley, Robertson’s comments signify a deeply sinister turn of events. We’ve all heard Unionists imply – or in some cases boldly state – that in their opinion there is little of value in Scots culture, heritage, or pre 1707 history (farewell, Dunbar, Henryson and Gavin Douglas, by the way). To make the claim, as Robertson does, that we have nothing at all, is moving things to the next level of assimilation. Message: Scots can only be ‘civilised’ by adopting the cultural mores of the dominant group.
The question of what then happens to those deemed ‘uncivilised’ remains open..without question, Robertson’s language is the language of Fascism.
Good work Gabriel – you must submit more, to influence those with similar expereinces in the future.
@Training Day
George Buchanan as well.
“I believe Eck will appear on “The One Show” this evening.”
Wonder if their researchers have figured out he’s married yet?
A revived country is ours to shape and bend to our will, one that will benefit everyone in Scotland. A ‘no’ vote will simply plunge us into a continual toxic decline that our children will berate us for.
To continue along the path that Westminster is calling for ensures dark days.
Thanks Gabriel and thanks Wings – yet another good article! Really interesting to read on Wings about so many different journeys to Yes, showing that people from all sorts of backgrounds are being engaged by the arguments. Gives us all hope for next September!
This:
“The important realisation was that an independent Scotland, democratic and progressive, could do more good as an example than a tiny voice shouting into a right-wing hurricane”.
was an important turning point for me too. I’m originally from NE England, where we have similar experiences to Scotland of being ignored, patronised or worse by many Westminster govts. I had a concern that voting Yes would condemn the rest of the UK to an even more right-wing future. However, I saw the data on Scotland’s voting, and how we have very little influence on what party actually ends up in power at Westminster. I’ve come to the conclusion that having a strong neighbour just to the North, with policies that fit more closely with the views of the people in Northern England, will be of much more benefit to the region (and hopefully other ‘fringe’ areas of the UK too!) than being a “tiny voice shouting into a right-wing hurricane”. I’m glad to see they’ve started looking into the potential benefits too!
“the accumulation of vast wealth could only take place by taking it from the poor”.
It’s the first law of thermodynamics. Wealth can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another. You can of course move it around too.
As there is a fixed amount of wealth at any given instant, the only way for someone to be richer is if someone else is made poorer as a result.
Anyone who says: ‘But capitalism benefits everyone; it can make us all more wealthy’ needs to resit high school chemistry/physics.
Likewise, anyone who talks about ‘Wealth creators’ as something that exists is thick as mince. Like David Cameron for instance.
Nice article Gabriel.
link to neweconomics.org
Another excellent article.
god I feel old now.
@southernscot
Mint imperial?
Thanks Gabriel. Every one of these personal articles is enlightening in different ways. I really think the ‘tiny voice’ analogy is a fitting one and it seems a great many people are now arriving at the same conclusion.
@Macart your closer than you imagine. Extra strong mint.
In my less philosphical moments, my killer reason for voting ‘Yes’ is to rid us of the House of Lords.
It says something about the British/English establishment that this has been resisted for well over 100 years. It is also a comment on Labour’s lack of a sense of democracy and doffing its cap to privilege when they hadn’t the guts to stand up to the establishment. I am not with Alex on his desire to keep the Monarchy because that is at the root of the inertia which afflicts the UK. Radical measures are called for, but I recognise that we must first achieve Independence.
@southernscot
LOL Still its good to see young folks getting motivated. A good article and a story that is becoming very familiar.
Good article and like the one from yesterday, I admire the ‘journey’ stories. I have always been a strong supporter of Scottish Independence despite coming from a Labour voting family (although my Dad has voted SNP for years) so ultimately, I made my own mind up a long time ago.
I’m 26 and what depresses me most is people who I encounter around my age who are totally apathetic to the Referendum and, as things stand, are voting No “just cause”
The more the Unionist media inform us that Yes is behind in the Polls the more it enforces the lazy amongst us to think ‘sod it, I’ll go with the majority, they must be right’ and not bother even researching the subject properly.
Maybe that will change next year when campaigning start to gain more momentum but right now I’m disheartened to hear people in their 20’s and 30’s totally detached from this issue and unwilling to even look into the facts. The lazy, stubborn, uninformed and uninterested No voters are in plenty supply and these are the ones the Yes campaign needs to focus a lot of effort on.
“the only way for someone to be richer is if someone else is made poorer as a result”
Really? So who did the Rockstar people ‘make poorer’ when they created Grand Theft Auto V? And who did the Proclaimers impoverish when they wrote “I’m Gonna Be (500 miles)”?
“Really? So who did the Rockstar people ‘make poorer’ when they created Grand Theft Auto V? And who did the Proclaimers impoverish when they wrote “I’m Gonna Be (500 miles)”?”
In both cases, the people who bought them. They didn’t get nothing in return – they were entertained – but no additional wealth was produced. Existing wealth was simply moved from the pockets of the purchasers to those of Rockstar and the Reids respectively.
@edulis
The House of Lords is an abomination. It’s the largest legislature in Europe, it is totally unelected and its sole purpose is, and has been since at least the 17th century, to enable influence, status and privilege to be awarded to individuals as a reward or enticement to support and maintain the Establishment.
It is, in my opinion, one of the most corrupt institutions of privilege in the UK and we will be well shot of it when Independence comes.
Wealth can be created. If I sell you a widget for £1 I am £1 better off. You are also better off as you have the use of a widget. However VAST wealth is a different economic formula and is frequently associated with low functioning economies. Just thought I’d make the observation
“Wealth can be created. If I sell you a widget for £1 I am £1 better off. You are also better off as you have the use of a widget.”
Depends how much it cost you to produce the widget, of course.
@Jamie Arriere
Well, I’d be £39.99 poorer if I had a machine fast enough to play GTA-V on.
I’m a free mods and Steam workshop kinda guy: it’s cheaper.
“The more the Unionist media inform us that Yes is behind in the Polls the more it enforces the lazy amongst us to think ‘sod it, I’ll go with the majority, they must be right’ and not bother even researching the subject properly.”
Exactly, this is why dubious, “weighted” opinion poll results should be challenged regularly. A few more poll results, that challenge the MSM narative that the NO campaign is streets ahead, would at least neutralize the effect. I have noticed that every poll result that indicates a slight movement to independence is followed quickly by two or three that put NO way out in front. Strange coincidence. It must be important for BT to impress people that they represent the norm. Let’s challenge that lie. Unfavourable poll results seem to cause serious panic in the BT-MSM ranks.
Really? So who did the Rockstar people ‘make poorer’ when they created Grand Theft Auto V? And who did the Proclaimers impoverish when they wrote “I’m Gonna Be (500 miles)”?
I never said impoverished. If you gain a pound, someone somewhere must have a pound less. To buy the game, the people needed to pay money. They must have obtained that money from someone else who obtained it from someone else, who…. The person that bought the game transferred that wealth to rockstar. The employees of rockstar may transfer it on to someone else.
I’m sorry, but you can’t create wealth. That is physically impossible as ultimately, wealth is energy/mass (mass being energy). You can neither create nor destroy energy; only change it from one form to another.
Earning a higher salary than others is not necessarily a bad thing. Some jobs require more responsibility, more learning, ergo people should be paid more. You couldn’t expect a heart surgeon to be paid the same as a waiter. If people spend most of their salary, that’s ideal because they are passing the wealth onto others. It gets shared around.
It is the accumulation of vast wealth by individuals that is the problem. The very rich are not wealth creators, they are wealth accumulators. They are removing wealth from the system so less is available for everyone else.
It is simple mass balance.
@Gary S & Luigi – on the other hand if NO is supposed to be easily in front there will be a lot of apathetic/complacent no voters that won’t bother turning up as they won’t be needed, right?
I think BT may have fallen into the trap of thinking that they can use opinion polls to influence opinion, which as I understand it, is not exactly how it works…
“the only way for someone to be richer is if someone else is made poorer as a result”
While I agree about the destructive influence of vast wealth, I think that this statement is an over simplification. It implies zero trade between individuals or groups is optimal. That is clearly wrong.
@Gary S
I am sixty and can assure you that age is no guarantee of wisdom.
Good post Gabriel. As a Scot, I have always longed for an Indy Scotland and just can’t understand why others would even entertain a No vote, so it’s both interesting and illuminating to see how those previous No thinkers, make their journey to YES.
Summing up George Robertson’s nae culture/nae language:
Vote No, ’cause you’re worthless.
Yes, of course wealth can be created, and must be continually created every day – it’s not an instant thing. Innovation in education, engineering, technology and the expressive arts is vital to our future in Scotland, and fortunately with our education system, our openness to ideas, we are well placed to benefit from it.
Extracting oil wealth is straightforward and finite, it’s the creation of innovative new products into the future that we must do, especially in renewable energy. Not everybody will be a designer, inventor, researcher, architect, carpenter, composer, or programmer – but we must support and connect those that are
It’s not the creation of wealth that’s the problem. It is making sure that wealth is fairly, progressively and effectively taxed. If a chief engineer has a bigger house and car than me, as long as pays his higher taxes I don’t have a problem with it.
What we do need to get away from is the idea that financial services and derivatives are ‘products’ and create wealth, as I suspect is the point Scottish Skier meant. That is merely a financial gamble and for every winner there’s a loser – and that was most of us when the City of London’s accumulator crashed and burned.
But wealth must be created – don’t kid yourselves it doesn’t. Economic illiteracy won’t be a votewinner.
“Yes, of course wealth can be created”
It really can’t. It can only be moved. Where does it come from?
I have always voted for SNP.I have never voted anything else,i also voted Yes Yes in ’97. The top picture reminded me today of mr majors’ comments re Scotland in an 1992/93 interview on tv. Asked what about Scotlandsfuture re a parliament was he replied “We’re taking stock”. Scotland will be “taking stock” next September. YES.
Apols, couldn’t edit the spaces as Jamie was posting. (shamefulweefacedthingy)
@Murray McCallum
Maybe it’s an SSP rhetoric thing? However, Gabriel’s article wasn’t really about economic theory but how he got from A to B and so I skipped over that detail.
Scottish_Skier – “It is the accumulation of vast wealth by individuals that is the problem. The very rich are not wealth creators, they are wealth accumulators. They are removing wealth from the system so less is available for everyone else.”
I’ve always preferred the term “Wealth Extractors”, because that’s what they do – extract the natural wealth of a nation and deposit it into their offshore bank accounts.
That’s why whenever a politician talks of not scaring away these “wealth creators”, I think “tell you what, let’s pay for their flight, to make sure it’s a one-way ticket.”
same here,didn’t have time to edit.
Garry S: I’m 26 and what depresses me most is people who I encounter around my age who are totally apathetic to the Referendum and, as things stand, are voting No “just cause”
The more the Unionist media inform us that Yes is behind in the Polls the more it enforces the lazy amongst us to think ‘sod it, I’ll go with the majority, they must be right’ and not bother even researching the subject properly.
Maybe that will change next year when campaigning start to gain more momentum but right now I’m disheartened to hear people in their 20?s and 30?s totally detached from this issue and unwilling to even look into the facts. The lazy, stubborn, uninformed and uninterested No voters are in plenty supply and these are the ones the Yes campaign needs to focus a lot of effort on.
This is still the main issue (though it’s not just confined to those age groups), and the one every Yes person needs to concentrate their efforts on.
Wealth can be created as the QE process being used by the treasury shows. It could be argued that its essentially devaluing the other pounds in circulation in some way but its wealth creation on a vast scale.
Good stuff from Gabriel Neil. He doesn’t clarify whether or not he’s still involved with the SSP. I hope so.
We’re pushing this petition hard, and will continue to do so – sign it if you haven’t already, and pass it on. The door is ajar on this – we can get the BT scrapped if we keep pushing, so please help:
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ed-miliband-leader-of-uk-labour-party-present-emergency-motion-in-parliament-to-abolish-the-bedroom-tax-now-not-after-2015?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created
“Maybe that will change next year when campaigning start to gain more momentum but right now I’m disheartened to hear people in their 20?s and 30?s totally detached from this issue and unwilling to even look into the facts. The lazy, stubborn, uninformed and uninterested No voters are in plenty supply and these are the ones the Yes campaign needs to focus a lot of effort on.”
This hits the nail on the head for me. It is the same at the place where I work. I recently heard this young girl interviewed on the telly and she said with a smirk that she didn’t understand any of it so was going to vote no. You know I was embarrassed for her. I too hope that this shall change but we can all do our bit and whenever the topic comes up now I always nail my colours to the mast but try to do it in a calm and controlled manner, I avoid getting into arguments as I don’t think it really helps. I think offering people ideas and pointers has to be the way, if they are open minded then they might be interested to look.
Just to congratulate Gabriel on an excellent article – it especially illuminating to hear the personal journeys to Yes. I would think these would make especially interesting reading for young people.
Well done
@Doug Daniel
However, they’ve stopped going on about how we need encourage massive salaries for all this ‘wealth-creating’ banking ‘talent’ in case it does flee the country. I wonder why that is…?
OK, Rev. My original questions. Who did Rockstar and the Proclaimers impoverish?
“OK, Rev. My original questions. Who did Rockstar and the Proclaimers impoverish?”
I already answered that. (Though it’s a false question – they made people poorER, not poor.)
@Iain Ross
Indeed, I look forward to the shift in attitude coming some time soon. I went to my usual Hairdressers to get the mop chopped last month.
The Hairdresser’s take on it:
“Nae sure about this independence for Scotland. I think if we became independent all the companies would up sticks and leave”
All the companies.
Every single one.
I was too stunned to argue. Where do you even start when you’re met with nonsense like that?
Lords and Ladies all. McConnell, Robertson, Liddell, MacDonald,Reid, Watson and Foulkes etc etc. Led their country up the garden path for decades and are now esconced in that comfortable place with good expenses( just for turning up) and no responsibilities. Socialism ? they wouldn”t know what it was if it jumped up and bit them. Donald Stewart who was SNP MP for Western Isles refused a lordship. A man who stuck to his principles.
And the raw materials for the widget must have come from somewhere. Also the energy used to produce it.
Wherever these came from now has less raw materials/energy than it had before, ergo, its wealth has been reduced. The ‘wealth’ has just been moved around and changed from one form to another. It has not been created.
Of course the place that supplied the raw materials should have been paid for them. If that’s the case, still no wealth has been created; just once again the form of wealth has been (ex)changed.
Ideally, the place that produced the raw materials would be paid exactly what the value of the materials really was relative to the final sale price of the widget to balance the equation.
However, once you enter ‘profit’ into the equation, then it can’t be balanced if that profit is going to be removed from the system by a wealth accumulator, e.g. into an offshore account or used to buy land that draws in more wealth for the accumulator. Some wealth has been removed from the system, meaning there is less now in the system so those who did not accumulate the wealth profit are worse off.
There is a fixed amount of wealth in the system at any given point. That includes land, minerals… anything of value. You can’t magic it up out of nowhere, only shift it around, change it, store it. The more someone accumulates, the less there is for everyone else.
As Scotty would say ‘You cannae change the laws of physics’. First law of thermodynamics in this case.
Exploitation of natural resources is one way of ‘creating’ wealth, but that assumes someone else is picking up the tab for any ‘externalities’ such as environmental degredation. Unfortunately it’s usually the poor, disadvantaged and already improverished that pay that particularly bill.
As for Quantitative Easing – the banks may be getting wealthier due to the ‘creation’ of electronic money, but only at the expense of the rest of us as our ‘wealth’ is devalued in exchange.
Wealth can also be destroyed, If I buy shares in UK PLC at $100 and it goes burst then that ‘wealth’ or potential spending power is gone.
Not every share I own will have someone on the short side making $100. Some folk might make something but only for 6-8% of the issued shares. The wealth that ‘existed’ no longer does. The value of the company is gone forever.
That is where we are at today, we have less money and ‘wealth’ in circulation as people continue to pay off the wealth they borrowed from their future to pay for jetski’s and white range rovers.
“wealth can be created”
Through health for example.
100,000 comments, and I claim my five pounds.
The drinks are on you Major
I sell books from home. Are you saying people shouldn’t buy them because it will make them poorer? What kind of life do you want people to lead?
Gary S
“Nae sure about this independence for Scotland. I think if we became independent all the companies would up sticks and leave”
Just say,
“Really, just because Scotland would be controlled from Edinburgh, instead of London, all the companies would leave? I don’t think so.”
The arguments usually crumble like Feta cheese once you make a stand
Use this site as a good starting point for information and other links.
People seem to be confusing money (a medium for exchange of resources) with resources. If you buy £100 worth of shares in a company you don’t own anything physical in the way of resources. If the company is in huge debt then you’ve just bought into their debt. Hence if it then goes bust, what you’ve paid in, if it hasn’t already been spent, goes to creditors. It’s not wealth “destroyed” – it’s just changed hands.
Talk of Robertson and no Socts Language culture etc…grimaced when STV News showed a piece on Gaelic School the other night and said “Gaelic was spoken a lot more, until around a few hundred years ago…’
“Hmmm, you dont say” was my cynical thought
@Gary S
I was too stunned to argue. Where do you even start when you’re met with nonsense like that?
That’s an understandable reaction, but that’s exactly the sort of ill-informed person Yes campaigners need to engage; ways of doing that include gentle questioning and planting some doubt in their mind – just get them to start thinking and to look a bit further.
Right, everyone stop all economic activity immediately until we sort this out.
“I sell books from home. Are you saying people shouldn’t buy them because it will make them poorer?”
You keep holding up a straw man. No one is saying those selling things “impoverish” people or no one should buy anything.
It would be interesting to find out if the debate over the past few months or so has influenced the two undecided ladies – Toni and Moira – in the NewsnetScotland ‘We Are Scotland” series of videos:
If you’re out there reading Toni or Moira, would be interesting to know if your opinion has yet changed.
Great article Gabriel.
Absolutely Seasick Dave/Jason.
Until very recently I just saw myself as a Yes voter and had little motivation/time to weigh into the debate too heavily nor try to influence other people’s opinions.
I was confident the Scottish public would see sense without a layman like me trying to preach to them.
However, once you see the lies and Project Fear propoganda printed in the press over and over again, which subsequently seems to have a grip over a sizeable chunck of the population, it does make you more passionate about the cause. I will certainly be making a big effort over the next year to get the No’s and the DK’s thinking more. At least.
Good piece Gabriel.
Hope for the future, is why we all want independence, for our children and grandchildren, to strive for a fairer and better society.
Who knows just far we can go, in the future, but it all starts with a YES!
Back to basics.
link to storyofstuff.org
I sell books from home. Are you saying people shouldn’t buy them because it will make them poorer?
Everything you buy makes you poorer. People just choose whether your book is worth the money to them. You don’t create wealth when writing the book, you just put some wealth in to create it (paper, coffee, electricity for your PC…), then someone hands you wealth in exchange for your book ‘wealth’ as they see it as worth the cash wealth they are handing you for it.
If you burn a £10 note or the book you don’t destroy wealth, you turn it mainly into CO2 and water. The CO2 is of value to plants which you can harvest for wealth, the water too etc. You have just changed the form of the wealth again.
We can use the world’s natural resources to make us wealthier, but they are finite. If someone corners a big share, there’s less for everyone else. The sun provides a continuous supply of new wealth in the form of energy. However, even that is finite. Thankfully, there’s a good supply left in it yet.
They’re not poorer, they might have a fiver less, but they’ve got (hopefully) a good book.
The intellectual benefits are where the thermodynamics argument maybe gets a bit cloudy?
O/T Menzies Campbell to stand down at next election, will he be missed?
Cameron and Milliband clash over energy pledge.
link to bbc.co.uk
With regards to this wealth creation malarkey and the poor getting poorer, I chipped in a few quid to this site and all I’ve got is a measly little badge.
Somebody is creaming it.
Wealth is a perception thing.
Before money was invented, people traded goods. Of course, all the goods that could be made, have been made or ever will be made are out there as raw materials. The wealth is created when humans make, gather or organise these raw materials for other people in exchange for something they have made. The relative amounts swapped being related to each persons perception of how much effort they put into making & bringing their product to the market to trade. Wealth isn’t necessarily related to the raw material value, but it is a measure of how much other people value your effort in bringing the finished goods to market.
From this its easy to see that wealth, from a human perspective, is created by human effort.
The problem we have today is that a very few people are using their wealth and power to make it easier for their small effort to lever a much greater amount of wealth production by using other people unfairly.
Basically the system of allocation is wrong and needs adjusted so that everybody is fairly rewarded for their efforts. In my book, being fairly rewarded means setting aside enough wealth to make sure the weak and needy are properly looked after. This gives me peace of mind in case I have bad luck, but also because we are all human and looking after others just seems right!!
As for Quantitative Easing – the banks may be getting wealthier due to the ‘creation’ of electronic money, but only at the expense of the rest of us as our ‘wealth’ is devalued in exchange.
Yes, QE doesn’t create wealth. Printing money or QE just devalues the currency and results in everything costing more, i.e. inflation.
As cath said, currency is not wealth, it is just a convenient medium for the exchange of wealth (resources and ultimately energy). Gold is much the same but what’s really good about it is that you can keep it for millions of years and it won’t change form as it’s very chemically unreactive.
Something as rare but reactive would be of no use for the same purpose so unless it had some other use, it would be valueless. Diamonds are the same. You could have a gemstone more rare than diamonds and stunningly beautiful but it would be largely valueless if it degrades in the presence of water.
The sun provides a continuous supply of new wealth in the form of energy. However, even that is finite. Thankfully, there’s a good supply left in it yet.
Only if Scotland stays part of the Union.
“People seem to be confusing money (a medium for exchange of resources) with resources. If you buy £100 worth of shares in a company you don’t own anything physical in the way of resources. If the company is in huge debt then you’ve just bought into their debt. Hence if it then goes bust, what you’ve paid in, if it hasn’t already been spent, goes to creditors. It’s not wealth “destroyed” – it’s just changed hands.”
Sorry that is not correct, if I buy Apple shares and they go bust there is a loss and wealth or potential wealth is destroyed. Some gets transferred out but not all of it.
The value of a company is not exactly the value of its assets.
Oh look, a squirrel.
You could have a gemstone more rare than diamonds and stunningly beautiful but it would be largely valueless if it degrades in the presence of water.
Was salt not once used as wealth…..I can’t get my head round this wealth = resources. Money is of course wealth as its potential resource.
@Kenny Campbell
If money = wealth then all we need to do is print as much as we can and then we’d all be fabulously rich.
Gary S
So the barber reckons he’ll pack up his business and leave on independence. Does he not think we’ll still need haircuts post independence? Deary me. I think you need to push your hair out quick so you can go back for another haircut and get the lad telt!
I have in my possession a 10,000 german mark note. When it was printed in 1922 it would not even buy a loaf of bread. This is what printing money does to a countrys economy. This explains why prices in the shops are rocketing just now. This man Osborne and his cohorts are simply devaluing your income and savings.
Sorry that is not correct, if I buy Apple shares and they go bust there is a loss and wealth or potential wealth is destroyed. Some gets transferred out but not all of it.The value of a company is not exactly the value of its assets.
Apple has cash reserves in the region of $147 Billion – they will not be going bust any time soon. The share price is unlikely to rise unless they spend it faster than they have been in recent months. The stock markets would like Apple to share some of those cash reserves around.
“The sun provides a continuous supply of new wealth in the form of energy.”
Though to do so it must use up more of its finite supply of hydrogen by fusing it into helium (then carbon and various other elements). Once all the hydrogen in the sun is used up, it’ll die. Nothing is “free” in that sense – no kind of energy or resources.
Money is a useful medium for exchange but the way we use it right now is deeply unfair and inequitable. To make a book you use energy, trees, fuels to transport it. To make weapons and cars you use metals that are finite. For fossil fuels finite resources are taken. For many manufacturing processes resources are used or abused. Much of that resource depletion can’t be measured in money (or it could but isn’t – green economic models suggest ways it could be). And too often local communities don’t benefit, only the already wealthy. They’re not “creating wealth” but depleting resources.
Big example is the oil rush in the US when it was first discovered – barrels being literally given away because people went mad and supply was way above demand. Stewarded that would have remained wealth. Same with Scotland’s oil now, as Stiglitz put so well. The UK government squandered it. Beneath the ground it is wealth and a resource. Used up it’s just money transferred and often very poorly spent.
“The sun provides a continuous supply of new wealth in the form of energy.”
Not so. Energy is only converted into wealth by being bought and sold. What do we buy and sell energy with? Money. You can put a solar panel on your roof and get FREE energy, but the only way to make that into wealth is by selling it to an electricity company. In which case they get slightly less wealthy and you get slightly more wealthy. The amount of money in circulation is still the same.
Sorry that is not correct, if I buy Apple shares and they go bust there is a loss and wealth or potential wealth is destroyed.
Nope, for apple to have gone bust, they must have taken the wealth of shareholders and changed it’s form to something else which led to them no longer having that wealth, or at least in an accessible form.
They might have paid their staff far too much (the staff now have the shareholder wealth). They might have made 200 million phones that didn’t work. In the latter case, the wealth now exists in the form of the crappy phones. It’s still there; the phones represent all the energy (wealth) that was put into making them. It hasn’t been destroyed, it’s just been put into a form that’s not of much use. Some of shareholder wealth of course went on paying for the electricity to make the phones, the wages of staff etc, and some on the raw materials. It was not destroyed; it just exists in a new form.
If I have a bag with a million gold coins in it and as I cross the Atlantic I randomly throw handfuls overboard, I am not destroying wealth, but I’ve changed it into a form that’s much less easy to get back again.
If I burn a tenner I’ve turned it into CO2 and water. It still exists, just in a different form. A plant may absorb the CO2 and water, then we harvest the plant and sell it…
Wealth = resources/energy. They are finite. The Sun is the only real net additional daily wealth supply to the earth. Thankfully, it’s got a few years left in it.
“Sorry that is not correct, if I buy Apple shares and they go bust there is a loss and wealth or potential wealth is destroyed. Some gets transferred out but not all of it.
The value of a company is not exactly the value of its assets.”
The value of a company is exactly the value of its assets minus its liabilities when it goes bankrupt. When it’s not bankrupt there may be an additional figure for “goodwill” or the like – a figure that represents an imaginary “worth” of that business as a trading entity. The problem these days is the “value” of many companies are entirely fabricated, or based on future profit streams, because they have virtually no tradable assets in the traditional sense.
The reason many people lose a lot of money is because they fail to recognise this and put huge amounts of their money into companies that are extremely complex pits of income, spending and – very often – debt.
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
In both cases, the people who bought them. They didn’t get nothing in return – they were entertained – but no additional wealth was produced. Existing wealth was simply moved from the pockets of the purchasers to those of Rockstar and the Reids respectively.
Who in turn paid their respective employees and roadies, who then went to Tesco to buy their shopping. Then Tesco paid the checkout lady her wages who in turn bought a copy of GTA5 for her son’s birthday.
And that pretty much sums up how an economy works. The simple process of money changing hands on a regular basis.
The economy falls on it’s arse when that stops.
There are those who accumulate wealth by squeezing costs and increasing margin at the direct detriment to both supplier & consumer. These types are not wealth accumulators or wealth generators. They are greedy selfish bastards who need putting in their place
I’m not sure if I agree with the wealth = resources/energy physical theory. “Wealth” can be “created” through use of no additional finite resources, e.g. improving health.
Say introducing safe drinking water in parts of Africa. Use renewable energy to pump water.
@cath
Perception of companies’ worth can be and is manipulated – sometimes catastrophically, as in the case of Enron. Hence measures such the introduction of the Sarbanes-Oxley rules in the US to try to prevent this. Luckily all that wonderful ‘financial talent’ we used to hear about is skilled at finding new ways to transfer wealth to themselves and other wealth accumulators despite these rules.
Where does profit come from?
link to en.wikipedia.org
I like this one. sorry for the long post but worth it.
A German tourist called at a hotel in an indebted Irish town and asked the owner how much a room would cost. The owner said 100 Euros and the tourist put a 100 Euro note on the desk and said he would inspect the rooms. If he could find one to his liking he would stay the night As soon as the visitor went upstairs, the hotelier grabbed the 100 Euros and ran next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher immediately took the note and ran down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer so he could order more meat.
The pig farmer then headed off to pay his bill to the feed supplier, who in turn ran to the pub to pay his bar bill.
The publican slipped the money to the local prostitute drinking at the bar. It appeared that she, too, had fallen on hard times and had to offer her ‘services’ on credit.
The hooker then rushed to the hotel to pay off her room bill to the hotel owner with the 100 Euro note.
The hotelier placed the note back on the desk so the traveller wouldn’t suspect anything.
When the German returned to the reception, he declared none of the rooms were satisfactory. So he picked up the 100 Euro note and left.
No-one produced anything; no-one earned anything – but all the debts were paid thanks to a German loan.
OK, I’m getting well kicked here regarding wealth creation – I’ll return to lurking for the foreseeable.
Yes, land, minerals, oil, money is finite and we are just juggling these between each other. But the one thing I pray is still unlimited is human imagination – to create and think new ways of using resources and more topically reusing them, imagining new products and uses for them we have not thought of yet ; of writing and creating new games, songs and stories, or re-telling old ones in a new way ; and that we have other people and institutions to help bring them to reality in a future independent Scotland so that we all benefit, I’ll be happy.
See you anon
“OK, I’m getting well kicked here regarding wealth creation – I’ll return to lurking for the foreseeable.”
There’s no need to take the huff about it
I don’t know about huff, but this is giving me a headache. Rabb is the only one I really understood, and I don’t know if that’s good or bad.
Say introducing safe drinking water in parts of Africa. Use renewable energy to pump water.
How were the solar panels produced? How was the pump fabricated? Both of these consumed energy and had a raw material cost to the manufacturer.
And if you’re drawing water out of the ground, the water table may be drawn down and affect baseflow to rivers reducing the ecological services that they provide (e.g. fish) to other users …. and so it goes on!
Why should any country seek to develop anything, e.g. education, health provision, or trade? Why do villages, cities, and countries do these things?
Each of these things can create something that wasn’t previously there.
“And if you’re drawing water out of the ground, the water table may be drawn down and affect baseflow to rivers reducing the ecological services that they provide (e.g. fish) to other users …. and so it goes on!”
Of course the people are already drinking water – dirty water. Their daily consumption would not go up. However their lifetime consumption would go up (as they no longer die young). Which is why the following factors are important – trade, education and innovation.
All the above posts show the wealth of political talent of different hues we will have in an independent Scotland.
Well O/T (or maybe not)
To Morag – All the best for tomorrow – here’s hoping you win:-) and we can celebrate at Edinburgh soiree some time soon afterwards.
I think this chap is a wealth creator.
link to bbc.co.uk
The discussion above seems to ignore the value of work done by people. If e.g. Scottish Skier were to burn his house down, he would destroy the work that went into building it. He might even feel poorer if it started to rain. If his house were rebuilt, it would use up time and effort that could have been used for some other activity.
Being thick as mince, I suspect a society where people conserved what they had and made things would be wealthier than one where they kept slinging what they’d produced over the sides of ships while setting fire to their remaining possessions.
Yes, land, minerals, oil, money is finite and we are just juggling these between each other. But the one thing I pray is still unlimited is human imagination –
It think it’s just confusion over terms. I’ve been rather abstract (sorry if I’ve confused anyone) in relating things to thermodynamics but as a geologist / physical chemist, this is the way it makes sense to me!
You can tap into new sources of wealth, e.g. by developing efficient solar panels (the wealth being the finite energy of the sun). You can ‘squander’ wealth, e.g. by setting an oil well on fire or pouring a valuable drug down the drain. You can transfer wealth to people by coming up with a cool invention and selling it, creating jobs in your company. However you can’t create wealth nor destroy it though in the strictest sense.
That is as discussed because in the end all wealth is ultimately resources / energy. This is what sustains life. It is what is needed to grow crops, to build houses, to make TVs. If you have a lot of hard cash, it just means you have wealth stored one convenient form that you can exchange for resources / energy (e.g. buying petrol) or indirectly (buying a house which required energy and resources to construct).
I’ve talked to many on the right who fail to grasp this concept. They truly seem to believe that if people just work hard, then they can be well off. That wealth just somehow comes out of thin air. It’s very worrying to have such people in charge.
Not everyone can be rich; to balance the equation you need to have poor people. The get richer the rich get, the poorer the poor get. There is only one pie. If someone takes a bigger share, someone must take less.
Of course we can hope to use our imaginations to find ways to make the pie bigger, i.e. by tapping into new sources of wealth, whereby improving people’s living standards. Ideally, we try to split the pie more fairly too.
NorthBrit
Great link that. I remember seeing that on telly. Human innovation in the face of everything against it.
mcart says
“Strangely though I’m feeling the need to bulk order mint imperials and sterodent.”
just don’t, whatever you do get the two mixed up,
I did that once with Steradent and suppositories,
and I spent a week foaming at the mouth,
but at least (for a while anyway)
the wife thought the sun shone out of my arse
@Morag
Ooh…good luck from me, too! By the way, did the Al Jazeera interview go ok?
@john king
…too…much…infor…mation…
major bloodnok says
“@john king
…too…much…infor…mation… ”
Says the hat seller
Yeah, the interview (2 interviews actually) seemed fine. Of course these things are all in the editing. Have to hope the producer manages to convey some moderately complex information clearly in what realistically will be only a few minutes. (I expect much of the time he’ll be putting my voice over video filmed at a different point in the interview, too.) Filmed for nearly 4 hours with a break for a cuppa.
My big chance to play tenor recorder on the telly. Wanted to show me doing some sort of hobby. Played The Rowan Tree (he wanted simple, mournful and Scottish). Played it in D. Realised 3 hours later should have played it in G. Ah well, if that’s the only regret, it’s a success.
Forgive me if I rant for a minute…
Gabriel was very complimentary about the SSP, mentioned our campaigning record, how we’ve come back after the Dmitry Noshame fiasco etc.
It’s all heartwarming stuff.
At 3-ish this afternoon I posted a link to a petition which was launched by Richie Venton at the week-end. When I posted the link the petition had 1,716 ‘signatures’. When I checked a few minutes ago it had 1,747.
In the same span of time there have been approx 60 further comments on this thread.
I don’t know what it’s going to take before the penny drops for some folk, but please let me try and spell it out in the simplest language I can manage –
The SNP and the Yes campaign NEED the Greens and SSP to be strong. Without us they’re a one-man band. It doesn’t matter how many instruments that one-man band can play simultaneously – he remains a solitary target, and will be treated as such.
In Edinburgh, at the rally, the SSP contingent had the single biggest ‘political party’ showing, bar none. If you doubt it, go and view the footage. We had dozens of SNP people saying ‘youse are doing a great job – once we’ve won the Yes vote, we’re coming over to you’. The same thing happens at street stalls.
The SNP are not short of money or members. Nor is the ‘Yes’ campaign if viewed as a whole, but as PART of the Yes campaign, the SSP and Greens are not receiving a fraction of the coverage, or acknowledgement of just how much genuine grass-roots support we have.
Last week I mentioned a snazzy 8-page full-colour newspaper which I found on my doormat on Wednesday evening. It was a ‘Yes’ production, but 99% of people reading it would’ve (understandably) assumed it to be from the SNP.
I’m not moaning about the SNP and/or Yes. I’m not appealing for money. I’m not doing-down anyone in the independence campaign.
I’m pulling my hair out because it seems impossible to get through to people that the occasional rally and heated ‘debates’ such as we have here are not enough. There’s a time for talking and a time to actually DO stuff.
How hard is it to click a link, fill in some basic details, and send it? Takes less than two minutes – less than a minute if your details have already been stored from signing a previous change-org petition. How much longer does it take to forward that same link to FB pals, or Tweet it? And you don’t even have to get off your arse?
So I’m trying again.
Put it this way – if Rev had launched another fundraiser at three o’clock this afternoon he’d now have thousands raised. Easily.
And if anyone feels moved to speak to us, the SSP will be street-stalling in Irvine tomorrow, lunchtime-ish, in the Bridegate.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ed-miliband-leader-of-uk-labour-party-present-emergency-motion-in-parliament-to-abolish-the-bedroom-tax-now-not-after-2015?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created
Man alive, that’s some economics. Your employer is poorer when it pays you your wages. I’ll stop that immediately. I may soon have nothing to sell to make other people poorer but I’m not going to be held to ransom by a bunch of layabouts. I’m taking my cowrie shells away and I’ll live off them!
Gary S
“Nae sure about this independence for Scotland. I think if we became independent all the companies would up sticks and leave”
Here is absolute proof that it’s not an ‘age’ thing.
70 yo guy this afternoon said he was voting NO because his wife was dead against it, besides all the oil belongs to England!
Hand on heart, I am not making this up. Lots of work to do folks.
@ianbrotherhood
Ok, ok, I’ve done it
@Morag
Do you know when we’ll be able to watch it?
You can mess up your living room again now
ianbrotherhood
Happy to support the petition and duly signed.
There is considerable confusion being shown here between money and wealth. They are not the same thing. In fact we have been living in a illusion for the past several decades of huge sums of money put into circulation which was invented out of pure air.
@Jeannie & Murray –
Thanks. Appreciated.
Sorry if I came across a bit nippy, but honestly, sometimes….rarrrrrr!
signed too, but have to ask a wee question – see quarantine
“The sun provides a continuous supply of new wealth in the form of energy.”
RS: Not so. Energy is only converted into wealth by being bought and sold. What do we buy and sell energy with? Money.
I maybe didn’t clarify this enough. If the sun went out we could survive for a while on what energy (wealth) we had in theory. However, we would be depleting what is naturally on earth very rapidly. The sun provides a constant stream of ‘accessible’ wealth in the form of energy that can be used to create food, products we use day to day etc.
The amount of energy it delivers is huge; we just only tap into a tiny little bit of it with our agriculture, solar panels, hydro-electric schemes, windmills and wave power generators.
Ian
Petition signed.
Anent the Yes newspaper, perhaps the confusion is due to the fact that it doesn’t actually say who produced it, while it does promote SNP policies. It doesn’t even have a link to YesScotland.net as far as I can see. (I’m assuming it’s the same paper I’ve got).
@Albert Herring –
Cheers for signing.
Now that you mention it, I’m going through the paper again…and you’re right…there’s nothing there to confirm who actually published the thing.
Perhaps it is just a SNP effort, in which case it’s a wee bit naughty of them not to say so.
Just to check we’re talking about the same thing – does top-left of the front page say ‘Trident to Go, Page 2‘, and then there’s a wee golden fiery blob containing the words ‘Historic First Edition Autumn 2013‘?
Aye, that’s the very one, Ian. I can’t see why whoever produced it wouldn’t want to identify themselves. Strange one.
Seriously, Ian, I’m unconvinced that change.org petitions have any value in influencing the Westminster government. All they ever seem to do for me is generate spam.
Have you thought of starting a proper HM Government e-petition? link to epetitions.direct.gov.uk
I’d certainly sign one of these if it was started.
Regarding those that are intending to vote No…for whatever reason…look at it this way; no matter the result of the referendum the fact is that 100% of the Scots will vote Yes.
The remainder of the votes cast will be by North Britons.
If it’s a No, the day after we’ll be able to tell the men that voted against independence; they’ll all look unshaven because they won’t be able to look at themselves in the mirror.
Women who voted No won’t have any make-up or lipstick on.
@ The Rough Bounds
That only makes sense if everyone knows the reasons for their vote rather than what they’ve been telt.
@Morag-
‘I’d certainly sign one of these if it was started.’
So, why don’t you – as an aspiring politician – start it?
Oh well, I was genuinely trying to help.
@Paula Rose
It was just a little teasing Paula; not really meant to be taken seriously.
@ The Rough Bounds
Unfortunately I only ken pidgin Scots, so maybe my joke did nae quite hit the spot.
@Morag-
I wasn’t being sarcastic – apologies if my response was curt, maybe gave that impression.
If you do want to help, why not sign the petition that’s already there?
Change.org petitions can make a difference. UK politics leaves many people feeling helpless and angry. You can also remove e-mail options when you sign petitions.
Take this scumbag councilor (Colin Brewer) in this article who likened disabled children to deformed lambs who would be “smashed against a wall”.
He resigned after various petitions, including change.org
The bloke who alerted me to this was a former work colleague who had Asperger’s. He valued people’s support in taking this low-life down.
Another great article Gabriel
I hope there are many more who make the journey to YES. Was out with a crowd of girls I used to work with (Now women lol) all don’t have a clue. Someone even said to me “Oh no you’re not one of them”!. Hate Alex Salmond – when I finally got a word in and said he was the best thing to happen to Scotland and much better than Joanne Lamont – the chorus was “Who’s Joanne Lamont” Enough said.
Petition signed
Loved it Southernscot and finally,
All the Best for tomorrow Morag
@Murray-
Just read that article – truly appalling.
Whether we like it or not, these attitudes exist, and there are ‘political’/MSM forces who feed on them. Scary, scary stuff.
re the YES paper
Try bottom left page 7 sideways
I’ve signed change.org petitions before, and never heard of anything getting a response. Then I get a pile of emails from them suggesting I sign other petitions, mostly related to things happening in the USA. It doesn’t inspire confidence, I have to say.
Since Westminster has instituted its own official petition system, I’d be very surprised if they paid a blind bit of attention to change.org – particularly when the petition is very specifically calling on a member of that parliament to undertake a very specific action within the parliament. I would have expected them to take the view that the appropriate vehicle for that petition was their own system.
I was wondering why you chose to go with change.org, and not with the official epetitions facility?
@ Ian Brotherhood – Yes I’ve signed it. I agree the Indy campaign needs the Greens and the SSP, and whoever else who has a conscience.Our wee Yes group probably has both, we don’t ask each other of our political leanings, we just work for independence.
The bedroom tax strategy doesn’t affect me but it sure disgusts me.
@handclapping
Hmmm, hardly shouting from the rooftops.
You and these damned musical keys Morag. I keep saying, play by ear.You mess around until you find a sound that seems to suit the mood. Well, I suppose that what music writers do and then put it on paper for less earrie players?
Velofello, I was playing by ear. I was worrying that the lower notes didn’t sound their best on the tenor. Later, I realised that if I’d flipped it up to G, problem solved. No actual dots on paper involved at all.
The thing on the music stand at the time was a hellish three pages of the T2 part from something contemporary called Ali Baba und die 40 Rauber, which I’m supposed to “have a look at” for a workshop at the end of the month, and which I have as much chance of playing as of jumping off the top of the Scott Monument and flying. I kept saying, don’t show the music, people will laugh.
Sottish Skier: Money is energy, it is the “to do” factor that enables persons to build extensions to their homes, governments to, ahem, instal tram transport facilities. So tipping gold coins into the Atlantic is a waste of potential energy.
It is the reward distribution of this energy, termed money that is so unfair. Bankers have been allowed to take their energy rewards for their contribution to society well beyond good sense. So too politicians. You it seems are a skilled academically qualified technical person, whatever earnings you enjoy, would you fancy to exchange for a job as a Scottish MP at Westminster? I wouldn’t, it would bore the pants off me. MPs energy/earnings rewards well exceed their contribution to society.
@handclapping –
Well-spotted that man!
That settles it then. It was/is an SNP production. Like Albert, I’m wondering if they could’ve possibly made that any harder to find.
No matter – it’s still a great publication, and will do the business for a lot of undecided, but the SSP and Greens are the only ‘partners’ the SNP had with them when ‘Yes’ was launched – we need and deserve more from the big machinery, and they know they’ll get the return many times over.
@Velofello-
Cheers for signing.
Last shout for anyone who’s in Irvine tomorrow – SSP will have a street stall in Bridgegate lunchtime. Pop along and say hello.
Scottish Skier,
Your logic lends itself to my way of thinking but don’t forget about the 2nd law of thermodynamics which explains why we need to replace old stuff with new (Entropy). I love science. It answers all my questions.
My old man’s funeral suit is the exception to this law. He’s had it since the big bang and shows no sign of wear and tear
Actually, entropy would also explain the breakup of the union nicely
Just signed the bedroom tax @change petition, recently came over @change via a Forres land issue petition, a Stewart Noble set up, no idea who he is, no matter.
Anyway, I just sign what seems a good thing to do, does it work, we’ll see, so it goes as Kurt said. But let’s do what we can. Hierarchy of signing too troublesome to bother with in my humble opinion.
Every single conversion to Yes is welcome.
As a Socialist, Gabriel is looking at the common good.
As a Labour member, Scott only woke up when he was personally affected. That is what I find very sad about the brainwashed members of Labour.
Nothing is EVER created and nothing is EVER destroyed. But EVERYTHING changes form from one moment to the next.
With regards to all this wealth creation / destruction stuff, where does Johann Lamont’s “Something For Nothing” theory fit in?
Also, what if you were Johann Lamont’s speechwriter?
Your speech would have no serious content, would have taken no knowledge or intelligence to have written and would contain only figments of imagination, half truths and downright lies. none of which would cost anything to produce but you would get a nice, fat fee for producing.
Over to you, SS
@Albalha –
Thanks. They all count.
Scottish skier, I am not buying your economics = physics analogy. Economics is not a science and money is a human, not natural concept. The idea that there is only a fixed amount of money in the world led to mercantilism, protectionism and the great imperial wars of the 17th and 18th century. However nowadays it is recognised that trade (unlike energy) is not a zero-sum game.
On the other hand you are right about the hoarding of money being economically unproductive. John Laws in the early 18th century had the same idea and ended up practically running France as he persuaded French aristos to invest their hoards rather than sitting on them. I like the phrase ‘wealth accumulators’ (or even ‘wealth extractors’!)
@ Morag
and Aberdeen won the European cup winner’s cup against Real Madrid! Can you imagine that now? A bit O/T but interesting all the same, that was when Alex Ferguson was Aberdeen manager. Now we all know what side of the fence he’s on. At the start of this week, Stewart Spence, owner of the Marcliffe, the only 5 star hotel in Aberdeen and signatory to the Yes Scotland campaign has announced he’s going to retire and live life more like his good friend Sir Alex. Wonder how that will pan out!
I feel really old too! My late teens was Thatcher at the height of her power. I remember when I was 16 Thatcher won in 1983
Black Wednesday – When George Soros colluded with Major, Lamont and the BoE.