The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

To save you some time

Posted on July 23, 2018 by

The entire Scottish media has today leapt like starving dogs at a tin of Chappie on a new “study” by right-wing flag-crazed imperialist nutjobs T***e I*****s, which claims to prove that an independent Scotland would have a BLACK HOLE!!! of infinity squillion pounds and all the crops would wither in the fields and stamps would be £5000 each and we’d be invaded by space monsters and all the usual stuff you’d expect.

(In all seriousness for a moment, it genuinely tries to flog the “fiscal transfer” myth and the “Scotland would have to join the Euro” myth and a bunch of other Better Together Greatest Hits that were utterly debunked old hat half a decade ago, and in order to make its economic case work it basically pretends that Brexit isn’t happening.)

But at the bottom of its article the New Statesman offers to link its readers to the full extent of the author’s professional economic expertise and well-argued case, and in fairness if you click the link they do exactly that.

Credit where due, it’s an uncanny likeness of the gloomy wee fella.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 23 07 18 12:21

    To save you some time – Aye We Can

  2. 23 07 18 12:56

    To save you some time | speymouth

117 to “To save you some time”

  1. mogabee says:

    Oh boy that’s downright embarrassing isn’t it chaps!!

    Hahahahahaha sorry lost it a bit there. Poor Kev, he’s really nae expert.

  2. Dan Huil says:

    People like K Hague really hate Scotland. Their desperation is, however, a good sign.

  3. Holebender says:

    …more of an ex-spurt.

  4. ScottishPsyche says:

    This must be his wee summer project.

    The usual bollocks from an unfulfilled sad sack who craves political recognition and power but is too scared to face the personal scrutiny it would require.

  5. Archbishop of Dork says:

    Cheese Islands have published 24 articles on their website in 2018. With a combined total of 17 comments. That works out roughly at 0.7 comments an essay. Says it all about the extent of their influence.

  6. Lanarkist says:

    These Islands and BBCSCOT, “the chum- ocracy”?

  7. dakk says:

    Another day,another item of fake news from the britnat propaganda crowd.

    You can tell from this poor fare their hearts aren’t really in it now.

    Money for old rope.

  8. Donald anderson says:

    “The entire Scottish media …” should read,

    “The entire Brit Nat media in Scotland …”

  9. Thepnr says:

    It’s nice to get a laugh now and again. That’s cheered me up, might go out for a pint now and toast Kevin 🙂 🙂 😉

    Cheers Rev for lifting my mood.

  10. RedStarTrout says:

    One of their complaints (on page 27) is that the Growth Commission only compared Scotland with small countries that are doing better than us economically.
    Because of course we should only be aspiring to do as well as countries doing worse than us, or something.

  11. Ken500 says:

    Can’t count or read a balance sheet. More nonsense. Showing how the Scottish (UK)
    economy has faired so badly under Westminster governance. For which Scotland did not vote.

    Illegal wars, financial fraud and tax evasion. Costing £Billions.

    HS2, Hinkley Point, Trident a total waste of money. Not supporting NHS/Education or essential services. The Oil & Gas sector, fishing and farming totally mismanaged by Westminster. Costing £Billions and thousands of jobs. Culpable.

    The appalling shambles is just unbelievable. Beyond belief. Add into this appalling lunacy. Most of them should be in jail. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic. Sanctioning and killing people. Who do they think they are? Pychopathic bastards. Their own description.

  12. galamcennalath says:

    I suspect many of these so called think tanks are only set up to give fodder to the BritNat / Pro Establishment media, i.e. ‘experts’ to invite onto their propaganda programmes, or be quoted on their propaganda pamphlets.

    ‘Thinking’ is the last thing the ‘tanks’ are supposed to do! If they did some real thinking they might come up with some ideas. That would be too dangerous. Their role is to re-package existing propaganda to give it an air of credibility.

    A dead giveaway is that the ‘expert’ is rarely a genuine academic with proven peer-attested expertise in politics or economics.

  13. fillofficer says:

    silly season padding for the dead tree scrolls
    any auld crap, so long as it splats on scotland
    predictable re-write of his usual bile

  14. Breeks says:

    Yes, yes, yes, and even if it was all true, and worse; if all our flowers suddenly stopped growing petals, our birds couldn’t sing, spider webs stopped being sticky, Scotland couldn’t qualify for a Scotland only football tournament, and our thistles were no longer jaggy, we would still be much better off Independent than living as a vassal region in the barren, hopeless, apocalyptic wasteland which Scotland will become after Brexit, forever subdued and stupefied by BBC induced narcosis, dulled of our senses so we are the oblivious host to a legion of BritNat parasites hollowing out our country.

    Yet even in that worst of all possible defeat, robbed of all hope with only despair for company, I might still fight a granule of solace that however bleak my own prospects might be, at least I am NOT a BritNat fool of convenience like Kevin Hague.

  15. Fred says:

    Excellent Long-Letter in todays National by Susan F G Forde.

  16. Clootie says:

    …the basic question remains…if Scotland is such a useless piece of real estate occupied by morons incapable of running a piss up in a brewery…WHY do they fight so hard to keep us in the UK? WHY do wealthy people spend millions fighting to defend this drain on poor old England? WHY do we have a constant propaganda campaign aimed at us? ( championed so ably by the BBC)

    I think they maybe lying to us! (Sarcasm)

  17. Macart says:

    That brought a much needed laugh. 😀

  18. jfngw says:

    Even if the doom mongers were right when they said the growth commission would give us 10 years of austerity, it’s a good deal compared to the 50 years that JRM is predicting for the UK. Looks like we would be stupid not to go for independence.

  19. galamcennalath says:

    Clootie says:

    I think they maybe lying to us!

    Indeed they might 😉

    The other way to look at Scotland’s place in their Greater England is …. just suppose for argument they are right and Scotland is a financial basket case. This would be despite being endowed with vast natural resources, an enviable location on the planet, and an able educated population. So, who would be to blame for this astonishing and improbable state of affairs?

    Their arguments are all self defeating. If false, then they are bunch of lying imperialists. If true, then it must all be their fault!

  20. And the Daily Police Gazette-with-Bums-And-Tits’ Torcuil Chrichton, the Herald Britland-I-Want-To-Have-Steven-Gerrard’s-Babies’ Alistair Grant and an unnamed Copy Boy over at the Hootsman, circulation 19,000, oblige by reproducing this claptrap.
    What a way to make money for nothing.
    I observed before, why don’t they just sack the hacks and print ‘Scotland is Still Shite’ in their biggest typeset on Page One every day.
    At least we know that the Brit Nats have nothing left.
    Dominic Grieve is being used as a buffer between the Alt Right Westminster Cabal and Us Plebs preparing us for No Deal Martial Law.
    And our hacks churn this shite out.
    We’ve thrown more out of the road to get to a fight.

  21. Az says:

    Lanarkist – 11:55am

    Pedigree Chumocracy

  22. jfngw says:

    Struggling to see how These Islands is an independent think tank, looking up the address on its website gives you 5 Kingthornes Park, Livingstone. Registered as a private limited company with Kevin Hague as main contact, same as the other 4 companies registered at this address.

    How can you be a independent think tank when sharing the business address of a single businessman and be the only officer named at companies house website?

  23. Archbishop of Dork says:

    The Scottish Sun quotes Willie Rennie about the These Island’s ‘study’. “It shows an independent Scotland would take an axe to services we rely on” says the Lib Dem.

    So according to Rennie, Scotland’s sevices are secure as long as we remain with austerity mad, hard brexit, health privatising, block grant cutting, power grabbing Westminster.

  24. Juan says:

    From The National, regarding the Tory regimes legal challenge to the Scottish governments EU Continuity Bill:
    “Wolffe wants the case thrown out right at the start. While accepting questions on the “legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”, he argues that “neither the Scottish Bill, nor any of its provisions, is susceptible to review on common law grounds.”

  25. Chick McGregor says:

    Anybody think the Barclay’s jobs story in Glasgow, which has grown from 2000 to 2500 during the day, is anything other than a Westminster establishment rouse?

    Barclay’s and the ‘U’K government have been in cahoots for years.

    At the time of the banking crisis, they were exempted from the very public bail out show down wich RBS and HBOS were subjected to even though Barclay’s had a bigger bail out than both of those combined at the time but simply kept from the public eye.

    My bet is that those jobs don’t exist but are claimed simply so that they can be ‘withdrawn’ when indyref2 is announced.

    Like the carbon capture scheme which is being touted once more.

    The Scottish space port I have heard will produce 40 jobs in the North of Scotland and 4000 in England.

  26. Bugger le Panda says:

    Kevin is a fully qualified


  27. galamcennalath says:

    We all love Wings over Scotland, but is it a ‘think tank’?

    By some standards, it seems it must be!

    However, since Rev Stu only rarely gets invited on TV to impart his undoubted wisdom, perhaps WoS isn’t a ‘think tank’ after all. 🙂

  28. jfngw says:

    The dog salesman speaks, the unionists bark in admiration. We have found our own Ivan Pavlov

  29. mike cassidy says:

    If the sun would lose its light
    And we lived an endless night
    And there was nothing left
    That you could feel

    If the stars were all unpinned
    And a cold and bitter wind
    Swallowed up the world
    Without a trace

    And if no leaves were on the tree
    And no water in the sea
    And the break of day
    Had nothing to reveal

    If the sea were sand alone
    And the flowers made of stone
    And no one that you hurt
    Could ever heal

    They would still want to hold on to Scotland

  30. Arbroath 1320 says:

    Oh look peeps everyone’s favourite dog food salesman has had a drop in dog food sales and has started another advertising campaign. ?

  31. Cuilean says:

    My dog Cuilean (named after the Scots King Cuilean who literally murdered everyone in his family to be KIng and no-one liked him, and was killed in turn by surviving family members (our very own King Joffrey) recognised the word ‘chappie’ that we had to spell it out to each other, when it was not feeding time, as in ‘Where’s the C H A P P I E?’ Thing is, Cuilean then worked out that C H A P P I E also meant ‘food is coming’. This led to whirling dervish impersonations til said mutt was fed.

    This has nothing to do with politics but I’ve never knowingly bought CHAPPIE off this mad dogfood seller (him, not the dog)

  32. Thepnr says:

    I’ll never be able to read the name K***n H***e or T***e I*****s without thinking of a “Sad Sad Robot ever again 🙂

  33. Robert Peffers says:

    Dee me?

    I didn’t even ken Kevin wiz a pert never mind an ex-pert.

    Onywey! Whit’s a pert?

  34. jfngw says:


    He can only do this if he sets up another 4 companies at the same address. Then he could call one of them a think tank – This Nation would probably fit the bill, or maybe This Blessed Nation to take into account being a Rev.

  35. Effijy says:

    This manufactured Black Hole from those who have a real fear of hands removed from Scotland’s pockets is absolute nonsense!

    I like to ask people to compare our friends in Norway with Scotland.

    We have a similar population, a similar latitude, we both discovered vast oil fields in the same sea at the same time.

    We know know that Norway has produced less oil than Scotland, and we know Norway did Not sell of the National Oil company to rich Tory Supporters and we know that Norway has virtually no debt
    and an Oil Fund that has £100,000 in it for every man, woman and child in the country.

    The sum continues to grow on a daily basis and it will continue to do so for several decades.

    The English have never allows Scotland to Borrow any money for 300 years so we haven’t ran up any debts.

    The English took ALL the Scottish oil Money into their own coffers and gave Scotland some lose change from it.

    The English now want Scotland to take a share of their debt for
    money spent on English projects, and put forward that everything is Scotland’s fault regarding the economy?

    I’d also like to take England’s advice and follow their lead in their relationship with the EU.

    If Scotland doesn’t like what it hears from England when we break up, we will be walking away without paying them a damn penny.

    When the English Public notice the money from our oil is staying in Scotland and that we were buying more from England than we export to them, they will find themselves to be the poor man of Europe.

    Can anyone give me the name of an Oil rich democracy that has debt to the level the English Dog Food salesman proclaims???

    How about it being good for England to take back control from the EU when its a bad idea for Scotland to take control of Scotland?

    English Remainers want another Brexit Referendum as it was based on false information, but not another Scottish Referendum, even though it consisted only of lies, deceit and cover ups.

  36. Sinky says:

    This is what you are looking for

    UK OBR forecasts 50 years of austerity to sort of UK finances

  37. Thepnr says:


    That “50 years of austerity” is supposed to be to pay for the NHS because of an ageing population.

    The reality is that it is a part of a softening up process from government mouthpiece the OBR in order to further the Tory agenda of privatising the NHS.

    Posted earlier this morning by Smallaxe and well worth a read.

  38. Petra says:


    Andrew Tickell: What next if the Scottish Government wins Brexit bill court battle? Nothing good.’

    ”So it transpires the British state does do contingency planning. Just occasionally. After two years’ heavy plodding down the via dolorosa of Brexit, David Mundell has finally acquired a strategy suit with a jelly pocket. The big court case is almost upon us, conveniently timed slap-bang in the middle of my summer holidays.

    In April, Theresa May’s administration referred Holyrood’s Brexit Bill to the Supreme Court. Since then, the two sides have been exchanging legal papers behind the scenes, testing the arguments and running their lines. On July 24, the briefs and bundles will make their way to Middlesex Guildhall at Westminster for a major legal showdown in front of Supreme Court president Brenda Hale and six of her senior colleagues.

    The UK Government will try to persuade the court that Holyrood’s Continuity Bill is unlawful and should be politely deleted from the statute book. The Lord Advocate, by contrast, will defend the bill passed by 95 votes to 32 in the Scottish Parliament, arguing that MSPs were entirely entitled to introduce it.

    As BBC Good Morning Scotland reported yesterday, there are dark emanations from Whitehall about the case. Nerves seem to be fraying in Dover House. Although Tory politicians are consistently bullish about their prospects in public, condemning Nationalist lawlessness and chicanery in passing the bill, Theresa May’s Government is reportedly wargaming for the possibility the justices find against them. None of the alternatives looks pretty or risk-free.

    With their characteristic lightness of touch, the solution floated yesterday by UK Government outriders was subtle, diplomatic and rapier-like – the legislative equivalent doing light DIY with a mashie niblick. The leak has the Advocate General for Scotland’s condescending, politically tone-deaf paws all over it.

    The strategy goes something like this. Who cares what the Supreme Court says? Who cares if the Brexit Bill was within Holyrood’s legislative competence? Honourable and Right Honourable members, Lords Temporal and Spiritual: join hands. Sod the MSPs. Let’s just repeal their Bill. Westminster is sovereign. Job done.

    This, in fairness, is regarded as a controversial proposal in Whitehall. The Secretary of State for Scotland denied anything so dramatic was in the pipeline, win or lose the Supreme Court case. But as political solutions go, it has a kind of brutal simplicity.

    A defeat in the Supreme Court won’t just be bad political PR for the UK Government. More pragmatically, it has considerable scope to leave UK Government Brexit policy in a mighty fankle with two concurrent Acts giving two sets of ministers concurrent powers over what laws remain on the statute book after Brexit. What if, for example, Michael Gove wants to knock out a provision Fergus Ewing wants to keep? How does all of this interact with the changes unilaterally made by Westminster to the Scotland Act? Does Westminster’s legislation impliedly repeal Holyrood’s, or vice versa? Even for the dabbling constitutional lawyer, these are the things synapse burnouts are made of.

    When Theresa May’s law officers referred Holyrood’s legislation to the UK Supreme Court in April, the legal issues were new but fairly straightforward. The Lord Advocate argued that Holyrood’s continuity bill was within competence. He argued MSPs were entitled to anticipate Britain’s departure from the EU and to legislate accordingly. Presiding Officer Ken MacIntosh’s independent legal advice disagreed, holding that the bill was incompatible with EU law. So much, so simple.

    Since then, everything has got considerably messier. Holyrood’s legislation is still on ice and can’t receive royal assent until the justices of the Supreme Court decide it is kosher. Westminster’s Brexit legislation, by contrast, has already been signed into law, distributing powers across government to chop and change the statute book after Brexit day.

    The Secretary of State for Scotland was reduced to stammering denials yesterday, pledging to act “in accordance with the judgment of the court”, whatever it might be. But yesterday’s scuttlebutt is a powerful reminder that this is a Government we can expect to use every legal trick in the book to get their way.

    The litigation over the Brexit Bill is just the tip of the iceberg. Murkier detail lurks in the devolution settlement, if you are an unscrupulous UK Government minister and care to go looking for it, or a paranoid law lecturer with a persecution complex and a “What Would Machiavelli Do?” wristband. Take Section 35 of the Scotland Act, which is blandly headlined “Power To Intervene In Certain Cases”. What does it do?

    You know that Holyrood is built on a reserved powers line. If it ain’t on the list of issues reserved to London, Holyrood can legislate away to its heart’s content. But stray into reserved matters? The courts can step in and strike down your statutes. But Section 35 – which has never been used – does something sneaky on top of this.

    It gives UK Ministers the power to spike Holyrood legislation if they believe any scrap or clause of it “would be incompatible with any international obligations”. It doesn’t matter whether or not the legislation falls squarely within Edinburgh’s legislative competence. The Secretary of State can exercise a pocket veto and wheech the bill from Elizabeth Windsor’s writing desk. Why might this matter in Brexit Britain? Imagine, if you can, that you are Liam Fox MP, Theresa May’s International Trade Secretary. You tour the world as Britain’s pre-eminent commercial traveller, grubbing around for trade deals with anyone who’ll take you.

    Trade deals are treaties. Treaties create international obligations. And here we come full circle: international obligations give UK ministers power to spike Holyrood bills which don’t conform to the trade deals Liam Fox is trying to peddle .

    Contemplate that, when you are gumming your rubberised American chicken, liberally soused in chlorine – or arm-wrestling a hormone-treated heifer from Nevada. Against this backdrop, some of the debate about whether post-Brexit powers will sit in London or Edinburgh and Cardiff looks like a dummy war.

    It doesn’t matter if healthcare is a devolved matter, if Theresa May’s administration flogs it cheap to the terracotta Weeble in the White House. It doesn’t matter if food standards or fishing policy are dictated by Holyrood or Westminster, if the Tory salesmen decide the only way to keep “global Britain” in the pink is a Dutch auction of public services, environmental standards and planning policy.

    To truss up Holyrood, David Mundell and David Lidington don’t have to attend interminable meetings with Mike Russell, or sit through Commons debates with Ian Blackford. They don’t have to rewrite the Scotland Act. All they need do is cut a series of deals in world capitals and use Section 35 to kibosh any Holyrood bill that threatens the free trade of our glorious new commonwealth.

    The Brexit counter-revolutionaries aren’t kidding on. Devolved government has only a precarious place in their seagoing worldview. They didn’t care for it in 1998. They don’t care for it now.”

  39. Brian MacLeod says:

    Maybe we should all create one man or woman think tanks. 🙂

  40. Petra says:

    Letter in the National:

    THE Supreme Court in London will deliberate over the Scottish Parliament’s Continuity Bill on July 24 or 25. The purpose of this is to decide whether or not Holyrood has the competency to legislate on devolved matters after Brexit which would potentially override, or at least be in conflict with, the terms of the UK Government’s EU Withdrawal Bill.

    David Mundell is reported to have said that the UK Government would act in accordance with the court’s decision. However, almost every statement he has ever made about how the UK Government would deal with Scotland in the Brexit context has evaporated in the reality of what actually happened.

    The latest elephant to walk into the room is Section 35 of the Scotland Act. This is because, even if the Supreme Court rules in favour of the Scottish Government, this clause would allow the UK Government to intervene and overrule the Scottish Government. It is difficult to believe that this would turn out to be anything other than another example of the evaporation of David Mundell’s meaningless assurance.

    At a hustings meeting in Peebles during the last General Election campaign, I asked Mr Mundell what were the top three contributions he had made on behalf of Scotland during his time in the Cabinet of the UK Government. He said number one was his contribution to the Scotland Act.

    It now appears that he was thinking of Section 35 in particular.

    Dennis White

  41. Marie Clark says:

    Oh! the dog food salesman has appeared gain with another of his reports eh. Well this is what they remind me of.

  42. Has Kevin and his ilk ever heard of or read the Macrone report or do they think we haven’t

  43. Robert Louis says:

    Hey, so-called ‘scottish’ ‘journalists’,

    The mainstream media complain they are no longer taken seriously. Then they publish absolute unfounded rubbish by this Kevin bloke, who is simply NOT AN ECONOMIC EXPERT (apparently he runs a wee dog food business). He knows as much about economics as I do (which is sweet b*gger all).

    Take a look at the quality journalistic ouput of something like the Washington post, and compare it to yourselves, runnin aboot daft, like silly wee laddies, publishing this utter peurile p*sh by a dog food salesman. Is that REALLY what you lot call ‘journalism’??

    Jeezo, Scottish ‘journalists’, and you have the audacity to complain when you are openly mocked. Anybody can see this ‘report’ is by a non economics expert, and is full of utter falsehoods – PROVEN FALSEHOODS. They are not opinions, they are just plain old vanilla LIES. You ought to be ripping it to pieces, instead of making out it is worthwhile. FFS. Seriously, FFS. No wonder nobody buys your tawdry anti Scotland ‘news’ papers anymore.

    In ANY other country the whole damn lot of you would have been sacked a long, long time ago for gross incompetence. What a joke. Away back to the pub with the lot of you, and maybe you’ll stay there, and gie us all peace.

  44. Les Wilson says:

    Chick McGregor says:

    Chick that is exactly how I read it too, particularly your point below.

    These jobs (being punted by the BBC, via Douglas Fraser) and will surely be used as a negative to Indy2, I can imagine the BBC headlines now.

    “My bet is that those jobs don’t exist but are claimed simply so that they can be ‘withdrawn’ when indyref2 is announced.”

    Aye for sure they are in collusion.

  45. Robert Louis says:

    Petra at 155pm,

    Of course if Westminster decides to overrule democracy and act against the express wishes of the democratically elected Scottish parliament and Government, then they will expose this so-called ‘union’ for what it truly is, colonialism.

    Just not sure why nobody in London can see how that would look.

  46. Dr Jim says:

    Careful Stu you’ll be accused of causing the hordes to do the *piling on* of which all Britnats fear and Kevin Hague is after all an impotent man

    Spelling OK?

  47. Gfaetheblock says:

    Anyone read the report, or is it straight to the’dog food salesman’ protocol ?

    What happened to play the ball not the man?

  48. Thepnr says:

    From Rev’s twitter:

    “Comically, the word “Brexit” appears just NINE times in the 23,300-word document, none of them in the context of any economic analysis.”

    This is comic indeed for no economic analysis can possibly ignore the economic implications of a hard Brexit compared with that of an Independent Scotland remaining in the EU.

    This report is another fudge in the great tradition of all Tory fudges.

    Can Scotland remain in the EU even if the UK leaves? This guy doesn’t mention Scotland but seems to think Northern Ireland can and that voters should be given the choice.

    Sir Martin Donnelly is a former Permanent Secretary at the Department of International Trade who left the civil service in April 2017. He was one of the highest paid civil servants and you would think that he knows his stuff especially when it comes to trade.

    Anyway he has an article in the Standard today about Brexit and in particular the effect on Northern Ireland. For some reason though he has omitted to mention Scotland also exists.

    Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. Businesses on both sides of the Irish border are increasingly integrated. So is healthcare, transport and even education in border areas. Parliament should give the Northern Irish themselves the final decision on whether the fallback option that preserves this openness now and in the future is acceptable.

    If the Assembly remains suspended then a Northern Ireland referendum may be needed to give its citizens a direct decision on their economic future. My belief is that they would choose to keep the Irish border open in all circumstances. They certainly deserve the right to decide that issue themselves.

    The link fails to archive but here it is.

  49. ScottishPsyche says:

    I remember him arguing when asked if he would submit his scribblings to an academic journal for anonymous evaluation, he replied haughtily that his peers (fellow Yoons) gave all the critique he needed (desired).

    Only sympathetic publications print his stuff – a re-jig of his one theme that it would cost too much, in his opinion, to be independent. The omission of anything on Brexit beggars belief. It is like the Marshall plan ignoring WW2.

    He just cannot understand what neutral means and sadly, there are few reviewers these days who could claim neutrality in this atmosphere.

  50. starlaw says:

    Barclay Brothers proposals seem to be pleasing the BBC just a bit too much. I shall welcome it when it happens. Still remember the Ford Motor Companies great plan for a car radio factory in Dundee. A factory that never was.

  51. stewartb says:

    O/T I’ve just dipped into the These Islands website: I had a brief look around and will steel myself to read the Hague paper on the Growth Commission later. But I came across this written in March 2018 within a longer article about ‘flags’, specifically the Union Jack/flag.

    “Having an officially sanctioned UK flag would not only sidestep any question of Scottish independence altering the flag, but in the pressing context of Brexit would be a wise move. The Union Jack symbolises a global UK. In the Overseas Territories, for example, it is seen not as a colonial flag but as ‘part of us’, as a ‘purposeful connection’ with the UK. The North-East Atlantic Archipelago in fact encompasses Bermuda and the Pitcairn Islands, St Helena and the Cayman Islands, as well as the Realms and Territories of Tuvalu and Norfolk Island, and of course Australia and Canada and many other places.”

    Source: Professor Nick Groom, University of Exeter and ‘expert’ on flags, including the Union Jack/flag at

    You will note the implication that after Scottish independence the flag that the author wishes to be the “officially sanctioned” UK flag should just continue in use for the Kingdom of Greater England. I guess this is consistent with the UK=Britain=England mindset. (Perhaps the name the “United Kingdom” will also continue to be used post our independence regardless of its historical origins.)

    Like me, you may also note with ‘amusement’ the concept of the “encompassing” of far flung places in the geographic entity of a “North East Atlantic Archipelago”! Deep symbolism here: from this “global UK” to an implied Empire v2.0 perhaps?

  52. Thepnr says:

    Westminster governments always need a bogeyman or a scapegoat in order to avoid responsibility for their own decisions when those decisions prove to be the wrong ones and everything goes tits up.

    If it’s not Muslims or Immigrants then it’s the Russians and if they can’t blame them then it’s Ireland’s and/or the EU’s fault.

    How in hell these people get elected to govern the UK is beyond my comprehension, they are useless and have proven to be useless time after time.

    Away with the lot of them. Let’s make our country Independent and a place where our elected officials will have to take responsibility for the decisions made on our behalf. If we don’t like them and they fail us then we will turf them out.

    That’s the crux of Independence for me, we vote then in and can throw them out as well if they don’t measure up to the job.

  53. Aliba woman says:

    Wonder if the supposed spaceport development will be threatened alongside the Barclay bank jobs if the Scottish hoi polloi dare go for an Indy ref 2.?

  54. Fred says:

    @ Cuilean, liked it! 🙂

    @ Effijy, liked it tae!

  55. Bobp says:

    If Scotland is so shite its obviously under westminsters watch. We couldnt be any worse off on our own,thats a certainty.

  56. Bobp says:

    Robert louis 2.07pm. In ANY other country the whole damn lot of them would have been chased.

  57. Jack’s Committee For a Prosperous Scotland has just held its first meeting.
    Insiders in Barclay’s Bank intend to move their business lock stock and barrel out of England following a No Deal conclusion and relocate to Edinburgh and Glasgow in newly independent Scotland, EU 28th Member, in the Spring of 2019.
    They have nothing left to frighten us with now.

  58. Thepnr says:

    OMG I’ve just read the K***n H***e/T***e I*****s article in the New Statesman. What a pile o pish.

    In a recent appearance at First Minister’s Questions, Nicola Sturgeon claimed: “If the spending recommendations of the Growth Commission had been applied over the past ten years…it would have eradicated austerity in Scotland. That is the reality”

    We refute that assertion. If the Commission’s model for deficit reduction had been applied over the last decade, Scotland would have had to reduce spending on public services by £60bn.

    This balloon actually expects to be taken seriously. No he does, he really does. Stop sniggering at the back there LOL

  59. Jack Murphy says:

    This appeared on Twitter today from a reliable source:

    “Rank and file [Labour] MPs would be shut out of the “Clause V” meeting that agrees on a manifesto at each election,
    with representatives of the Scottish and Welsh Labour Parties set to be excluded too.”

  60. yesindyref2 says:

    Frm the Herald: “These Islands, a pro-UK think tank”.

    So I called a meeting of my think tank, which is of a similar level of importance to Average’s, I had to use a bit of dried food to get the cat interested, and my wife made her apologies or said you have got to be joking or even ruder (she is Irish), and we came out with this report, but unfortunately I decided to have a fag and used it to roll around my tobacco.

    I think it came to the conclusion that Average;s report is mince but wiithout the OXO and flavour, click here for details.

  61. HandandShrimp says:

    Anyone read the report”


    Nope, although I haven’t panned him either. I am not going to critique something I haven’t read and have no intention of reading.

    I read a couple of Kevin’s pieces during Indyref 1 and I wasn’t overly impressed. My first MA was in Economic History so I looked them over with an academic interest but they were geared much more at a journalistic level. There was an over-emphasis of graphs with a lack of any real depth in analysing what an independent Scotland would be good at, where the strengths and weaknesses are, what the threats and opportunities are. Kevin’s pieces, certainly the ones I read, were very much of the “we are all doomed and here are 20 graphs showing how shite things are now” approach. Music to Unionist ears who seem to love reading about how truly awful Scotland is but they are never going to find their way into any economics text books as examples of cutting edge analysis.

    Kevin is a Unionist and his a priori position is that an independent Scotland would be a basket case…indeed his position is that Scotland already is a basket case within the Union and that only by the gift and generosity of our neighbours are we kept in the manner we would like to be accustomed.

    Kevin may have improved upon his writing style and, indeed, the substance of his arguments…one would hope so because there were no laurels to rest upon…but life is too short to continue to read stuff like this. If you have read one or two you should be good to take you through Indyref 1 and 2.

  62. Dr Jim says:

    The decision by Barclays bank to invest vast sums of money into Scotland has had a strange effect on British Nationalists today, on the one hand claiming it’s because of Barclays confidence in the UK and that means a definite end to the idea of Independence or they wouldn’t be coming, while on the other hand terribly angry that jobs might be lost in England because of relocation to Scotland where life is awful apparently

    One wonders that the British Nationalists haven’t asked themselves the question that perhaps Barclays Bank would have had these conversations with the Scottish government and that the question of an Independent Scotland never came up
    Do the British Nationalists think for one second that the Scottish government did NOT make Barclays bank fully aware of its plans for Independence and to join the EU at the first available opportunity and that quite rightly Barclays took that into consideration before it decided to make such a massive investment making Barclays decision highly likely to be CONTINGENT on the fact that Scotland WILL be Independent and a member of the EU

    One thing the British Nationalists can agree on today though is their hatred of Scotlands First Minister rose to fever pitch and that’s always a sign that

    Our girl dun good ….again!

  63. James Westland says:

    On Twitter, he proclaims: “Scotland: where people proudly proclaim they won’t read a peer-reviewed paper if they don’t think they’ll like the answer”

    SO, its a “peer-reviewed paper is it? OK

    1) Who are the independent non-partisan “peers” to who it has been sent for review?

    2) Can we see their comments?

    3) And if it IS a “peer reviewed paper” then I am assuming it has PASSED peer review and is now published in some academic journal? No academic I know would ever describe a PR-failed paper as “peer reviewed”

    4) Which one? Because I have just searched Google Scholar (where real academic peer-reviewed articles can be found) and there is no trace of it.

    I’m calling bullshit on this…

  64. yesindyref2 says:

    I read a few of Average’s blogs. In one he will “prove” something like indeed fiscal transfer by a few squiggly graphs, changing units, and miximg up per capita with total figures, and going round in a few circles chasing his tail. Scientists and mathematicians would go “tut tut”, even if they could be bothered.

    Future articles then refer to the previous articles as proven fact and build a new theory on such shaky foundations. Should probably have been a roads inspector on the Monklands Motorway.

  65. yesindyref2 says:

    From the Herald article:

    Its findings have drawn support from a range of leading economists including Glasgow University professors Ronald MacDonald and Jim Gallagher, Strathclyde’s Professor Brian Ashcroft and Brian Quinn, the former acting deputy governor of the Bank of England.

    You have to wonder. Ashcroft for instance has actually produced interesting reports, in spite of political leanings, does he really want to be associated with this? And Gallagher too has done some good stuff, as they say, one of the architects of devolution which, while not perfect, laid some reasonable foundations for the Devolution the Tories want to demolish. Ronnie McD should be good, but his anti-Indy stance colours his vision and clouds his senses. Quinn is an ex-deputy of the BoE, don’t know him, but I wonder why.

  66. CameronB Brodie says:

    I think this particular British English nationalist might need professional help. He certainly doesn’t need folk giving him a media platform from which he can display the nature of his illness. Remember folks, it’s not nice to mock the afflicted, even if you feel his graphs are childishly naive.

    Brexit will significantly damage Scotland’s civil society and social environment. Brexit is an expression of English culturalism. One can not support Brexit and be patriotic to Scotland, the two positions are mutually exclusive.

    English Nationalism and Brexit: Past, Present, and Future.


    This study investigates the ‘Brexit’ referendum and why a majority of the British electorate chose to vote to leave the European Union. Using the British Election Study Panel Survey database, this study examines the statistical relationship between English nationalism and the results of the Brexit referendum. First, this study finds that English nationalism is robustly related to the Brexit referendum result. Second, this study finds that immigration’s impact on the UK economy is also robustly linked to the Brexit referendum result. In the process, this paper assesses the political stance of UK parties on the European Union. Thirdly, this study finds that UKIP’s position on
    Europe is robustly linked to a voter’s decision to leave the EU, while the Conservative Party’s position was not. Utilizing the current government’s policy position after the Brexit referendum this study finds limited qualitative evidence that the government has adopted policy decisions in line with English nationalist sentiment on strengthening English constitutionalism, and limiting immigration. This study concludes that English nationalism did affect the referendum result, although further research is required to examine economic and immigration factors which also shaped the referendum outcome.

    National Identity, Popular Culture and
    Everyday Life

    National identity, inclusion and exclusion. An empirical investigation

  67. Thepnr says:

    @James Westland

    “Who are the independent non-partisan “peers” to who it has been sent for review?”

    It would appear to be these people that he links to under “Reviewer comments”.

    Professor Brian Ashcroft

    Husband of former labour leader Wendy Alexander. Need we say more.

    Professor Ronald MacDonald

    “MacDonald has been a currency adviser to banks, governments and oil rich states including Norway, but released his analysis through the anti-independence campaign run by Alistair Darling, Better Together.”

    Sir Andrew Large

    Scottish independence would hurt Europe
    by David Marsh, Lord (Meghnad) Desai, Sir Andrew Large, John Nugée, John Plender and Jack Wigglesworth Tue 16 Sep 2014…vote…/OMFIF-Commentary.pdf

    Brian Quinn CBE

    “Better Together takeover: Ex-Bank of England deputy chairman Brian Quinn explains why SNP’s currency plans don’t add up”

    Professor Jim Gallagher

    Who apparently isn’t all that he claims to be other than a board member of Scotland In Union.

    All of then definitely non-partisan when it comes to Independence.

  68. Auld Rock says:

    My very first boss gave me some very sound advice about ‘Experts’, he said, “if you hear someone claiming to be an ‘Expert’ run away as fast as possible and treat anything they claim with a very, very large pinch of salt”. Advice that I’ve followed to this day.

  69. CameronB Brodie says:

    I get the impression KH is desperately trying to create a reality in which he is comfortable. I’d just ignore him if the circumstances weren’t so important, but the clown really is a fucking idiot. His sense of self-importance threatens to encourage the unaware to act against their own interests.

    It is clear that you have an appallingly one dimensional appreciation of the matter at hand. I suggest you butt-out before you encourage irreparable harm to Scotland and Scottish culture. Or is that your aim?

    British National Identity and the Dilemmas of Multiculturalism

    “Britishness” in the National Conversation

    National Identity: A Question of Choice?

  70. Thepnr says:

    @James Westland

    “Who are the independent non-partisan “peers” to who it has been sent for review?”

    It would appear to be these people that he links to under “Reviewer comments”.

    Professor Brian Ashcroft

    Husband of former labour leader Wendy Alexander. Need we say more.

    Professor Ronald MacDonald

    “MacDonald has been a currency adviser to banks, governments and oil rich states including Norway, but released his analysis through the anti-independence campaign run by Alistair Darling, Better Together.”

    Sir Andrew Large

    Scottish independence would hurt Europe
    by David Marsh, Lord (Meghnad) Desai, Sir Andrew Large, John Nugée, John Plender and Jack Wigglesworth Tue 16 Sep 2014…vote…/OMFIF-Commentary.pdf


  71. Thepnr says:


    Brian Quinn CBE

    “Better Together takeover: Ex-Bank of England deputy chairman Brian Quinn explains why SNP’s currency plans don’t add up”

    Professor Jim Gallagher

    Who apparently isn’t all that he claims to be other than a board member of Scotland In Union.

    All of then definitely non-partisan when it comes to Independence.

  72. Marcia says:

    Has this ‘chappie’ ever made a profit? I might suggest he should spend more time on his business. Then it might make a profit and pay some tax like what we do, than give us these nonsensical economic lectures that he is not qualified to give though some tit in BBC Scotland News thinks he is qualified to give.

  73. yesindyref2 says:

    Thanks. It’s sad that people can allow political bias to allow them to make fools of themselves.

    And it’s a warning for us.

    The Truth Shall Set Us Free

    warts and all.

  74. CameronB Brodie says:

    Seriously, you haven’t got a clue and are simply giving aid to far-right ‘British exceptionalism’. Or is that your intention?

    Minority Report
    Race and Class in post-Brexit Britain

    From analysis to mobilization

    The question of attitudes inevitably leads to the question of how the working class mobilizes or constitutes a class ‘for itself’ in terms of pursuing its own interests. Post-Brexit and post-Trump it might appear that race and class operate as competing interests, though exit poll data suggests a more mixed picture at least in terms of class. But whatever the shortcomings of opposing class and race in terms of analysis, it is hopelessly divisive as a way
    of focusing on shared interests and on productive mobilizations among people who share the experience of being on the wrong end of inequalities and discrimination.

    The decline in class-based political mobilization has been notable for some decades now, and not really connected to the increased ethnic diversity of the working and middle classes. Social-democratic parties have seen their links to working-class people weaken, while working-class populations have been in relative decline, with the middle class becoming a majority in the UK around 2000. Mike Savage’s work has challenged the standard ‘middle vs working’ class definition for some time and his chapter here extends his analysis, first presented in the Great British Class Survey, to the issue of race.

    Data from Brexit and Trump suggest one interpretation of the declining political salience of class: rather than class, race and education are the main cleavages in British (and American and European) current political life. University-educated populations and minorities vote for more ‘liberal’ political positions, but ones that don’t seem to resonate with or offer policies for ‘left-behind’ white working-class voters. Yet at the same time data suggests it wasn’t simply economic policies that motivated white working-class voters to support Brexit or Trump. Indeed many commentators now suggest that the response to white working-class concerns misidentifies both what they care about, and how to fix it.

    Whatever concerns a voter expresses to Labour or another party, they respond in economic terms (if you’ve got a hammer, everything looks like a nail). Instead, it is argued, when you listen to white working-class or wider or narrower ‘left-behind’ voters, they instead focus on cultural change. From a race perspective this conclusion seems difficult to address, if the demand or interest is to turn back the clock to a time when Black and minority ethnic people had less opportunity or were fewer in number. There’s no doubt that exclusionary and nostalgic motivations did indeed drive much of the Brexit and Trump vote.

    But the term ‘culture’ (as with the slogan ‘take back control’) suffers from its wide meaning, leading to ambiguities. Is it the smug ‘culture’ of the elite, with its sneering dismissal of ordinary concerns that motivated the ‘left behind’ working-class voters, or is it the multi-‘cultural’ presence of non-white British (or white American) people? This just shows how mobilization or building shared interests isn’t disconnected from analysis. If we think that a group’s interest is the revival of a cultural past, that obviously implies different forms of solidarity (and exclusion) than if the interest is ensuring the equal voice and dignity of every citizen. The latter, especially if supplemented by a focus on economic inequalities, might unite working classes of different backgrounds, while the former is not only exclusionary but has no obvious policy solutions (other than mass deportation).

  75. yesindyref2 says:

    Jings, Eric Joyce really rips Gallagher a goodun, I never saw that before. It appears he over-inflated himself somewhat, in good company with Average of course, something of course the MSM is glad to accept unquestioningly.

  76. Les Wilson says:

    I have not heard anything from the UK Government to the fact that the EU has signed a deal with Japan. No tariffs either way, including cars and parts. With around 125 million people, around twice the size of the Uk and making it the worlds biggest trading block.

    So one could say they have already replaced the UK.

    Surely Westminster should spoken about, if indeed they haven’t, due to the likelihood that Japanese manufacturers will likely leave the UK for EU countries. That would mean a huge number of losses in North England and the midlands.

    Yet it seems they just do not care, they will be held to account in votes next time around.

  77. Robert Peffers says:

    @Gfaetheblock says: 23 July, 2018 at 2:20 pm:

    “Anyone read the report,”

    Yes, and some even did so before Rev Stu wrote his article.

    ” … What happened to play the ball not the man?”

    No one could find, ‘a ball’, to play in Kevin’s claimed report. As usual with Keven, it was utter claptrap/

    Now you be careful, Gfaetheblock, that, in your rush to defend your compatriot you don’t trip and do yourself an injury.

    compatriot –

    noun: compatriot; plural noun: compatriots

    a fellow citizen or national of a country.

  78. yesindyref2 says:

    This looks uncannily like Mr Average post-Brexit

    (from Rev’s thing)

  79. yesindyref2 says:

    This thing is really funny, I just noticed this:

    The SNP’s Growth Commission report is not as sensible as many suggest, says @kevverage

    Even he knows his report is loony minority fringe mince.

  80. Robert Peffers says:

    Current News items :-

    “Liverpool, ‘loses’, bid for Channel 4 HQ.”

    Liverpool is not on the government’s High Speed rail network.

    “Glasgow, ‘loses’, bid for Channel 4 HQ.”

    Liverpool is not on the government’s High Speed rail network

    “Shortlist for new Channel 4 base revealed

    Leeds, Birmingham and Greater Manchester selected for shortlist for Channel 4 HQ.

    Now There’s a surprise!

  81. yesindyref2 says:

    It gets funnier:

    “This is a very helpful and objective analysis of the Growth Commission report’s attempts to side step key issues regarding the macroeconomics of independence.” – Professor Ronald MacDonald

    “Objective”? An “objective” opinion about someone who blogs non-stop against Indy and the SNP, from an “objective” anti-unionist who doesn’t think Scotland should have ANY currency as they’re all bad bad bad?

    “The SNP’s Growth Commission deserves careful and critical scrutiny, as we have to assume it would be the economic plan of an independent Scotland, and this paper is an important contribution.” – Professor Jim Gallagher

    Doesn’t even endorse it as accurate or true, just as an “important contribution”. So much for the media hype. Even a renowned Unionist won’t risk his name on actually supporting its contents and conclusions.

    “This important paper constructively examines the recommendations of the Growth Commission by taking a thorough look at the numbers. What emerges is in fact a strong, positive argument for the continuation of the UK as the best solution for the Scottish economy.” – Brian Quinn CBE

    Now there’s a surprise. Start with a destination, arrive at the destination using hyperspace. Or a push-bike.

    The Growth Commission seems to rely on an overly optimistic economic assessment. The reality is that the links between Scotland and the UK are much deeper that those between the UK and the EU.” – Sir Andrew Large

    Hardly an endorsement, more a general opinion. It doesn;t even prove he READ the thing.

    Leaving just this one, which tbh is a bit of a surprise:

    “I fully concur with this paper’s evidence-based analysis and critique of the underlying economic and spending assumptions and conclusions offered in the Sustainable Growth Commission report” – Professor Brian Ashcroft

    So, despite media hysteria, just one single actual worthwhile endorsement of the contents.

  82. Thepnr says:


    Aye, if K***n H***e was a student I’m sure non-partisan Professor Brian Ashcroft would give him 10/10 for his report.

    Teachers pet LOL

  83. yesindyref2 says:

    Ashcroft is a curious guy. He kind of supported the idea of using sterling during Indy Ref 1, and before that was halfway towards Independence at times. He thinks Brexit is a catastrophe for Scotland specially, but because of Brexit thinks it makes it more difficult for Scotland to go Indy.

    Who knows though, with a no-deal he could just as easily change his mind and say about Independence “bring it on”. Maybe unlikely, but worth watching out for.

  84. yesindyref2 says:

    David Bell is another interesting one, we don’t hear much from him at the moment. Both were mostly against Indy during the first Ref, and we still got 45%. I think if both of them went behind Indy for IR2 it would be a shoo-in. Not because of them so much, as that they’re kind of indicators.

  85. Bill says:

    Is now a good time to reveal his Troll accounts he uses on Twitter?

  86. Greannach says:

    I really don’t know who this Hague guy is, but he and his chums with their Better Together UKOK pedigree and making a right dog’s dinner of their New Empire wheeze.

  87. Gfaetheblock says:


    Thanks for the response, but by your logic (which I don’t disagree with per se) if I read the white paper and though that it didn’t make sense, on say currency, I wouldn’t read the growth commission either. That doesn’t help progress the debate or move anyone from their starting position.

  88. Gfaetheblock says:

    Mr Peffers,

    You claim you are not playing the man, then instantly play the man! Was there no arguement that you could construct against his points?

    Also, the line about doing myself an injury, I hope that is just a clumsy sentence rather than a mafia style threat.

  89. HandandShrimp says:


    Well assuming the white paper and the Growth Commission were written by the same person you could read them but having got the gist of what the position is would you feel the need to read any subsequent papers? What I am saying is that if you are already familiar with Kevin’s stance having read some of his stuff is there any point in reading it again?

    Unionists will read it because people writing anything on their side who are not to the right of Attila the Hun are thin on the ground. You only have to look at the political views of Jim Gallagher, Jill Stephenson etc., on issues that are not independence to feel a chill run up one’s spine.

  90. Artyhetty says:

    Just saw on twitter..

    breaking news, ‘tonnes of oil, being removed from stranded ship in Pentland skerries’. 6 Crew onboard.


  91. Juan says:

    Gfaetheblock, I’ve not read his latest blurrgh either. I find it quite easy to defeat his arguement though. Scotland is a country and every country should govern themselves. I’m all about the democracy. How about you? Should Scotland be a NORMAL self governing country or England’s COLONY?

  92. Thepnr says:


    I like your logic and NORMAL self governing country is the goal.

  93. Gfaetheblock says:


    With that fundamentalist view, you need no economic or any other argument, and that I fine, but I only think about 30% if Scots think like that. I do not see Scotland as an English colony.

    I want Scotland to be as prosperous, effiecent and fair as possible. I didn’t think the Indy ref white paper offered that, and I am as sure as shit brexit doesn’t.

  94. Thomas Valentine says:

    Kevin Hague the Sovereign Citizen of economics. Like getting a lecture in biology from a creationist.

  95. Juan says:

    Gfaetheblock, did you just reply COLONY?
    Norway voted 99% for it’s independence, when it was the poorest country in Europe. Nobody knows what the future will hold. Better to be a NORMAL country than another’s colony.

    A colony is defined as an area or country that is either, partially or completely, politically controlled by another. Scots voted to Remain by 62%, England voted Leave and Westminster(a parliament in England with a massive inbuilt English majority) says we are leaving. We are treated as England’s COLONY. They decide our government, their government dictate 80% of our laws and collect all of Scotland’s revenues and taxes. You might prefer the term Vassal state?

    So again, Country or COLONY?

  96. Gfaetheblock says:


    Shouting colony at me won’t change my mind. Scotland voted to be in uk, uk voted to leave EU. You may not like that, but it doesn’t make that not the case.

    I know what a colony is, it also implys occupation by settlers, which I also do not recognise. Furthermore it’s definition and usage implies a distant, or remote state, not the country that is in a political Union, shares a land boarder and the majority voted to remain part of.

  97. Juan says:

    Gfaetheblock, I’m still hearing COLONY!
    How can it be a “political Union”, when one country dictates to the other?

    A political Union? It’s an occupation. They won’t even allow us our own media!

    If it was a real “political Union”, then there would be benefits to both. I could rattle off at least TEN BENEFITS England gains from ruling Scotland, that it will lose when Scotland becomes self governing again. Can you point to THREE BENEFITS Scotland GAINS from being ruled by England, that Scotland wouldn’t have anyway as a NORMAL, self governing country? That’s only 1 benefit for every century of occupation.

  98. yesindyref2 says:

    I thought colony was a total irrigation of the a’hole.

    I could be wrong.

  99. Gfaetheblock says:


    Cost avoidance of setting up new institutions of state
    Economies of scale
    Diversification in the economy preventing over reliance in one sector or limited sectors
    Freedom of trade in UK market
    No physical borders with other uk nations
    Established currency with strong central bank
    Solid credit rating and ability to borrow at reasonable rates

    Off the top of my head

  100. Greannach says:

    Gfaetheblock at 0730:

    None of the 15 or so countries which have become independent over the last 30 years had to face any costs. Only Scotland will.

    Don’t do it, Scotland. You’re not capable. Stay in bed with the curtains closed in case anything happens.

  101. Gfaetheblock says:


    One quick Google, cost of velvet divorce, tells me Slovakia lost 4% of GDP in the first year after independence.

    Scotland can do it, but needs to be honest about costs and benefits

  102. Juan says:

    Gfaetheblock says:
    24 July, 2018 at 7:30 am
    Cost avoidance of setting up new institutions of state
    Economies of scale
    Diversification in the economy preventing over reliance in one sector or limited sectors
    Freedom of trade in UK market
    No physical borders with other uk nations
    Established currency with strong central bank
    Solid credit rating and ability to borrow at reasonable rates
    Off the top of my head”

    This is the positive case for the “Union”! None of this trumps DEMOCRACY.

    Setting up new institutions of state, which will be based in Scotland and create new jobs generating income tax and providing new opportunities for our workforce. Any new costs of setting up will be offset by having control over our own revenues and taxes like VAT, Corporation Tax, oil and gas revenues etc.

    Economies of scale- we’re being dragged out of a market of 500 million to one of 55 million. We’ll be losing on the economies of Scale not gaining.

    Diversification in the economy preventing over reliance in one sector or limited sectors
    This is bogus, we’d do that anyway as an independent country and do it better as our government wouldn’t be in the thrall of London’s financial market. The UK doesn’t have a diverse economy, it’s 80% Services just now.

    Freedom of trade in UK market. We’re losing freedom of trade with a market TEN TIMES the size of England. This is not a benefit!

    No physical borders with other uk nations. Pretty much the same as above. Keeping freedom of movement within the UK but losing the freedom of movement and trade with all of the EU. This is a loss not a benefit.

    Established currency with strong central bank. Debatable. The £ is plummeting weakened by “Brexit” and still to fall further once we’ve left the EU with or without a deal. The BofE was at the centre of LIBOR rigging scandal, where UK banks have had to pay BILLIONS in compensation, across the globe. Not to mention that London is the money laundering capital of the world. I’ve heard “strong n stable” before. It was mince then as it is here. As an independent country our currency would be one of the strongest in the world. See McCrone Report. We export more than we import which would lead to a strong currency.

    As for borrowing, the UK no longer has AAA Credit rating. It does have an enormous National Debt which continues to grow. Economic outlook for the UK is poor and will lead to further downgrading.

    None of your benefits are things we wouldn’t have anyway as an independent country. There’ll be costs involved in setting up any new venture but will be more than offset by new income streams and greater control over our economy, welfare state, our laws, no more illegal wars and the big one for me DEMOCRACY!

    Your giving up democracy for a flag, Tory governments, permanent austerity, no democracy and a parliament that can be over ruled by another parliament in a foreign country elected by a foreign electorate. They’ve bought you for free.

  103. K1 says:

    Juan, yer arguing wi a unionist…it doesn’t evolve into any insight wi unionists…he’s here to ‘spread’ his intellectual nous…they always ‘know’ better. It’ll all be a disaster and he has the ‘wurdz’ tae prove it 😉

  104. Juan says:

    K1, cheers. I know, I normally don’t even read the usual subjects posts and just skip on by. Always like to see them flounder with the positive case for being ruled by a xenophobic, incompetent Tory regime.

  105. Craig P says:

    Chick McGregor says:
    23 July, 2018 at 1:17 pm

    Anybody think the Barclay’s jobs story in Glasgow, which has grown from 2000 to 2500 during the day, is anything other than a Westminster establishment rouse?

    No reason to think that. There’s talent in the central belt and it is cheaper than London.

    The key part is the kind of jobs under discussion. In the announcement they are talking about backoffice jobs in Glasgow and Pune, India. The organ grinders, their analysts and chief designers, and the command of the money flows, is staying put in London. Jobs are always welcome but these will be third and fourth tier ones.

  106. Gfaetheblock says:


    I think I did ok with the positive case, you failed to give me any of your easy arguments you promised.

    I was not trying to convince you, just to highlight that there is a need for discussion and and debate. You seem to be comparing brexit to independance, but Scotland is brexiting, so it is brexit and uk or brexit and indi that should be the debate now.

    I am neither a unionist nor a Tory, but if it makes you think you have proven a point or won something, crack on big boy.

    And K1, sorry for using words and that, I am here to learn about other people’s viewpoints, but it often feels if you not 100% on message, you are the enemy. And you are the protectors of democracy! Or as Juan would say, DEMOCRACY.

  107. K1 says:

    ‘often feels’

    Subjective feelings having nothing to do with facts. You provide absolutely no evidence of ‘if you not 100% on message, you are the enemy’.

    This is as you correctly stated a feeling you are having, but where o where is the proof of such an assertion?

    You imo G, merely derail the debate that has being ongoing for years on this site, where were you back in 2013 onwards? We’ve been debating and discussing the subject matter, literally for years, but you ‘infer’ that’s not what takes place on here?

    You clearly don’t agree with the proposition that Scotland ‘should be’ an independent nation?

    Every input from you on this issue and its surrounding implications imo is met with a sort of ‘derisive snort’…when people disagree and debate your input, you resort time and again to the worn out old trope of ‘if not on message, then enemy’.

    It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat with different words the exact same ‘sentiments’: ‘I don’t ‘believe’ or ‘think’ in terms of ‘colony’, ‘I don’t ‘believe’ or ‘think’ in terms of ‘democratic deficits’ etc etc. That’s all you ever state.

    But if others challenge your ‘assetions’ you ‘resort’ to this ‘form of debating’?

    How is that actually ‘debating’ though? You have not stated ‘what your actual position is’ in straight forward terms, merely using other’s words and impressions about what you do state as somehow ‘proving’ your ‘internal feelings’.

    But has it never occurred to you, to just say where you are at, simply, directly in response to what others are ‘rightly or wrongly’ attempting to gauge by your input on here.

    Do you support the proposition that Scotland should be an independent country and more saliently if it came to an independence referendum, will you be voting yes or no?

    That should clear everything up for everyone, don’t you think?

  108. Fred says:

    Juan-up for Juan!

  109. Gfaetheblock says:


    That is somewhat of a polemic against me. I have been commenting on this site c. 5 years, ever since newsnetscotland started editing and deleting comments. I voted No at the last indyref, I did not think the case was clearly made, it offered up a uncosted socialist utopia without gravity or reality on the impact of delivering. It pandered to a sector of society, but alienated another.

    I do not know how I vote next time, I am remainer of no party loyalty (lapsed new labour member, last vote LD) and believe that we need to think about he future of Scotland and how it is best served, be that in uk, EU, part In EU or independent. The growth commission was a brave move by the SNP, to try and move away from the mistakes of the last campaign, but it is somewhat sad that the attempt to discuss it is is attacked. This is not the functioning of a mature political debate.

    I have never pretended to hold views that I do not, that has been one of the great things about this site, unless you are abusive or a troll, you are allowed to disagree with the author. Just seems not all are so tolerant, or open to debate.

    Finally, I fully support the right to any nation to self determine, I feel this is a natural right, but I will only make a personal choice on the facts presented to me. I do not present these facts, I am not a campaigner, I am a consumer of the arguement put to me and enjoy watching the debate progress.

  110. Gfaetheblock says:


    You may be interested in reading about the thinking feeling dicotamony

  111. K1 says:

    In essence you’re ‘cautious’ and ‘doubting’.

    Fair enough.

    I think this site (most btl commenters as well as site owner) does unabashedly support Independence G, there is no debate about that as reality on here. Perhaps that is where there may be a bit of confusion at play wrt to ‘discussion and debate’. There is because of this, no debate about the choice we face in a second independence referendum, for just about anyone commenting on here, they will be voting Yes. (caveat, one cannot say with ‘absolute’ certainty, that a position can be held without review when ‘events’ may alter the current paradigm so significantly that any of one of us can of course change course…oops, that already happened, ergo many are changing course and coming on board the Indy ship)

    The discussions/debates involving currency, economics, EU et al are broadly discussed from the perspective of ‘when’ we regain our independence, they are not discussed from the pov of ‘oh…this has altered my outlook on the proposition’ or ‘hmmm…haven’t decided yet, but this bit about a ‘socialist utopia, (which was never stated by the SNP, ever, for e.g.)’ will make me re consider my ‘choice’ on the day?

    You have ‘your’ doubts therefore you didn’t back independence back in 2014. And from what I’ve gleaned you’re not any the less doubtful about whatever you were doubtful about back then?

    If we are going to get into the particulars, I don’t have any affiliation with any party, briefly joined the Greens on the back of 2014 vote, but one listen to the arrogant Mr Harvie on the first meet up after indyref, left an unpleasant taste in the mooth. The point being it’s neither here nor there what the particulars are wrt to which ‘party’ we may support when it comes to choosing whether you support independence or not?

    You are saying you’re only a ‘consumer’ of the argument, when people debate/talk back, you don’t like that they choose to focus on your obvious ‘doubting’ or ‘cautious’ approach to anything/everything to do with ‘policy’ outlook, specifically SNP policy? You included the growth commission as an example of something the SNP put forward once again as somehow not being up for debate on here and that an attempt to discuss it ‘is attacked’?

    But here’s the thing about that G, we mostly on here agreed with your begrudging ‘take’ on this, specifically: ‘The growth commission was a brave move by the SNP, to try and move away from the mistakes of the last campaign’. Imv, this seemed to be the overarching ‘response’ from all quarters on this report? There was little the ‘unionist’ mindset could really argue with, was there, well apart from ‘it wis the SNP wot rote it’ which is of course utter nonsense, it was a commissioned report from the FM, yes, but they didn’t ‘write it’ did they?

    But then you add this curious conclusion to that statement: ‘but it is somewhat sad that the attempt to discuss it is is attacked. This is not the functioning of a mature political debate.’

    What ‘mature’ debate did you not get that you wanted so badly? You just said it had moved away ‘from mistakes’ that ‘you’ feel were made on the last campaign, specifically: ‘that it offered up a uncosted socialist utopia without gravity or reality on the impact of delivering. It pandered to a sector of society, but alienated another.’ (evidence free assertion G, of course).

    So from ‘your’ pov, surely the growth commission was a positive?

    Lastly: ‘I have never pretended to hold views that I do not’

    You haven’t expressed any of your own views? But that makes perfect sense because you’re just a tourist, you have no investment per se and are very proud of that:

    ‘I do not present these facts, I am not a campaigner, I am a consumer of the arguement put to me and enjoy watching the debate progress.’

    Well…enjoy the ‘show’ G.

  112. K1 says:

    Just one more question G?

    ‘I am not a campaigner’

    Not ‘entirely’ true, that comment, is it?

    You are in fact very anti SNP?

    Will you admit/acknowledge that?

  113. Gfaetheblock says:

    K1, I have never voted SNP, although closer to doing so currently than i ever have been. I am critical of all parties, labour and Tories are useless currently, the LDs rudderless.

    I don’t really think you want me to answer the other questions, so not going to bother.

  114. yesindyref2 says:

    I voted No at the last indyref, I did not think the case was clearly made, it offered up a uncosted socialist utopia without gravity or reality on the impact of delivering. It pandered to a sector of society, but alienated another.

    Aye sure, I talked to a lot of NO voters before the Indy Ref who felt the same. And since I knew them personally I know they were not “trolls”. They liked the idea of Indy, most of them passionatley Scottish, intensely disliked “Project Fear” from Better Together, but didn’t see from YES Scotland questions about the economy being answered. I know of one strong Indy supporter, who asked a question about cross-border VAT on alcohol for reps going around in England with van, and his question wasn’t answered, wasn’t even acknowledged as “We don’t know but have stored your question”, and it wasn’t in the white paper. When I say know of, it also turned out I knew him personally.

    So, some very quick attempts at answers to your questions while I drink my tea:

    Q. Cost avoidance of setting up new institutions of state
    A. There were studies and it could be a few hundred million, but one of the key offsets in the loing and even short-term is the economic benefit of having these jobs in Scotland rather than splattered around Whitehall where we get NO economic benefit (taxes, spending etc.), even though we’re “charged” for them in GERS

    Q. Economies of scale
    A. See MOD for a classic example of how that doesn’t work. Small can be more efficient, and co-operation can cut costs in total. An example of that is the EU PESCO which could if it worls, cut the costs of logisitics and training

    Q. Diversification in the economy preventing over reliance in one sector or limited sectors
    A. There’s a lot of diversification in the economy, oil should not be accounted in the day to day budget rather put in a fund, and the financial sector is too big as the credit ratings agencies pointed out – unless it’s encourage (perhaps by NOT having an LOLR) to become prodential

    Q. Freedom of trade in UK market
    A. More difficult, common trade area, EFTA rather than EU route to the EEA. The rUK exports more to Scotland than Scotland exports to the rUK, which means it’s probably the rUK’s only politive balance of trade. It’s in their interests to keep that trade going.

    Q. No physical borders with other uk nations
    A. Common Travel Area

    Q. Established currency with strong central bank
    A. Our own currency with the ability to issue currency – look at the BoE issuing hundreds of billion, though it just gives it to banks. Other small nations ahve very strong central banks, look at Denmark. And no, we don’t need their levels of foreign reserves!

    Q. Solid credit rating and ability to borrow at reasonable rates
    A. The UK is on a NEGATIVE rating at AA, meaning it’s expected to go DOWN. Scotland could well start at the same rating, as our leaving was predicted by NIESR back in 2014, to cause a downgrading of the (r)UK’s credit rating.

    And yes, these questions should be addressed properly by the future YES – and without party politics or socialist, centrist or far right policies attached to the answers.

    E&OE, finished my tea, back to work

  115. Gfaetheblock says:

    Cheers yesindiref2 for taking the time with the response. The farm payments experience somewhat undermines that setting up the mechanics of the state will be that straight forward, but these are issues that need discussed and debated for many of us.

  116. yesindyref2 says:

    @Gfaetheblock “but these are issues that need discussed and debated for many of us

    They are indeed. As are mortgages.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top