On today's Yougov poll and the predicament of the Anglo-Scottish Union

The Yougov poll today about the Union.

1. Concern about yougov poll, and oversoon elation from terrified British nationalists. Poll shows a rise in support for independence, asks if vote were held tomorrow (we know Scots want to wait until they know what Brexit means and any deal on the table for Scotland from the EU is available as a counterpoint), excludes 16-18yos, does not have a correct % of EU nationals, and is weighted on the EU referendum (where we know embarassed LEAVE voters claim they voted REMAIN). Poll shows SNP voters are most likely to change views against independence if it's UK vs EU. Petulent essentialist nationalism that will collapse in a campaign, when independence is on the table. Nonetheless poll shows a rise in support for independence, before a campaign has begun.

2. Until Brexit the logic of strategists was that the SNP could not afford to lose a second independence referendum as it would risk killing the issue for a goodly while. This was broadly true, but only in the context of the life of a Westminster 'long regime' type of government. The issue can never go away completely while Scotland exists, and never has. But this logic is now dead. Were Scots to vote NO in a year's time, it would not be by an enhanced NO, and it would continue to tear lumps out of remaining institutions which support the Anglo-Scottish Union. It would also likely be on a false prospectus of the UK offering continuity and stability in uncertain times. Five to ten years of post Brexit collapse of England's empire, and the knock on effects of this, plus demographic change (the children of YES voter millenials getting a vote, less entrenched baby boomer British nationalists about) would surely trigger the world's biggest 'I told you so,' particularly as the Tories stay in power and England moves to the right, and people discover what having your citizenship and rights ripped up and economy destroyed by a foreign vote actually means for them.

3. Thirdly and most fundamentally of all, the vote on the 23rd of June to destroy England's empire in a last gasp of xenophobic exceptionalism killed the empirical basis of the Anglo-Scottish Union. The impact of the EU vote was never fundamentally about public opinion. It was about elite opinion. The Anglo-Scottish Union is not a British nationalist project. It is an alliance of ruling classes. For the Scottish ruling class the Anglo-Scottish Union delivers (A) continued liberal government, despite working class and labour aristocrat Scots' utter hatred of liberalism. (B) It opens up financial markets thruout the empire, which latterly was buttressed by being the USA's man in the EU (and the various alliances, networks, and markets this afforded). (C) It provides a chance for ruling class Scots and Scots on the make to control the reins of power not just in a small Nordic country, but in a global superpower. By dint of England's successful xenophobic collectivist rebellion, they demonstrated that the era of Union with England guaranteeing liberalism (A) is over. The geo-political effect of this is to isolate England, to fillet its empire, and to cause an unprecedented loss of markets, so that's point (B) over. Plus, with England now effectively in an utterly desperate battle to just stand still as a power, with its economy contracting vis-a-vis the other European empires (and this is before the filleting of Brexit is done and by), does London rule really guarantee a career ladder into a superpower (C), more than being a special daughter of Germany? Obviously our ruling class is integrated into London power networks, but there is widespread talk (even among men such as the Director of Virgin Money) of rapid disintegration being in the best interests of Scottish finance capital for instance. None of this will affect Scottish public opinion, but it is the empirical class basis of the Anglo-Scottish Union, which is now completely dead, unless some British nationalist Bismarck or Napoleon can reforge and repurpose this ruling class deal. Theresa May is not that person. 

The facebook post detailing James Nebitt's assault of me, which Nesbitt or friends had removed from facebook by autocomplaint

I posted this post to facebook.  It was removed around 3am on the 29th of July by Facebook for a "violation of community standards."  As it contained no spam, or links this must have been as a result of a report by a facebook user that the content was malicious or whatever.  Here it is again, on a blog.

I've just been assaulted in the street, leaving the offlicence after leaving the gym at Charing Cross by James Nesbitt, the original leader of the socialist group, A Thousand Flowers. He came at me saying, "What have you been saying about me? You been saying I raped my ex girlfriend, have ye?" Before swinging wild punches at me. He clocked me on the nose and the left eye. I brought him to the ground and he nutted me from the ground, as I tried to dissuade him of his nonsense. Nesbitt has a conviction for knife crime I believe, so I was a bit cautious with going at him. I assured this foolish man that I have not been claiming he raped his ex girlfriend, and that I couldn't care less about him. When the foolish man appeared to come to his senses I let him up again. He immediately tried to attack me again, and I had to bring him to the ground a second time. I held him there pinned for a while, to make it clear to him I am a good deal stronger than him, altho I didn't hit him, in part because I was a bit concerned he might be carrying and so I wanted to know where his hands were, and in part because he is a very silly man and I just want to go about my business and not get dragged into silly people's blood feuds, and by pinning him to the ground twice I think I made my point. This man James Nesbitt is a danger to himself, as well as to others around him. For the record I have no idea whether he raped his ex girlfriend, and have never heard this claimed. He does assault people in the street based on flimsy rumour tho, so do be careful folks. What a silly man.

Unionism's intractable strategic impasse

I'm just back from a work drive and caught a swatch of the (30/03/16) John Beatty Show on BBC Radio Scotland. I normally don't mind that, so listened in. Topic of the day was some haivers about boxing, but mostly (following last night's Leaders TV debate on STV), '18 months on since the NO vote, has Scotland "failed to move on" from the referendum.' Hilarity, in soft Unionist hand wringing. Very enjoyable Schadenfreude at the anti-democrats' pain. 'Can't we all just get along, under the Tories, people?' LOL. 

There are two fundamental and catestrophic political problems for Unionists and Loyalists.

Add caption

One; while Unionists remain divided between umpteen political parties who nonetheless all (in Scotland) agree on monetarist economics but are divided by their respective ultra-sectarian voting supporters and by their real differences in actual power blocs in the provincial Establishment, any fragile majority they may, or may not, have cannot hope to convert to governmental power. This leads to the SNP gaining support among people who might actually be considered among their natural supporters, based on other policy offerings and their unity and credibility.

Two; their problems are primarily English. The line about black holes and ra ra ra Kevin Hague-ry - that only works if the ordinary people feel they are getting a better deal than they would with self-rule. You can't square that with an English politics utterly obsessed with financialisation and totally unprepared to buy off rebellious provinces, because it has become insular and xenophobic to the extent of self-harm to its own imperial status/apparatus. The Highlands of Scotland were converted to hydro power under the threat of just such a situation that we now enjoy in Scotland ever developing; this has happened in Scottish history several times, and Whitehall has found some billions down a sofa to quell any provincial distaste for London rule and desire for Home Rule. Now that more than half of Scotland believes its bread is buttered better with democracy than remote control by a foreign government, and that most people who think like that also want independence, bleating about plugging fictional 'black holes' and other such nonsense is essential a shargart and wabbit challenger frame to those people, and actually *weakens* the case for Union by underlining perceived Unionist parsimony towards the ordinary joe. In order to win some of those people back you actually have to spend some real money, and buy some sectional provincial loyalty. English politics essentially prevents this being possible.

A suthfast story? þat be nocht bot fabill: the myth o the Anglo-Scottish Union

"Storyß to rede ar delitabill,
suppoß þat þai be nocht bot fabill,
þan suld storyß þat suthfast wer,
And þai war said on gud maner,
Hawe doubill plesance in heryng.
þe fyrst plesance is þe carpyng,
And þe toþir þe suthfastnes,
þat schawys þe thing rycht as it wes;
And suth thyngis þat ar likand
Tyll mannys heryng ar plesand.
þarfor I wald fayne set my will,
Giff my wyt mycht suffice þartill,
To put in wryt a suthfast story,
þat it lest ay furth in memory,
Swa þat na length of tyme it let,
na ger it haly be forȝet."

[Beuk Ane o John Barbour's The Brus, wrutten in the 1370s]

John Barbour commences the first gret beuk in the Scots leid wi the lines abuin, and while it's no aften quotit, in place o his threip anent freedom, or the bits fae the action, it is dootless ane o the maist thochtie pairts o the epic, an epic that hitsel is written aince errant forderin the Scots national myth wi political ingyne. The stories (or "history" - same word) that we tell wirsels is aye fochen ower acause historicity is an unca political thing, "storys that suthfast wer[...] Have doubill plesance in heryng[...] suthfast story[s ...] lest[s] ay furth in memory / Swa that na tyme of lenth it let / Na ger it haly be foryet." Ane o the important stories we tell wirsels theday concerns the wey we consent, or consentit, tae be ruled, and the creation myth o the UK. Aw states has thir stories and they yoke tae the fang o thaim for tae cleck a guid deal o legitimacy fae thaim. Scotland in Union has ane, and we aw ken it. What tho if soothfast, jonick, richt stories is pleasin tae hear, does it mean gin this important ane turns oot tae be just a swick - a dooble and fenyit, sleekit tale devised for the ettle o keppin fowk fae speirin questions at thaim that's tae benefit?

It's an unca thing that for hunders o years, efter the end o 'parliament and stateheid', Scotland, and the norrie o sic o place, was aye livin and lifelike on accoont o the institutions that beirt the name, the body o law, the Kirk, the lawvyers and the adaes o regulation and commerce - that the interests o thaim aw (or sindry) didna aye marra wi that o the Wastminster state - and syne evenoo "Scottish" cows the gowan in the identity leagues wi "British" yet. Hooandever while thae institutions, that in sae mony weys comprises wir Estaiblishment (whiles in hiddles, whilies crouse and ruisin), for the maist pairt stuid up tae conter an AY vote in 2014 (wi exceptions, o coorse), the'r this myth at the foonds o Union that the Kirk - that in physical form representit Scotland's castin aff o the colonial cheyns o the Valois, the grallochin o the Lords and lichtifiein o the gentrice tae heeze up the ordnar common people - consentit, if no doucely and smertly, but sweirtly and at the hinderend, tae Union on accoont o the Glorious Revolution and the hainin o the Protestant religion.
This was aye a bruckle tale hitsel, takin pelters fae sic wanchancy events as the sindry risins again the monarchy, that whiles had a nationalist character forby. But thaim that skries the story for uisual mints that thae risins was supportit bi wir historic non-Presbyterians. Sae far sae guid - but whit o thaim that embodies the verra sowel o whit and Knox and Buchanan and that was gettin at?

Gin ye've ever been up ower late at nicht playin at youtube for aw the sentimentality yer creeshy-gingerbreid-snashters couthy heid can tak, ye'll mebbe hae taikit ower far intil the warld o fowk muisic, and been scunnered tae come oot the ither side in some kinna Orange Order fiddle band; aside fae synin the lugs oot, and awa up tae yer bed, ane o the maist starkest things is whit legacies they claim fae Scotland's revolution o the 1560s for their ain far richt Anglo-Irish Ulster-Scotchiefied version o the KKK. The'r a affie popular track, The Covenanter Sodger, that's a wee tale o a Covenanter that somewey didna get murdered in the Killin Time, and endit up fechtin for William o Orange. In mauger o yon Dutchman no haein ower muckle tae dae wi knuckle draggin yoons, that their politics actually comes fae a bosses' ploy tae prevent the workers unitin in Erland in the 1800s, the'r a clair and clamant ettle there tae claim the legacy as contiguous wi Union - Croon and Parliament baith.

Ither fowk has dealt wi the Freends o the People, and hoo that the Auld Licht Calvinism o Thomas Muir at the lang and last gart him caw for a Scots Workers' Republic (in the rhetorical freits and laits o the times, raither nor aw raucle and John MacLean like; fowk was hingit for a lot less) but while the 1800s was the beginnin o the end o Kirk pousty that lichtified the maucht o the state, the tradition o absolute Presbyterianism didna dee wi the Killin Times, and Muir was just ane o the inheritors of thae traditions, that was the foonds o his republicanism.

Gin ye ging back forder til the actual Union, obviously the war the republican traditions that Fletcher o Saltoun pushed.
Again he featurs in maist 'gret man' stories, natheless it's kenspeckle that his "12 limitations"*1 (that catalysed the Act o Security, and the Act Anent Peace and War) was the inheritor o the tradition o contractual ("Covenanted") monarchy, and that was ane o the imperatives o Queen Anne *for* Union, tae caw this doon and stop siccan Republicanism fae the Scots parliamentars. Atweel, she was that fashed wi it (and its revolutionary potential), the English Government applied economic sanctions on Scotland, and the Croon wadna approve the Scots' Act o Security ava, and syne the Scots refused tae raise cesses, and ettled tae exit the Croon's war again Spaigne. This period twa-three year afore Union is aften seen as adae wi Jacobites, and syne Unionists aften dooblie peuthers that it was a proxy for the Protestant-Catholic kemp that caws a thrave o Unionist politics; in fact the Scots was gey and clair - while a Stuart King micht be sochten, they'd maun be a Protestant and they'd maun respect Presbyterian laits - they stipulatit in legislation that ye can google gin ye want! History shaws it had deil a thing tae dae wi yon Yoon obsession hooandever as the Act was aboot pittin in place a Protestant monarch, and de facto pittin an end tae the Union o the Croons, wi a Scots economic focus. That was the defence and security reason ahent the English drive for Union here-efter. They wadna coud tolerate sicna independent action, that coud aye end up wi Scotland bein uphauden fae ane o England's tradin unfreends, like the Netherlands, France or Spaigne.  The Act o Security doesna mess aboot tellin the Croon wha's tae be in chairge:

"And it is hereby expressly provided and declared that it shall be high treason for any person or persons to administer the coronation oath or be witnesses to the administration thereof but by the appointment of the estates of parliament in manner above-mentioned, or to own or acknowledge any person as king or queen of this realm, in the event of her majesty's death leaving heirs of her own body, until they have sworn the coronation oath and accepted the crown in the terms of the Claim of Right, and in the event of her majesty's death without heirs of her body, until they swear the coronation oath and accept on the terms of the Claim of Right, and of such other conditions of government as shall be settled in this or any ensuing parliament or added in the said meeting of estates and be thereupon declared and admitted as above, which crime shall be irremissible without consent of parliament." [http://www.rps.ac.uk/trans/1704/7/68]  But tae retour tae thae Orange Yoons wi their happy tunes - whit o the actual Covenanters that wasna drooned, shot or pit tae daith wi a sword? Weel this week the Scotosphere was proggit wi wittins o a kittle beuk, pitten thegither bi actual Covenanters aroond the time o the Union negotiations.

Whit the Covanters has tae say in the Smoaking Flax Unquenchable is this:-
They were again Union;

 

  They considered the Union no legal, and said they had annulled it;

 And that they cawed insteid for a Republic.
 

Noo it's weel seen that aw thir republicans and republican radicals didna beir the gree, and we're aye livin under this pretend democracy but the key preen that hauds aw thir chiels and their thochts, threips and adaes thegither is that contractual monarchy akin til republicanism gings fit for fit wi Presbyterianism. A body canna sinder the twa for tryin as ane (Scots Presbyterianism) is an intellectual strind comin oot o the tither (a revolution again an absolutist and tyrant monarchy, follaed bi anither ane aboot echty year syne), that ye can probably trace back til the maik o Duns Scotus and the Declaration o the Clergy*2 and syne Declaration o Arbroath. That's whitwey the Union o the Croons was necessar for wir Kings, that's whitwey the Anglo-Scottish Union was wrocht tae, acause it gied wir knabberie an inlat tae wrest the fang o pooer and pousty fae the Kirk, and that's whitwey thaim that contered the Union was aw o ae oo whan it cam tae contractual monarchy and Presbyterianism.

Deil a body in a democracy movement is that keen on howkin up anachronistic Presbyterian evangelism. That's no the pynt, but historicity is a gey and important thing. The stories we tell wirsels justifies and richtifies whit we dae theday. Gin it turns oot that the story sae dotit on bi sae monie o the yoons is waur nor a pawkie myth, but is in fact an utter utter lee, wabbit thegither tae deave the sackless fowk and twist the actions and ettles o fowk fae the bygane, whit than? Weel, it'll come as nae gret surprise for democrats tae ken that wir ill pairtit warld and this ill pairtit Union was wrocht bi thaim that wantit tae caw doon democracy, tae stell up monarchy, tae haud the stick ower the ordnar fowk wi mair cesses wi nae concern for their troke or sonse, and tae kep and crine the fang o political pousty for the institutions that stopped the warld gettin mair ill pairtit. That is the hale story o the Union and onie ettle tae stell it up wi convenient haivers aboot maintainin religion, or workin on some religio-moral mission is just tae claivers tae peuther the lugs of yoons.
-- *1: http://bit.ly/1S7Wu1N

*2: http://www.rps.ac.uk/search.php?a=fcf&fn=roberti_trans&id=284&t=trans

Why YES lost: a reply to Gerry Hassan's claims in the Daily Record

Gerry Hassan writes:-

• A second Scots indyref is likely but not inevitable. It will only happen when it is winnable, Yes is in a significant lead, and importantly, detailed work has been done to improve and make more credible than last time the indy offer. My Sunday column.(Gerry Hassan on a second independence referendum - 'A new vote on an independent Scotland must be economically honest - not based on fantasy oil prices writes GERRY HASSAN.')

  
  
• Nick Durie This is dishonest, and echoes the Unionist crowing with hindsight. The SNP's projected oil revenues relied on a price that was midway between the OBR projection and the Department for Energy and Climate Change projection. The Daily Record might lap up such Unionist sophistry but the facts say something different.

  
  
• Gerry Hassan Good to know you are thinking Nick; 'Unionist crowing' to point out as someone who voted Yes the limits of SNP indy offer and the complete lack of any post-indyref reappraisal. Yes lost and deserved to lose: welcome to reality.
  
  
  
• Nick Durie You didn't address my point.
  
• Nick Durie You claim that oil projections were a fantasy. Why were they less than those issued by the UK Department for Energy and Climate Change?
  
  
• Nick Durie The fact of the matter is that oil price projections were based on market trends and market fundamentals, and they did not anticipate that Saudi Arabia would flood the energy market to destabilise Russia and collapse US fracking. This was not something the British Government anticipated either, and claiming some kind of post facto foreknowledge while adopting an "It was rubbish" Unionist frame is not the same thing as providing a credible critque. Neither a Scottish currency, nor attempted accession to the Euro is without problems; furthermore neither of those two options does anything to reassure those worried that their savings and investments, denominated in Sterling, would be secure. That was afterall the whole point of the "You're not getting the Pound" frame - to terrorise that cohort that held savings and investments denominated in Sterling. Simply saying 'we won't have Sterling anymore' does not resolve or de-weaponise that attack line; it actually makes it stronger. People were not worried about the future of Sterling in Scotland because of some haivers about central banks. They were worried about their savings and investments.
• Gerry Hassan Everything about the economics of the indyref offer was a fantasy: oil price, economic projections, currency, Treasury/Bank of England straightjacket. And all only made sense in light of SNP leadership thinking they would lose and instead engage in a vote maximalisation strategy. Then late on they convinced themselves they could win.
  
• Nick Durie This is a media bubble argument which owes more to the self-congratulatory discourse of the Unionist commentariat than it does to any extant evidence. The currency strategy was determined by a council of economists, not politicians. The SNP chose simply to follow it; whether their political calculus determined it was good to follow it or not, that strategy was, as you know, written by some very globally notable economists. The oil price was essentially a UK government and Scottish government consensus. The shared central bank is a threat, a gun to the head of Whitehall, and a determination to give the spivs a golden bridge, rather than collapse the London banking centre by immediately denominating Scottish energy in another currency. To claim otherwise to any of that is to fail to engage with the evidence.
  
• Nick Durie "Yes lost and deserved to lose: welcome to reality."
  
  This assumes that the YES offer was why YES lost. I don't think that's particularly materialist. In many ways YES did deserve to lose, but I would argue it lost because the formal YES and SNP campaign concentrated on public relations and fought a very good election campaign, but the depth of citizen engagement with the issue left that approach looking top down and shallow. Citizens were interrogating the question with a zealous seriousness that is not analogous to an electoral cycle contest. The wider mass movement of the YES campaign came to understand that, and had to make up for the shortcomings of the offical and largely corporate style campaign. Consider how much more seriously the Wee Blue Book took the reader than the official YES literature, Your Future, which notionally filled the same role. The latter was put together by a PR company. The former was written in a referenced academic style where the reader could go and check the footnotes. Yet YES HQ reacted to these on the ground efforts with umbrage, and often deliberately sabotaged the logistics of the on the gound campaign, purely to maintain the PR voice of the campaign 
  
  [In one notorious particular instance of this YES' point man for 'organising' of the YES movement, Ross Greer, got into a fight of his choosing with a local YES campaign group because they were distributing leaflets advertising Scotland's most popular, and pro-independence, political news website Wings Over Scotland; YES HQ continued to oppose the distribution of the Wee Blue Book, also produced by Wings Over Scotland, despite activists finding both that this was the single most effective written introduction to the arguments for independence, and the widespread desire of local YES groups to get more serious and comprehensive literature to the switherin voters because of the feedback they had been getting from these voters.  It appeared that YES HQ ignored that feedback, because little was done to distribute non-PR based publications in this kind of format. 
  
  The pointless, and often apparently petulent, self-sabotaging of the actual YES movement by Ross Greer and others at YES HQ caused serious rifts within the campaign and damaged the credibility of the campaign centre among those it sought, wholly inexpertly, to direct.  We now know from Greer that this petulence from the centre went further, and that, without any accountability, disciplinary procedure or published code of conduct, Ross Greer and Jonathan Mackie operated personal blacklists of campaigners they personally didn't like; we will perhaps never know the extent of this practice, but it typifies the strained relationship between the failing campaign centre and the more successful huge movement that had built up often in despite of it.]. 
  
  To some extent the upbeat smugness of the PR campaign did however act as a late stage force multiplier on the late stage undecideds, but by this point the official campaign had already burnt many bridges with its actual on the ground logistics. It was the absence of these logistics that prevented YES from mobilising its own base, and saw many YES activists late on in the campaign do largely frivolous things. The infrastructure of the official campaign prattled on and castigated those people, but they were not plugged in to their official campaign precisely because it had been so incompetent at building and directing a peoples movement*, and had therefore totally lost the respect and capacity to mobilise its own potential logistics, nor did it have the vision to do so. This was why YES lost by 180,000 votes. It had little or nothing to do with the actual offer.
  
  *[At no point did the YES HQ employ or seek the advice of professional trade union or community organisers with experience of building mass movements; there were a number of such people involved in the grassroots of the YES campaign, many of them with decades of experience in trade union organising drives, or community coalition building.  Their skills were never called upon or utilised in any kind of systematic way.  For those who have seen the effects of a trade union or community organising drive with a staff led organising component, this seems a serious ommission, and perhaps explains why following campaign "launch" events drawing in hundreds of potential leaders. in major towns and cities, often nothing happened as a followup to engage with this base for 12 months or more.  The entire approach to the logistics of engagement played a less important role for Greer and others notionally tasked with organising the logistics, than the question of brand maintenance and PR, which in the end proved less significant to the result than the number of one to one conversations the actual movement was having, independent of any direction or cajoling from the YES centre, with undecided voters.]

Scottish Greens: From 'monetary' haivers to 'too wee, too poor, too stupid'

Green noteable Ross Greer responding to serious questions raised after Caroline Lucas MP voted
against Home Rule after "doing best to reflect views of colleagues in @scotgp @patrickharvie"

Today was the day that the Scottish Green Party policing of opposing Home Rule, and all that this fiscal conservatism implies in terms of enforcing austerity, came to the proper attention of the democracy movement.  This follows a vote earlier in the week in the House of Commons where Green MP Caroline Lucas voted with the Tories to defeat an SNP motion calling for the phased introduction of full taxation powers, which would have given Scotland Home Rule.

Months previously Scottish Green Party Convenor Patrick Harvie MSP had maundered in the National and for Commonspace on why the Greens (probably) opposed "Full Fiscal Autonomy."  However the use of the jargon and his non-committal 'this needs more work' style of delivery meant most activists and democracy supporters eyes glazed over before they could come to understand the implications of this apparently technical statement.

The Greens initial supposed point was that devolving control over taxation to Holyrood would leave us hostage to whatever the Bank of England decided to do about our currency and interest rates.  They made some rather curious points about an inability to borrow which need teasing out because they are utter haivers.

Giving Scotland full control over taxation would not, in and of itself, allow Scotland to borrow money.  The UK government issues debt by selling government bonds it creates which are called "gilts" (the UK has a funny special word for government bonds, which are basically government IOUs - which can themselves be bought and sold, or speculated on - because the UK is a fousty old empire and likes to have stupid words of its own for something every country does; they are no different from any other government bonds).  There are no proposals on the table or recently defeated proposals off the table to be able to allow Scotland to issue these "gilts" in its own name.

That *doesn't quite* mean Scotland can't borrow money tho.  The new Forth Brig has been financed by money from the "Scottish Futures Trust" (SFT), which is basically a series of loan deals between the Scottish government and individual private sector lenders, on negotiated terms.  These aren't government bonds tho, because they are specific to the projects, or bound by individual contractual arrangements, whereas bonds are a much more universal and therefore more 'liquid' asset.  The Scottish Government has been trying to create its own system of regular debt financing and bring these debts into a more regularised system of debt and interest along the lines of bonds markets.  That's what the whole SFT thing is about, and why it's not just a series of private finance deals.  But here is the rub, unless there is enough debt issued on behalf of the government, it is not possible for the government to treat this as a sustainable market for government finance in the way that UK gilts, or the more pedestrian (and less up itself) named US Treasury bonds are.  There needs to be enough IOUs floating around for international investors to care about or trade in them, and for a standardised rate of interest to emerge on what would then be effectively real Scottish Government bonds to emerge.  I.e. we do not need to access Westminster's gilt markets to issue government bonds on behalf of the Holyrood government, and do real government borrowing; it is simply a question of scale.  Roughly around £10billion needs to be issued in debts before there would be a secure market for Scottish government borrowing.  It wouldn't necessarily have the same rate of interest as UK government borrowing, but it would have *a* regular rate of interest, and it would allow us to *END AUSTERITY.*

The problem at the moment is that the Scottish Government's budget sits at about £30billion.  There is no collateral for the Scottish Government to issue that amount of debt.  However under Home Rule this position is reversed.  If we are able to access the money raised in Scotland, and spend it in Scotland (or on the 'shared services'/tribute payments towards our glorious Union), we would be able to establish a secure Scottish bonds market, and therefore be able to *completely end austerity*, within the Union.  The Scottish Green perspective that this is risky within a currency union and so forth omits that at the present moment our economy and society *is being destroyed* by Westminster's austerity programme.  The Greens position then starts to seem like an awfully theoretical splitting of hairs when action is needed now.  In effect voting against Home Rule amounts to voting for continuing austerity.  How is this preferable?  Any risk incurred through having a shared currency with Westminster is also a risk for the Whitehall state, and that also has the benefit of encouraging the British state to start to see Scotland as better off independent anyway.  This twiddling of thumbs while the children of benefit claimants starve was enough to send a snell scunner through the movement by itself, however in defending their dippit policy the Greens's leadership have been rather more revealing about their attitudes towards Scotland than perhaps they at first realise.

Cos obviously if we controlled our own taxes, and had the ability to
borrow they'd have to call in the IMF, right?  Is Patrick Harvie's
twitter account now being run by Peter Jones from the Scotsman?

When Greens like Ross Greer start to talk about *PHASED* tax devolution to Holyrood (which has all these advantages I've spelt out) as 'enforcing austerity' they start to sound very much like Labour, and one careerist Greer becomes another careerist Dugdale merging into a monotone cacophony of self-doubting cringing verbiage, straining to douse any last hope beneath a blah blah of identikit 'realism.' 

And yet the Greens are asking for SNP members to lend them their second vote in the forthcoming Holyrood elections on a constitutional change ticket?  Perhaps 'too wee, too poor, too stupid' is not quite the amazing chat up line it's cracked up to be?  Can someone tell the leader.  Under pressure to defend his party's vacuous policy of enforcing Tory spending at Holyrood to avoid 'risk,' Patrick Harvie let the mask slip. 

There is no doubt the many thousands of new members who joined the Greens in the aftermath of the referendum did so because the Greens were in favour of independence and autonomy for Scotland.  Perhaps it is time they started to rein in a leadership that seems on the face of it to have been exposed as preferring Unionist managerialism to real autonomy and broken down into a paroxysm of cringing at Scotland's economy.  The issues at stake - the lives of our poorest citizens - are too important to allow the Greens' feart managerialist leadership to allow our movement to fracture into self-defeating Scotch cringe and Unionism Lite posturing.  It is time they were called out for opposing democracy and autonomy by their own members.  Holyrood needs Home Rule, and we need to end austerity.  Trying to separate these immediate demands from the democracy struggle can only weaken our movement.

I have become the "unacceptable face" of Scottish nationalism

I have just had the bizarre and unexpected experience of becoming the unacceptable face of "Scottish nationalism."

If you have united Ross Greer and Stuart Campbell in condemnation of you it is worth taking a step back.

I am a little confused that journos from the mighty Daily Record consider my words so noteworthy they are worthy of retweeting, but for the record what I wrote was the following. (see right)

I am sorry if my intemperate tone has caused offence to the wrong parties.  Genuinely.  I am.  My intent was to communicate the following points.

1. The journalist Aidan Kerr was once considered a local stalwart of the forces of progressive social change, and democracy for Scotland.  He was elected leader of a student nationalist association.

2. As as insider Kerr developed a "map" - a picture of the social relationships, and the stories, anecdotes and power relationships between individuals within the democracy movement.

3. Kerr abandonned his apparently heartfelt beliefs when he became a professional journalist, and began writing scurrilous articles in support of the British establishment, for money.

4. This insider information, coupled with his willingness to surrender his principles for money has made Kerr dangerous.  The ultimate validation of this is the extent to which the Depute Editor for the Record is working his socks off to hype Kerr's output on social media.  People in the democracy movement should beware of such individuals, as they maintain links and sources of information, but they have no principles and are ultimately interested in money first and foremost.

This was the extent of my point.  Had I expressed it less trenchantly, or in the post modern 'ironic' way, I doubt very much the noble Aidan Kerr would be soliciting the views of the Green candidate for East Dunbartonshire.

Let me explain why I reacted so hostilely to Kerr's latest (now frontpage) attempts to troll for the Daily Record.

1. During the course of canvassing I have met a great many people who - as a result of the system of benefit sanctions Kerr, now a Unionist, upholds - could not feed their children.  In one discussion in Possil I met a woman with three kids who had not eaten in days, who was intent on voting NO, because in her eyes Scotland was worth nothing.  She voted YES, after I had spoken to her.  Her understanding of which parliament controlled which powers and who was enacting which policy was poor.  She had been reading the Unionist red top newspapers that Kerr now plies his trade for.  The same Unionism had handed down to her a benefit sanction of three months with no money, the cause of which she still did not know or understand.  Kerr has joined in this system of misinformation, exclusively for the money, against his previous principles.  Meantime in the month of August 2014 my residents association held a crisis meeting because over 600 people in my local area had relied on food parcels between April and May.  By October that number was up to 1000.  My community voted YES overwhelmingly, but people like Kerr changed their allegiance when the money flowed the right way.

I know how I feel about this.  It makes me intemperate and angry.  I refuse to apologise about being angry about such naked injustice, or towards those who can react dispassionately towards such evil and vindictive things, or ignore the causes of them, when Scotland's second largest red top flashes pound notes.

2. People like Kerr have deep roots, which they will use as contacts.  Kerr has his defenders in the movement, who will defend him every bit as vociferously as David Clegg.  Clegg now considers Kerr's attack pieces frontpage news.  Clegg's paper is one of the primary institutions upholding food poverty, reaction, and two faced concern for poverty.  Lots of pathos, with an exhortation to vote for monetarism.  Call me an extremist every bit as much as you like, but I personally consider that seedy in the extreme.

3. Which is worse - being an intemporate mouth on social media with an audience of a few hundred fellow travellers, or writing a scurrilous piece of divisive and disingenuous claptrap which enters the households of 300,000 Scots and tells them to know their place?

4. Ross Greer and Stuart Campbell united on the same side - can't be doing half bad, eh. ;p

So mea culpa, and I'm sorry for using the wrong tone, and being very shouty.  I am human and stupid.  But that doesn't mean we should be taken for fools.