The Economics of Yes
The YES campaign can win the emotional vote for Independence. It will never win the economic vote as long as it continues to play to the rules of the British Establishment and the City of London. Nor should it.
As the NO people say, what is the point of separation if everything is to remain the same?
The stagnant wilderness of the UK economy is entirely due to the collapse of its mystic banking system. If the money which is the means of exchange in any civilised State is corrupted then the economy will either die or return to barter. That is already happening in Greece and is under way elsewhere.
It is well known within the upper echelon of financial circles that the nature of this type of banking system renders it vulnerable to domino style chain reaction leading to collapse. Nor is that any secret within the ruling ‘Establishment’ which maintains the Westminster style of democratic government in power.
It is however a closed book to the vast bulk of politicians who have nodded their heads to five years of taxpayer bailouts and money printing programmes to ‘support’ the banking system. It is the Establishment which devised this rescue package and threatened the politicians with chaos if they did not back it.
This is very much the flavour of the economic argument against independence and the Establishment will win if ordinary people do not demand more of their politicians. When for example, did you last hear a rational argument for dealing with the banking crisis or for managing the economy on a full employment basis rather than an endless diet of cuts and austerity?
Such alternatives seldom see the light of day and if they are granted an airing on the Establishment media they are dismissed or ridiculed on the assumption that the audience would not understand ‘the important issues’. For instance.
I trained as a chartered accountant in Glasgow and then went into the manufacturing and construction industries. I have firsthand experience of business success and failure. I do not believe the banks should have been bailed out. They should have been placed into administration like any other insolvent private company and the Administrators would have ensured the continuity of the retail banking and payment system. The toxic assets would have been offered for sale or written off. Today we would have been long back to pre-crisis conditions in the domestic economy.
In turn that would have focused public attention to the demise of the Building Societies which used to supply virtually 100% of our mortgages and indeed 75% of the Nation’s entire supply of money. Ordinary people might well begin to ask questions like –“Why were the banks allowed to take over the Mutuals?” Indeed, people might begin to question how these institutions which were entirely funded by pensions and savings, were bought over using bank debt guaranteed by those same taxpayers?
From there it is but a short step to taking a fresh look at how the economy is financed and in whose interest. Now that is a question a lot of Scots might like to put to the politicians of both Campaigns. It would reinvigorate this final year to debate such issues outside an agenda set by the Establishment. Of course oil is a bonus and not forever, but an honest banking system would regenerate every nut and bolt of the economy.
Is not that the kind of change we need to be talking about? It is certainly the kind of change which would win the economic Yes vote.
So next time those responsible for inviting the panels of academic economists, financial experts and those politicians in whom we have invested our trust, try and make room for some alternative views on what is important bout independence. Wee Patrick Harvey may appear a bit scruffy, but to those with an open mind, he usually makes more sense than the rest put together.