A Sign on the Road


Andrew Bowie MSP has “edited” a “book” of essays; ‘Strength in Union: The Case for the United Kingdom’, under the auspices of the Centre of Policy Studies (CPS), a Conservative Party supporting operation founded by Sir Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher, that inflates its propagandist credentials into representing itself as a ‘centre right think-tank’ (a simple, unsubstantiated claim to impartial ‘think-tank’ status that effortlessly guarantees the hapless UK media will automatically treat its output as both forensic and thoroughly researched). The CPS has the central aim to further “enterprise, ownership and prosperity”. Hold that thought in mind.

According to the CPS, the Andrew Bowie “book” of essays is written by an “all-star” cast of mainly currently serving Conservative politicians, and well known right-wing casualties (one way or another) of the Johnson-ERG cabal. Few will have heard of most of the rest. The Alister Jack MP contribution is titled ‘Union is Strength’; a motto taken from the Glasgow Trades House, which was founded in 1605; over a century before the Union to which Jack refers endlessly, even existed. Jack’s casual borrowing of the term ‘Union is Strength’, out of its context, but using it as a kind of ‘portamenteau’, as if the underlying idea may be treated like a postage stamp, easily affixed to anything that takes his fancy; provides a clue to both the quality of the thought we are being offered, and the level of forensic curiosity to the history that supports the flaccid thesis of the essay.

For Jack ‘Scotland’ scarcely exists at all. There are no borders within Britain, merely “regional variations” we can “celebrate”; variations that are typically characterised as “a rich tapestry of dialects” or “local delicacies”, as Jack moves seamlessly into the territory of 1960s newspaper holiday supplements. He is selling us old-fashioned sunny uplands, just as the UK enters a winter ice storm, and still in the midst of an airily sidelined but yet unresolved and hideous pandemic. Jack’s idea of variant regional ‘celebrations’ also simultaneously, and silently sidelines Britain’s current chilly discussions with the EU over the Northern Ireland Protocol. There is not much to celebrate there. In Jack’s essay there is nothing difficult or indelicate that he cares to contemplate, or need bother us in Scotland; because – as we saw – all the terms he uses, the fuzzy holiday images of life (in lieu of a ‘real world’ that remains uninvited throughout – like a Stephen Kerr MSP tweet), are all mere postage stamps: you just choose what to post, and where you wish to post them.

Accordingly, in Jack’s faux-Scotland, the Scottish border is merely a sign on the road; “little more than a sign that people pass daily”. We may wish to observe that signs on our route are there because they serve really important purposes, not least when we are lost; and if we follow Alister Jack, we will be lost soon enough. Signs tell you where you are going; but like everything else that is important, the significance and meaning of a ‘sign’ evades Jack; after all, he doesn’t need them, he knows he is going nowhere.

The Scottish border in fact defines a different legal territory. Jack’s “one nation” border-free Unionism implies, however that we should perhaps now seriously contemplate whether we should worry even that the future of the Scottish legal system is now subject to being overturned by Westminster. After all, what does Jack’s declaimed “one nation”, and emphatically, insistently not “four” nations, actually mean? Is it, like so much that wafts from Conservative-Unionism, literally meaningless?

In the Scotland Jack defines in his essay, Scots Law is presumably superfluous. After all, we already know the power of Westminster is absolute. Certainly there is absolutely nothing in the Treaty of Union that cannot be extinguished by Westminster; including the Law of Scotland. Perhaps Scottish property owners should now consider their standing, or at least the standing of their property. Jack scarcely offers any serious reason to believe that he would be in the last ditch to defend the remaining Scottish Institutions and Rights protected by the 1707 Union if Westminster decided in its sole discretion to extinguish them; a last ditch we now appear to be inevitably moving towards. That is the substantive meaning of what Jack writes, if it means anything at all.

Jack inadvertently reminds us that the biggest threat to Scotland is to the independence the Scots Commissioners successfully negotiated within the Union in 1707, an independence much reduced by the attrition of the march of British Unionism over the years, and the sub-text of Imperialism that inspired Scottish Unionism, until brought to an abrupt end by two World Wars; but a residual independence that nevertheless still exists. That is the greatest, most immediate and direct threat to modern Scotland: the threat of modern Scottish Conservative Unionism (the Janus-face of Whiggism sans Empire), in coalition with Anglo-British Conservative Brexit Unionism; a Unionism that demands more power, the smaller more insular and insecure Britain inevitably becomes; this is shrink-wrap Unionism. Brexit was merely the starter; the British Unionist ‘amuse bouche’. British Brexit-Unionism is an overweight Gillray trencherman that has now ordered the full multi-course, à la carte menu. He will devour the lot.

Remember “enterprise, ownership and prosperity”? We will see below how British Brexit Unionism seeks to prioritise “enterprise” and “ownership”, but the “prosperity” part is more ambiguous and elusive for Conservative-Unionism. We may ask, whose “prosperity” precisely, for it is obvious that by no means everyone has prospered in Britain, as the ‘Red Wall’ testifies and Scotland confirms? Too many have suffered. We can see this fact – both acknowledged and denied – by Boris Johnson himself; by Brexit-Unionism’s ‘Build Back Better’, a deliberate, calculatedly vacuous Conservative-Unionist slogan of an ‘apple pie and motherhood’ kind, but re-packaged for a hard-nosed neoliberal, 21st century audience; produced and widely propagandised precisely because ”prosperity” is a permanent neoliberal problem, ever searching for the latest forgetful excuse; a sloganised-non-solution that means almost nothing: for if ‘Better’ meant anything at all, it is merely to remind us that the solution can only arise from a past that was somehow ‘worse’. Who allowed the ‘worse’ to happen? Who is in charge? Who has been in charge? Who has been in Government for the last eleven years? More precisely, if we wish to identify the principal culprit; the Conservatives, who have been governing the precious Union for no less than 48, out of the 76 years since World War II; Unionism has been in Government for 76 years since WWII, and Conservative-Unionism has been in Government for almost two-thirds of that time. The “worse”, the lack of general prosperity in the midst of great wealth is thus principally the Conservative show, the consequence of Conservative-Unionism; their responsibility.

Why should anyone believe them now? No reason at all. Even Boris Johnson rejects the Conservative-Unionist past; a rejection that is as meaningless as the slogan itself: “I stood on the steps of Downing Street I promised to fix this crisis …. after decades of drift and dither”. Drift and dither in which he confesses, older people “face total destitution in this brutal lottery of old age”; and yet suddenly, out of the blue; “we are embarking now on a change of direction that has been long overdue in the UK economy we are not going back to the same old broken model with low wages low growth low skills and low productivity” (excerpts, Manchester Conference speech). But I assure you; whatever Johnson says or claims, it will be high Austerity that Conservative-Unionism intends to deliver.

Johnson should know who is responsible for the failure of “prosperity”. Alister Jack should know; they were, after all up to their eyes in the drift and dither. The Conservative-Unionist solution to the problem is singular; the ditherers should stay in charge, presumably because of their first-rate record of drift. Now, we are supposed to believe, they will change it all, specifically by ending what Johnson terms “uncontrolled immigration”, only because that plays well to the Brexit ideologues; not because immigration is uncontrolled, but because it is immigration. The British government failure of control immigration was not driven by the EU: “Non-EU citizens made up 44% of all immigrants in 2015, a reduction from the highest proportion of non-EU immigrants (69%) seen in 2002” (ONS). Control of immigration has not been pursued by Britain, irrespective of its EU membership; which makes ‘control’ a mere – and feeble – excuse. Uncontrolled immigration has been an enduring Conservative policy throughout. They have never done anything about it. Brexit was not its cure, nor could it be.

Throughout ‘Strength in Union’ there are over seventy references to the EU; I could not find a single direct reference to the term “immigration”. For Scottish Conservative-Unionism real problems simply do not exist; they are simply purged, excised from discussion. Here is the closest reference I could find, and it was by Alister Jack:

“Brexit is now firmly in the rearview mirror. Of course, any change on the scale of our departure from the EU was always going to present difficulties, and some of them reverberate still. That said, the problems are dissipating thanks to hard work from government and business in partnership and I firmly believe that, with the perspective of time, Brexit will come to be seen to be, at heart, a readjustment of trading regulations”.

Well, that’s alright then, we don’t do immigration, we do a readjustment of trading regulations, which could however refer to anything at all; nothing to see here, move along please. Even the Oracle at Delphi allowed more candour. The Scotland of Alister Jack remains in a permanent state of Conservative Brigadoonism.

What should concern Jack is Scotland’s serious demographic predicament, given the supposed new Conservative-Unionist immigration policy. The base birth rate in Scotland, 2019 was 9.1 per thousand; down from 10.4 in 2000, and 20 in 1964. Scotland is growing old and failing even to replace its population, without immigration. Conservative-Unionist immigration policy, if executed will simply decimate Scotland. We are, however in reality more likely to see more of the same uncontrolled immigration that has been the norm, but from beyond the EU, and without access to the Single Market or Customs Union; and without Scotland resolving its acute demographic problem, because even with the immigration policies of the past Scotland’s demographic problem remains; that is the real nature of British Brexit Conservative-Unionism. Scotland is slowly disappearing under Conservative-Unionism.

The minor public media interest stimulated by Jack’s essay has dwelt over-much on the trope of ‘road signs’ discussed above. This is not, however the most revealing insight into Jack’s hackneyed ideas. He writes:

“The great hunt these days is for a unicorn firm, technically a private start-up business that goes on to be valued at over $1 billion. If you like this sort of thing, variants include a decacorn, valued at over $10bn, and a hectocorn, valued at over $100bn. Rare beasts indeed but, in common with more modest ventures, they require the correct conditions in which to flourish. That’s where government comes in, providing a stable and transparent regulatory and taxation regime”.

This is the only part of the essay where Jack’s anodyne writing becomes energised. This, he believes in.

Jack believes in Unicorns; let me be clear, “where government comes in” is in order to chase Unicorns.

This is government in action, government galvanised; a rarity in a world of small-government neoliberalism, and self-regulating markets. Think about it. Even Jack thinks that may need some regulation. This is virtually the only place where stability, regulation and taxation are suggested, as current, active Government achievements in the essay. What does Jack know, or care about regulation? Not much if we follow his defence of the Government’s understanding of business and its needs, which he characterises in this way, in opposition to those who consider: “commerce is a dangerous beast best isolated in a thicket of petty red tape, or that every firm is a dripping roast for avaricious tax collectors”. This does not bode well for regulatory supervision, since ‘red tape’ is the easiest tabloid assault that may be whipped-up by Conservative-Unionist Governments ever eager to stand firmly against any business regulation of any kind, known to man. We may well wonder then, how stability and regulation is being delivered? Astonishingly Jack offers as his answer, this: “Look at how the UK Internal Market (UKIM) Act delivered exactly the stability needed as the transition period for our EU departure came to an end.” Dwell on that evidence-free assertion for a moment; for Jack offers that observation only because it provides a snapshot that omits the central feature of an active market economy: time. I do not think I have seen before such a lame defence of a government that is currently ‘standing around with its hands in its pockets’, as a crisis of consequential supply chains unfolds, in part through Brexit; and drift and dither being characterised quite so casually as dynamic Government activity.

Here is Jackian ‘stability’ from the other side of the room, in the real world: empty shelves, chronic or endemic labour shortages, supply-chain failures, rising prices; sharply rising taxes established before the pandemic is known to be over; cuts in universal credit for the working low-paid, disabled and unemployed as the crisis deepens; collapsing energy firms, high energy-using companies threatened with closure, consumers under severe energy cost pressures. The British Government is not delivering stability; that is just a basic fact.

Notice how the British Government is trying to sweep all the cumulative problems of Brexit, the ten year disaster of Austerity and of Covid itself; all gathered together, packaged and politically securitised – the biggest Political Default Swap in history; under the enveloping catch-all responsibility of the ‘Pandemic’ crisis; which the Government then triumphs over by the mere act of claiming a “Victory”. The crisis is over, the war is won; terminate the help for those in difficulty, pass the buck to Rishi Sunak, and return to Austerity as fast as possible. It is the classic response of Neoliberalism. It never works; but never has victory been so easily and falsely declared. The trick is to deflect public attention from the problem. What Jack does not explain is how the stability and regulation, beyond vague generalities, is actually to be achieved in the middle of a real unfolding crisis, which cannot so easily be securitised and sold off to mugs, but could destroy people’s lives or livelihoods, like the CDS carnage in 2007 that announced to the world the Financial Crash.

Jack’s sole appeal to intellectual support for his loose, discursive thought, is to the conventional tropes of Mankiw’s economics. Jack appears never to have read Morris Copeland, or his modern successors, at last representing a movement aspiring to transform the antiquated and failing superstructure of academic economics, through the modern critical study of ‘money and banking’. The history and evolution of new economic thought, rooted in the methods of experimental science; offering more rigorous standards of evidence, over the scholastic eccentricities of ‘a priori’ abstraction, deductive theorising, and the rhetorical language and political cunning of social exploitation, together masquerading as the tradition of ‘individual rights’; that has most forcefully represented, and propagandised the defective ideas of Neoliberalism to the world. The new approach is not conventional neoliberal economic theory; which does not adequately account for the motor of all economic activity: money. Oddly, ‘money’ has never been central to neoclassical or neoliberal economics.

We can, frankly ill-afford to see the continuation of the politics of important issues discussed in the complacent, casual and perfunctory, absent-minded form demonstrated by Jack’s essay.



See also Gerry Hassan’s book review here.


Help to support independent Scottish journalism by subscribing or donating today.


Comments (27)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Squigglypen says:

    Excellent article but I doubt Westmobster will understand it…too busy ‘building back better’ cos last time was a disaster….like’ better together’ ( ie only the English that is..not the other savages elsewhere on this sceptred isle where those feet( that would be Jesus) walked upon…..They probably think they can turn back the tide…..think they tried that before….

    Time the Scots and the other two nations inflicted with this mean spirited little nation scarpered. Your admirable words will mean zilch to them.

  2. Academic says:

    Tried to locate the university degree Mr Jack attained at Herriot Watt univestisty where he is recorded as having been educated (after prep school and Glenalmond). No subject or degree attained listed and not mentioned as a notable alumni. So, going by the flabbiness of the truly shallow arguments in his essay we can conclude that this son of a Lord Liutenant to the Queen and owner of a large part of Dumfrieshire is perhaps good at making money for himself but less so in the academic, deep thinking department. It’s not for everyone, university, but publishing under a so caĺled ‘think tank’ does perhaps imply some level of depth of thought not shown or demo strated in his ‘essay’. I require substantially more rigour from my undergraduate students than evidenced in the essay. And they often demonstrate higher standards than Mr Jack’s essay. He must try harder. The academic decision on this would undoubtedly be ‘Fail and reassess’.

    1. Tom Ultuous says:

      Sent down for cheating IMVHO.

  3. Robbie says:

    Yes I enjoyed this article too, Liked your reply Squigglypen.

  4. Stephen Cowley says:

    The demographic issue can only be remedied by pro-family policies, particularly living wages for families with children. Uncontrolled immigration is opposed by around 70% of the Scottish public.

    1. Jim Sanabury says:

      Uncontrolled immigration is opposed by around 70% of the Scottish public.
      Link Please.

    2. Jim Sansbury says:

      “Uncontrolled immigration is opposed by around 70% of the Scottish public.”
      Please provide a link to this.

      1. Stephen Cowley says:

        There are a number of recent opinion surveys which you can easily track down on google or the BBC website.

        1. John S Warren says:

          Mr Cowley,

          1. “The demographic issue can only be remedied by pro-family policies, particularly living wages for families with children.”

          You have provided no source or evidence to show that your statement ensures a ‘remedy’. In fact the case is arguable; it is called the economic paradox of affluence. Birth rates are falling in developed countires (and even China, which has long tried draconian methods of suppression to cut population growth, now finds that aflluence is more – perhaps too effective). For the difficulties of your case there is a wealth of sources. Taking merely one short summary of the issues as an example: “Developed countries tend to have a lower fertility rate due to lifestyle choices associated with economic affluence” (G Nagrund, ‘Declining birth rate in Developed Countries’; Pup Med Central, in ‘Facts Views Vis Obgyn’. 2009; 1(3): 191–193.)

          For China, this excerpt: “China’s population will start to decline in the coming decade and will likely continue down for the rest of this century. According to Ning Jishe, head of the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), China’s total fertility rate — the number of children a woman will have over her lifetime — is now only 1.3. This is the lowest among countries with similar incomes and well below the 2.1 needed to sustain a stable population …… The authorities reacted to the latest census data by further relaxing its family policy, allowing three children per couple, and promised supportive approaches to convince couples to have more children. Though measures such as baby bonuses, tax credits, better childcare support and fighting workplace discrimination may help, few countries in similar circumstances in the past have seen a major rebound in fertility.” (B Hofman, ‘China’s new population numbers won’t doom its growth’; East Asia Forum, 7th June, 2021).

          I make no claim to the decisiveness of the evidence, but I suggest that, in order to help readers understand your case, you provide your sources and your audit trail to some substantive evidence.

          2. You made a case based on the opinion of around “70%” of the Scottish population. It is no answer to a request by a reader for your source, to tell him to do the research for you; and undermines the authority of your argument, and your persuasiveness as a commenter to answer in such a casual and dimissive way.

          1. Stephen Cowley says:

            1. I have limited knowledge of causation around birth rates and appreciate the information. The birth rates in Hungary and Poland increased in the wake of pro-family policies in those countries post-2015, but the increase (from around 9 to 10 per thousand) was short-lived. Marriages also increased. So the issue seems more complex than I imagined. It is sometimes reckoned a Left-Right issue, but the Social Democrats in Denmark have adopted a stance formerly associated with the European right and German left politician Sahra Wagenknecht has recognised it as a problem for working class communities who are affected by issues of social cohesion.
            2. The BBC report on the British Social Attitudes Survey (2013) said “78% of people in England thought the number of immigrants to Britain should be reduced and gave a figure for Scotland of 69%.” The Migration Observatory report on Scotland (2014) says: “A majority in Scotland (58%) support reduced immigration to Scotland” and “Scotland shows widespread opposition to illegal immigration: even among those who do not wish to see immigration to Scotland reduced overall, a large majority (74%) still prefer less illegal immigration.” Ok, that’s not the same as “uncontrolled” – I was copying a phrase from the article and writing from memory. This comments section apparently does not allow hyperlinks.

          2. Stephen Cowley says:

            Oops, my remark about Denmark and the rest of that paragraph relates to immigration, not birth rates.

        2. Jim Sansbury says:

          As you used the figure of 70% in your comment, it is down to you to provide the link to back it up.
          Otherwise I can only assume youre making it up.

          1. Stephen Cowley says:

            I tried to post links, but apparently they are not allowed in this comments section. The precise phrase is mine, but it easy to find figures of from 58% to 70% of opposition to various forms of immigration from Scottish opinion surveys.

        3. John S Warren says:

          An inability to post a link is not an inability to post a source. I have just illustrated with some examples. Show your evidence. It is a simple request, because it is the essence of knowledge – rather than mere propaganda.

          1. John S Warren says:

            Mr Cowley,

            Allow me to spell out how this looks to your reader. You make a statement about the opinion of 70% of the Scottish population. The reader wants to see the evidence for the claim, and is entled to expect that the person making the claim provides the evidence. Pressed on the matter we are still not given the sources. We are now told the evidence is 58%-70%. So not certainly 70% any more. Perhaps somewhere betweeen? The reader then wishes to know who conducted the Opinion Poll. Are they auhoritative pollsters? Would an impartial reader believe any of them? Does the Poll source stand up to proper independent scrutiny?

            Given this run around just to find out who they are does precisely nothing for the credibility of your claim. I should not need to write something like this, that is quite so obvious.

          2. Stephen Cowley says:

            Fair point. I have posted my answer above.

          3. John S Warren says:

            Thank you for your candour and your engagement with the issue Mr Cowley.

            Such responses advance understanding. Few people would publicly support “illegal” anything; and “uncontrolled”, suggests ‘out of control’, which will not engage general wide support. At the same time, the facts are that Britain, quite calculatedly has not controlled immigration not because of the EU, but because it has not wanted to control immigration, although British Governments rhetorically wish simply to deny this is the case (how could a ruling British Party confess such a policy?).

            If you examine the ONS immigration statistics, net or gross since 1975 (just after joining the EU); non-EU gross immigration has sometimes been 50% of total immigration to the UK, or more. The rules of free movement do not allow extensive control of EU immigration for members; but given UK birth rates and the nature of the UK economy the EU has been an important source of both population and labour availability (note seasonal labour which is hard to source anywhere else). There has been ample opportunity for Britain over almost 50 years within the EU to exert a measure of control over non-EU immigration if the UK had been inclined. It hasn’t, and it has never invested in the Border resources required to do so.

            Notice also that the UK’s longstanding immigration policy has been so unfocused it has done nothing to address Scotland’s serious demographic problem, which would require tailored solutions that ‘one nation’ Conservatism is simply incapable of addressing or managing; purely for ideological reasons of profound inadequacy to face the predicaments of our time.

    3. H Scott says:

      Stephen, I would say ‘best’ remedied by pro-family policies rather than ‘only’ remedied. For a nominally nationalist party/government it’s remarkable that no effort is made by the SNP to encourage Scots to have more children.

      1. Jim Sansbury says:

        What is this? China??

        1. Hamish Scott says:


      2. Mons Meg says:

        You mean ‘native’ Scots, of course, H; oor ain folk.

        I’m more comfortable with the current policy of making Scotland a place where people can and want to come to live and work and raise their children.

        Increase opportunity by offering better wages, housing, health care, education, personal and social security, etc., and workers will come to swell the Scottish population and create the wealth we need to pay for that better housing, health care, education, and security, etc.

        1. Hamish Scott says:

          No, I don’t mean ‘native’ Scots, I mean Scots.

  5. Jim Sansbury says:

    Bowies contribution is pure rose coloured glasses whimsy.
    Most of the rest seems to be English Tory MP’s telling Scotland whats best for it.

  6. Wul says:

    Whether Scotland exists or not seems to be a central tenet of both “sides” of the independence debate. Living here, under different legal, education, police and health systems to England, I believe Scotland does exist.

    Why would some people who live here not want Scotland to exist? Why would our neighbours, who rule us (better together) from London, not want us to exist? If someone doesn’t want you or your country to exist do they have your best interests at heart?

    1. Mons Meg says:

      No one denies that ‘Scotland’ exists.

      The constitutional dispute consists in what ‘Scotland’ exists – or should exist – AS. Should it exist as a constituent nation of the UK, as an independent sovereign nation separate from the UK, as a subsidiary of smaller independent sovereign communities, or what?

      There’s also the more fundamental ‘existential’ dispute as to whether, regardless of how it’s constituted, ‘Scotland’ exists – or should exist – as an ethnic nation (based on bloodlines, language, cultural tradition, history, and/or etc.) or as a civic nation (based on nothing more than shared citizenship, irrespective of one’s racial or cultural heritage).

      It’s more than just a question of ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

  7. Wul says:

    “Who allowed the ‘worse’ to happen? Who is in charge? Who has been in charge? Who has been in Government for the last eleven years?”
    Why don’t I hear opposition politicians and news journalists asking these questions every single day of Tory politicians?

    “Uncontrolled immigration has been an enduring Conservative policy throughout. They have never done anything about it.”
    Why isn’t this fact forcibly made by news journalists every time a Tory talks about immigration as a problem?

    I can’t fathom why the patent horseshit that emanates from Tory politicians and cabinet ministers is not strongly rebutted by the SNP and Labour. The facts are clear and Tory lies so easy to expose. Why does this not happen more often?

    And the biggest lie of all; that the Tories are the more thrifty housekeepers of public spending, is utter nonsense. Why doesn’t everyone know this (including the useless journalist who interview government spokespeople) ?

    Richard Murphy on the “Full Fact” web site:

    “Overall since 1946 and through to the end of the 2019/19 financial year Labour has been, overall, in office for 28 years and the Tories for 45.
    In that time according to the House of Commons Library net total government borrowing has been £1,618 billion: £155 billion of borrowing predated that period, most paying for WW2.
    Of that sum 67.5%, or £1.092 billion was borrowed by the Tories. 32.5% or £526 billion was borrowed by Labour.
    The Tories have been in office for longer, of course. Restated per year the Tories have borrowed £24.3 billion a year on average in historic prices.
    Labour has borrowed £18.8 billion a year on average.
    Labour repaid debt in 7 years. The Tories in just 4.
    In current prices Labour has borrowed approximately £28 billion a year and the Tories £33.6 billion.
    The Tories are always the party that borrows most. “

    1. George S Gordon says:

      Richard Murphy made those points to counter a myth about Labour’s profligacy.

      He would agree that the need to borrow is also a myth.

      UK Government spending is not funded from taxes and borrowing – it’s a myth!

      Please read the Deficit Myth by Stephanie Kelton.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.