tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post36169192519123704..comments2024-03-26T09:38:39.888+00:00Comments on Borthlas: Chancellor admits independence affordableJohn Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-5507411983140522362020-03-14T12:45:38.158+00:002020-03-14T12:45:38.158+00:00”Who cares if independence is unaffordable” That’...<i>”Who cares if independence is unaffordable”</i> That’s almost a very good question. ‘Affordability’ is a silly criterion to apply to independence; actual existing states don’t ever ask whether they can ‘afford’ to continue to be states or not, so why should those arguing for independence have to answer such a silly question? Any and every country can ‘afford’ to be independent; the question is more to do with the consequences which flow from that. However, <i>” ... this has never been a central question”</i> suggests that you haven’t been paying attention. It is regularly thrown up as an obstacle to independence by people who, like yourself, don’t really care about the answer anyway, they just need a fig-leaf to avoid having to explain why they consider that <i>”Independence is unattractive, unenviable, unwarranted and unwanted”</i>, a belief which they are unable or unwilling to explain, perhaps because it’s so often based on an antipathy to all things Welsh, and a deep-seated Anglo-British nationalism which they are unable to acknowledge. Claiming that independence is ‘impossible’ on economic grounds is so much easier than expressing or explaining their true beliefs. Whether those of us who support independence should even bother to engage with such a silly argument as ‘affordability’ is a moot point; but the problem is that a lot of people who perhaps haven’t really thought about the issue at all believe the ‘unaffordable’ headlines.<br /><br /><i>”Solve these conundrums and independence could well become a reality!”</i> Whether ‘solving’ them is possible or not depends on the basis for these attitudes. If they’re based on some sort of analysis (with or without an economic element), then dealing with the detail of that analysis can change opinion. But there’s no hope of changing the minds of those whose attitudes are based solely on prejudice.<br /><br /><i>”(ps. amused to see 'experts on covid-19' now being criticized by 'other experts' ... Michael Gove was right all along!)”</i> Now you’re just being silly. The nature of ‘expertise’ is that ‘experts’ often disagree – that is how knowledge develops over time. ‘Michael Gove’ and ‘right’ are not words which belong in the same sentence.John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-10879317618496809822020-03-14T11:31:38.120+00:002020-03-14T11:31:38.120+00:00Who cares if independence is unaffordable ... this...Who cares if independence is unaffordable ... this has never been a central question.<br /><br />Independence is unattractive, unenviable, unwarranted and unwanted.<br /><br />Solve these conundrums and independence could well become a reality!<br /><br />(ps. amused to see 'experts on covid-19' now being criticized by 'other experts' ... Michael Gove was right all along!) <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-27132494909999840132020-03-12T16:52:31.420+00:002020-03-12T16:52:31.420+00:00I don't exactly disagree with the point you ma...I don't exactly disagree with the point you make here, but I'm not sure that it's entirely relevant to the point I was making. I'm merely pointing out that a government which has been saying for the last ten years that it could not spend money which it did not match by taxation over a fairly short term has now admitted that it was, in fact, talking absolute nonsense; governments can, in practice, run a permanent deficit, and that admission blows a big hole in the unionist argument against independence. <br /><br />Your point, I think, is that the increase in expenditure puts public money in private hands, and in a way which is not shared fairly, giving disproportionate benefit to those who already own the most. But I don't see how following a policy of austerity and spending only £x billion is much different from splashing the cash and epsnding £2x billion, other than in scale - the problem arises from the way in which the economy works rather than as a result of spending policy. Addressing the problems you describe is required either way.John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-62783192814315686692020-03-12T14:36:11.935+00:002020-03-12T14:36:11.935+00:00I think we've touched on this apparent change ...I think we've touched on this apparent change of direction on an earlier occasion. My view for what it's worth is that this is a continuation of the same undisclosed policy/ strategy which is all about transferring public sector resources and funds into the hands of private individuals and corporations, who are already seriously wealthy as they have benefitted from the "tilting of the table" over the last decade or more.This scam has gone on for decades, was possibly at its most transparent when Brown bailed out the banks and institutions, and will go on in an evolving shape and form. All this "investment" in infrastructure etc will be done at inflated prices which will enable corporates to continue paying themselves grossly inflated salaries and pay divis to their shareholders while other bits of the public service arena will suffer stagnation and maybe further decline.dafishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04216920242825385976noreply@blogger.com