The Reference Library

[the-reference-library]

WOULD SCOTLAND BE ABLE TO LEAVE THE UK AND THEN JOIN THE EU IN 9 YEARS?

On this, I think it’s highly unlikely to occur in the timeframe given. For several reasons, I don’t think it’s realistic for Scotland to secede, and then join the EU, in 9 years.

For that, thanks goes to Brexit.

Two important dates: March 2016 and January 1st 2021.

Firstly, prior to the 2014 referendum, the Nationalists proposed a date of March 2016 to secede.

Secondly, today - the end completion of Brexit five-and-a-half years after Cameron’s majority in 2015.

Brexit has demonstrated many things, primarily that splitting unions is not easy. The UKs membership of the EU was 47 years and by the end it was not at the heart of the EU. The Union has existed for over 300 as a unitary state.

Dividing a unitary state, like the UK, will not be easy. Frankly, it will make Brexit look simple. Questions of debt, currency, defence, and more will need to be resolved ... something not addressed with Brexit.

Starting with debt. Scotland will end up with its proportionate share of the UKs national debt. It’s not credible to suggest otherwise. Negotiating what is proportionate won’t be easy when both sides disagree.

It’s importance will be seen shortly.

Secondly, currency. The Nationalists lack a credible currency policy. Sterlingisation or a monetary union are not credible, especially when the rest of the UK, as it did in 2014, is opposed to a formal monetary union.

Again, it’s importance will be clear shortly.

Thirdly, the border. Secession will end the status quo, meaning a real, hard border between Gretna and Berwick. As the Nationalists want to join the EU, there’s no avoiding that there will be a modern, hard border for the first time in the history of the British Isles.

Unless a separate Scotland were to form a customs and regulatory union post, independence, the border cannot be negotiated away or fudged. To suggest otherwise is not credible.

All this suggests any secession negotiation would be long, hard, and emotional.

The Nationalists’ original plan for a secession vote to be achieved in 2 years is neither realistic, nor credible. If Brexit took 4.5 years, secession will take much longer.

Then there’s joining the EU. Given Scotland’s position post-secession, it’s not as simple as ordering something from Amazon. It will not be a quick process.

A separate Scotland’s debt and currency problem will ensure it isn’t quick. With a debt-to-GDP level and budgetary deficits more than likely to be well above the convergence criteria, it’s hard to see membership discussions beginning until after a protracted period of austerity.

Austerity that, might I add, will disproportionately affect the poor and disadvantaged who have already been neglected by the Nationalists.

Free uni tuition, for example, will most likely end to get the deficit under 3% of GDP.

The SNPs lack of a currency policy will not be survive first contact with the accession. The Copenhagen Criteria are clear: new member-states must apply the existing treaties - which include the Euro.

Keeping the pound in any way would not be possible. At all.

The UKs opt-out no longer exists and a separate Scotland would have no claim to it.

With every EU MS since Maastricht either legally obliged, making preparations to, or already having joined the Euro, Scotland would not be able to avoid it. After all, it would agree to join.

Secondly, the border. While Brexit did touch on the border, it has shown how the EU value maintaining their constitutional order.

The trade frictions the SNP decry and being ruinous for Scotland’s trade with the EU (~18%) will apply to the majority of its trade (~60%). Scotland would have to police its, and the EUs, border from day one of EU membership. EU CU and SM checks will have to be applied.

Like the Euro, Schengen is unavoidable and the opt-out no longer exists.

This makes maintaining the CTA much more difficult. Especially if a secession agreement has a poison pill for the event a separate Scotland signs an agreement incomparable with the CTA - like joining the EU

The Nationalists cannot have their cake and eat it. Secession to join the EU will impose a border between people.

Again, the EU have shown that undermining its constitutional order, which avoiding Schengen is, is not an option.

It cannot be fudged, and the EU have shown they have no intention of undermining the integrity of the single market and customs union.

It is simply not credible to suggest the EU will undermine its constitutional order to appease the Nationalists.

All of that considered, what would a timeframe look like for independence in Europe?

In short, not 9 years.

The EU referendum, and the resulting process, has shown the issues with rushing major constitutional decisions. It’s unlikely the UK will timetable a short secession referendum. There would be no going back, and the problems outlined above deserve a thorough debate.

Secondly, with the SNPs backing of a second referendum, it’s possible any secession treaty is put to a ratification referendum. Again, the difficult choices that would arise from the problems listed above would not make for an easy campaign.

Thirdly, EU accession will not be quick, either. Previous membership via the UK counts for little when a separate Scotland would not meet the Copenhagen or Convergence Criteria. Using a third-country’s currency, officially or not, cannot be ignored.

Resolving all of those issues will take far longer than 9 years - regardless of what the polls say.

Again, Brexit showed the polls were inaccurate, as well as a consistent shift away from supporting Brexit in the first place.

For that reason, I don’t think it would be as simple as ‘the polls point to it, so it will likely be in 9 years’ - especially given the differences above.

It’s one thing to tick a box saying ‘yes’ on YouGov. It’s another to go and vote for irreversibly dividing Great Britain.

It’s one thing to answer ‘yes’ to a hypothetical question with no clear meaning - which secession has in common with Brexit. It’s another to vote for splitting a unitary state with the problems listed above being known.

One reason I think the border wasn’t that prominent in 2016 is that most people won’t see much of a difference. Before Brexit you needed a passport to go to France, and that hasn’t changed.

The border was, and is, always visible.

Because Schengen is unavoidable, that would change post-secession to join the EU. There will be a border where once there was none of a similar nature.

A customs, regulatory, and eventually Schengen border would be erected where once there was none. Selling one will not be easy.

Ben judah’s takes are always well-thought and insightful. This, though, I don’t think is one of those. The tasks at hand are complex and not in the SNPs control. Again, like Brexit, the larger of the two will dominate and there’s little the other can do.

A no-fault, quick, and painless secession and EU accession simply doesn’t exist. Suggesting it does is unrealistic and lacks credibility.

While Brexit, as well as other things, has nominally boosted support for secession in opinion polls, the practicalities of it weaken the argument for secession - as @FraserNelson (or @JGForsyth) has put recently in the @spectator, I can’t recall which.

Previous external enlargement has made the process predictable and abundantly clear: Schengen and the Euro are unavoidable, and the EU will not undermine its constitutional order to facilitate Scottish accession.

The EU will hear any secession debate and how it relates to them. Saying a Scotland could simply not join the Euro and Schengen - despite the accession process requiring it, would not be conducive to a trusting accession process. Which like likely emphasise their unavoidability.

Which, in turn, does not lead itself to independence in Europe within the decade. It would protract the process, or, indeed, scupper it in any secession/ EU accession referendum.

From the UK to EU in 9 years is not ambitious, it’s unrealistic and not credible.

This isn't to say Scotland is 'too wee, too poor' to secede. It is to say, though, that I don't think it's desirable to divide Great Britain as the Nationalists desire. I don't think it's desirable for Scots to need a passport every time they want to visit Granny in Carlisle.

The UK is an inter-connected web of people, stories, and history. With Scots, the English, Welsh, and N Irish forming a collective people and community who have lived, grown, and loved together.

Erecting a border across Britain would be a regrettable disaster that benefits none.

Original Twitter thread is available at

https://twitter.com/ZachElsbury/status/1344904319657656321?s=19

Zach Elsbury is an Australian, who is for the Commonwealth, and supports Canada, New Zealand & the United Kingdom, and is a content writer at TLDR News - more information can be found at https://www.linkedin.com/in/zach-elsbury-941400181

[the-reference-library]

Scotland's AAA rating from Standard+Poor

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independencesp-reveals-creditworthiness-1543822

Scottish independence:S&P reveals creditworthiness

The challenges facing an independent Scotland’s economy are significant but not unsurpassable, according to global ratings firm Standard and

Yes, the takeaway moment from this (2014) article that Nationalists tend to promote, is the very positive rating that an Independent Scotland may get on the international markets - what they seem to ignore are these very important sections of the report.

Nevertheless, the newly formed sovereign state would begin life with comparatively high levels of public debt, sensitivity to oil prices, and, depending on the nature of arrangements with the EU or UK, potentially limited monetary flexibility.

At the same time, Scotland’s external position in terms of liquidity and investment could be subject to volatility should banks leave.

The alternative of a new currency or using sterling without an agreed union or lender of last resort “could pose some initial risks” to external financing, according to S&P. Specifically, we think Scotland would be hard-pressed, under a new currency regime, to quickly replicate the deep capital markets it enjoys today as part of the larger UK,” the report states.

[the-reference-library]

STOP THE PRESS

Business for Scotland heid-bummer FINALLY tells the truth

[the-reference-library]

Norway's shame: How a nation squandered its oil riches

By Jerome Vitenberg - - Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Some 50 years ago, Njord, the mythological Norsk god of wealth, smiled on the hardworking fishermen and lumberjacks, and presented Norway with the gift of oil. In financial terms, this was a handsome gift indeed, currently translated into a natural bounty worth $740 billion.

Successive Norwegian governments pledged to save this wealth for the welfare of future generations. Yet, half a century after this windfall began, questions increasingly arise of whether Norway’s handling of its oil wealth has even withstood the test of the past, much less the future.

The country’s 2013 election campaign spawned a debate about the government’s management of the massive Norwegian Oil Fund. Norwegian citizens, however, have been trapped within a virtual bubble: Far from raising and discussing serious concerns, the debate in which the country has been engaged is fundamentally flawed. Behind the rosy picture that Norway’s leaders have painted of the country’s economy lie some difficult truths. We have only to chip away a little at this bright facade to realize that a far less glittering reality lies beneath the surface.

First, the oil fund is a mathematical artifice. At three-quarters of a trillion dollars, the Norwegian Oil Fund appears to provide plenty for a country with scarcely 5 million citizens. Yet the country has accumulated a foreign debt that, at $657 billion, is almost as massive. Subtracting the debt from the fund’s $740 billion leaves a balance of only $83 billion. In other words, there is a treasure chest, but it is almost empty: Njord’s prize for future generations is only a little more than 10 percent of its putative value.

Even if we take the fund’s worth at face value, its future is not guaranteed. In a 2011 analysis, “What Does Norway Get Out Of Its Oil Fund, if Not More Strategic Infrastructure Investment?” University of Missouri economist and Wall Street financial analyst Michael Hudson offered a stark assessment: The Norwegian oil monies are invested mainly in the unstable economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China, or in volatile real estate in the West.

Although the fund records short-term profits from its holdings of bond and stocks, its strategy is one of “speculate and diversify.” It is based on the hope that spreading the risk widely enough can hedge against a catastrophic collapse in a particular region or sector. Yet in today’s turbulent economic environment, this seems to be a strategy for multiplying exposure to speculative risks rather than protecting against them. Thus, not only does Norway’s massive debt render the fund’s true value largely illusory, the future of the fund itself is highly precarious.

The second awkward fact Norwegians have yet to confront is that their country’s disproportionate dependence on oil hangs like an economic sword of Damocles above its head. In August, the Economist predicted that following improvements in shale-gas technologies and the development of electric cars, a significant decrease in the demand for oil is rapidly approaching. Although marginally referenced in the Norwegian Finance Ministry’s most recent self-congratulatory white paper, “Long-term Perspectives on the Norwegian Economy 2013,” Norway’s administrators chose to gloss over this glaring issue, preferring the relative safety of a somewhat theoretical and speculative prognostication about the country’s economy in 2035-2060.

If technical improvements in the field of alternative energy indeed continue, and if forecasts of an imminent and substantial drop in demand for oil is correct, the consequences for Norway could be catastrophic. Its gross domestic product (GDP), today concentrated on oil and its derivatives, could collapse. Its exports will crash, and with its current massive levels of public-sector spending, the important ratio of public debt to GDP — currently at around 30 percent — will spiral, bringing the country close to default. Norway could, very quickly, find itself in a much worse economic state than it was before the discovery of oil.

The flip side of this dependence on oil provides the third major structural weakness in the Norwegian economy: The country’s non-oil industrial infrastructure has been seriously neglected. Although the election campaign yielded talk of improving it, such plans may be too little and too late. Oil and its related industries drain the labor force, driving up labor costs as relatively few hands are available for more productive sectors.

Moreover, the accountants and bankers who manage the oil fund claim that spending too much on domestic infrastructure and investments in industrial production would overwhelm the small local economy and cause inflation. Incredibly, only 4 percent of the fund may be utilized for such purposes. This compares with the 60 percent that Mr. Hudson recommends be used for direct investments in domestic and regional enterprises to ensure that the Norwegian economy is viable after the oil wells run dry.

The Norwegian people are understandably proud of the massive nest egg they think they possess. The truth hidden from ordinary Norwegians is that much of the country’s oil bounty has already been squandered. If Norway is to avoid being drawn inexorably into the abyss, it must fundamentally reassess its policies and learn the lessons of the global developments that have affected the world of finance and real estate since the 1960s.

After 50 years of complacency, time is now working against the Norwegian people. Njord is no longer smiling on them, but will they notice?

Jerome Vitenberg is an international political analyst. He has taught Political Science and International Relations for the London School of Economics and Political Science via the University of London’s International Programs.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/25/vitenberg-norways-mythical-oil-wealth/ 

[the-reference-library]

The Corona virus; How the Scottish Government "handled" it.

From an original Twitter thread by Blair McDougall, June 10th 2020; https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1270837534738825216?s=19

A report has suggested today that half of coronavirus deaths could have been prevented had we locked down earlier. The Scottish Government are now suggesting they were prevented from locking down earlier. This is rewriting of history to avoid accountability. A thread...

Throughout the outbreak the SNP government have taken near identical decisions to the Tories. For starters, remember that terrible press conference when Johnson went on about how he was still shaking hands? Here’s Scotland’s health minister on the same day.

https://t.co/QDNGrj63Mh

Similarly the Tories have been criticised for allowing large events, such as the Cheltenham Festival on 13th March, to go ahead. A day earlier, here is the Scottish Government press conference on large events.

https://t.co/punBHvFWLa

On the idea that the Scottish Government wanted an earlier lockdown but couldn’t do it: it’s bullshit. Here’s the press conference on 9th March arguing why public events and schools should stay open.

https://t.co/tITaF7Xucm

A day later the advice was literally “hug your granny”

https://t.co/ehYjj6YcIF

At the press conference a couple of days later, they were explicitly arguing against an early lockdown.

https://t.co/rcD3dWwTkn

On 13th March asked why not go into early lockdown, the answer was clear “because it doesn’t work if we do it now”

https://t.co/m1LyDBOrIl

On the 16th, all day long, the Scottish Government message was against an early lockdown. For example, asked about Ireland’s more cautious approach to visiting the elderly, this was the response.

https://t.co/PGHeBNnMd2

That day began with the slap down of @piersmorgan which we all enjoyed at the time but which now views differently now we know the cost of not locking down earlier.

https://t.co/ZnlGVKMZxp

Same day, in response to questions about why other countries had closed bars, restaurants, gyms, etc were told there was “no reason at this point to avoid social gathering”.

https://t.co/yddB5D7VWb

Same day on lockdown “it doesn’t work”

https://t.co/4kRkpSTA9g 11/

And on the 18th March, I don’t think this could be any clearer.

https://t.co/GMkD1bNyoG

Again: of these decisions were for good reasons, even they were a terrible mistake. This isn’t about the officials who are dedicated public servants. It’s about Minister seeking to avoid accountability for their own decisions by blaming someone else.

With a another surge in infections in months ahead a distinct possibility we need our ministers to be accountable, learn lessons and do better than pretending that a bigger boy did it and ran away.

Adding this tweet to this thread.

[the-reference-library]

SNP: Constitution

Clause 1: Name Clause 2: Aims Clause 3: Policy & Direction Clause 4: Membership Clause 5: Branches Clause 6: Constituency Associations Clause 7: Organisation of Liaison Committees Clause 8:  Responsibilities of Liaison Committees  Clause 9: National Conference Clause 10: National Council Clause 11: The Standing Orders and Agenda Committee  Clause 12: National Assembly Clause 13: Association of Nationalist Councillors Clause 14: National Executive Committee Clause 15: National Office Bearers Clause 16: Members’ Association Clause 17: Affiliated Organisations Clause 18: Vetting of Candidates Clause 19: Nomination of Candidates Clause 20: Selection of Parliamentary Candidates Clause 21: Selection of Local Government Candidates  Clause 22: Code of Conduct Clause 23: Discipline  Clause 24: Appeals Committee  Clause 25: Financial Provisions  Clause 26: Rules and Standing Orders Clause 27: Amending the Constitution Clause 28: Interpretation

Page 1-2

Page 3-4

Page 5-6

Page 7-8

Page 9-10

Page 11-12

[the-reference-library]

SNP: Code Of Conduct

[the-reference-library]

The first in an occasional series, simply called "Oh did I say that?"

Alex Massie, replying to a tweet, after it was announced he was going to do some work for, the pro-Nationalist, Charlotte Street Partners

Original: https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1268846480460316673?s=19

Archive: https://archive.is/6bJuR

[the-reference-library]

Ian Blackford retweets Anglophobic graffiti

[the-reference-library]

Remember when Kate Forbes MSP, before she was the Finance Minister, backed GERS ?

Let's see if she continues to do that...

http://archive.is/Uwd2R

[the-reference-library]

The myth of Scottish Exceptionalism

Public inquiry into Islamophobia reveals four out of five Muslims have faced race hate incidents.

35.5% said Islamophobia was an everyday issue

78.8% said Islamophobia is getting worse in Scotland

76.5% reported being verbally abused.

36.6% reported being abused at work

32.6% reported being abused on social media

92.3% said they feared experiencing Islamophobia.

Scotland is blighted by Islamophobia - with four out of five Muslims facing race hate incidents.

Most Muslims also believe the problem is getting worse, according to a nationwide probe led by Labour MSP Anas Sarwar.

The shocking “state of the nation” inquiry also found one third of Muslims believe Islamophobia is an “everyday” issue in their lives.

The investigation found racist prejudice is rife in workplaces, schools and on the streets, with some Muslims withdrawing from public services and changing their looks to avoid hate crimes.

One Muslim spoke of having a milkshake spat at them, while a man shaved off his own beard to make him look less religious.

A woman also came forward to say she was verbally abused in front of her 13 year old daughter.

Sarwar said: “We have already established that Scotland is not immune from Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred, and now we know just how widespread it is.”

Holyrood’s cross-party group (CPG) on tackling Islamophobia was set up in the wake of rising levels of racism against Muslims.

The CPG, working with Newcastle University, launched a inquiry in June which mapped out the extent of Islamophobia in Scotland.

Nearly 500 submissions were made, the overwhelming majority of which came from Muslims.

Key findings include 35.5% of Muslim respondents saying Islamophobia is an everyday issue, and 41.3% saying it is a “regular” issue.

Nearly 80% of those who took part said this form of racism is getting worse in Scotland, with 83.4% saying they had experienced Islamophobia.

Three quarters of Muslim participants reported being verbally abused, with 36.6% saying they had been abused at work.

Over 90% of Muslim respondents said they feared experiencing Islamophobia, while 60.5% said they had altered their behaviour as a result of prejudice.

The findings also provide a wake up call to right wing media - 93.9% of Muslims said they believed newspapers increase Islamophobia.

However, it is the individual testimonies that put a human face on the statistics.

Women spoke of their fear of having their hijab pulled off, with one mother saying her teenage daughter is scared to wear one:

“She has seen me first hand being verbally abused, even seen men tower over me as they say insults. Can you imagine how a 13 year old would deal with that?”

Another woman added: “I fear experiencing verbal and physical abuse, especially in the presence of my child and I fear for my child’s safety when with me, as I am visibly Muslim due to my Hijab.”

A different participant spoke of the personal cost of anti-Muslim abuse: “I even contemplating suicide due to a racist neighbour making our life hell.”

Anxiety about public transport was another inquiry theme. One respondent said: “I was spat on one time travelling to England. Never seen it coming, never even seen the guy who did it until I was soaked in his milkshake he spat over me.”

Fears about job prospects also came up. “I have changed my name to a less Muslim sounding name to help with job searches which I found has vastly improved responses,” one said.

Another person added: “I had to change my name when applying for jobs.”

A male participant revealed: “I am now not outwardly Muslim in appearance. I do not keep a beard. I now pass myself off as a Caucasian.”

Parents told of how they had taken their children out of public education, while others said discrimination had led them to withdraw from toddler groups and public swimming pools.

Sarwar, who chairs the CPG, said: “The early findings following the launch of this public inquiry make for sobering reading.

“There are people in Scotland who feel scared to leave their homes for fear of verbal of physical attack, are withdrawing from public services with devastating knock-on consequences on their health and education, and feel they are outsiders in their own country. This should shame us all.

“These findings will now be used in the next stage of the inquiry, in which we must redouble efforts to challenge and overcome hatred and prejudice.”

Professor Peter Hopkins of Newcastle University, who has been researching issues of racism and Islamophobia in Scotland for nearly 20 years, said:

“The initial findings emerging from the inquiry demonstrate that Scotland has a serious issue when it comes to everyday racism and Islamophobia.

“Those who suffer Islamophobic abuse are often left feeling fearful, anxious and worried, with nearly 80 per cent feeling that the situation is getting worse.

“There is a lot of work to do - across many different sectors - in order to address the problem of Islamophobia in contemporary Scotland.”

Source: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/race-hate-reality-modern-scotland-21574705 

[the-reference-library]

The EU & PretendyRef...

The European Union will not countenance an independent Scotland unless separation from the rest of the UK is legal and officially recognised by London.

Holyrood's Europe committee was told that while there was "goodwill" towards Scotland within the EU, if it were to become independent, it would need to do so "in co-operation with Westminster" to be legally recognised.

MSPs were taking evidence on the EU Withdrawal Bill from experts, including former UK diplomat Dame Mariot Leslie, Kings College Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs, Anand Menon and Dr Fabian Zuleeg, chief executive of the European Policy Centre.

Asked by SNP MSP Kenny Gibson about how Scotland "was perceived by other European nations, and by the EU" currently, and how this might change if it became independent, the committee was told that while the EU had "sympathies" towards Scotland, it would take its lead from London - and MSPs were warned not to expect the same "flexibility" from the EU as has been shown to Northern Ireland.

Dame Mariot, who also sits on the First Ministers’ Standing Council on Europe, said: "The reality is that no other country would recognise an independent Scotland until London had recognised it - then there would be a rapid queue of European Union countries, and countries beyond the EU who would do so.

"But I can't see any country we would wish to be recognised by jumping that gun until London had recognised an independent Scotland. However, what I do think two things have changed since 2014 - there's a more benign attitude to Scotland within the EU because of the approach over Brexit, and because the UK itself would no longer be inside the EU, so not wishing to tread on the toes of an existing member state would no longer be an issue with the rest of the 27."

Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform said the key thing for the EU was "the question of legality."

He said: "The reason the EU has not taken Catalonia's side in recent years is because the Catalans are pursuing a course of action the EU perceives as illegal. So long as Scotland moves towards independence according to the constitution and in co-operation with Westminster, I think the EU would look benignly on Scottish independence.

"The Spanish have shifted their line from being totally hostile to Scottish independence to not necessarily hostile, so if Scotland pursues a law-abiding route to that end, Scotland would be welcome in the EU."

However Professor Menon warned against thinking Scotland would received similar treatment to Northern Ireland. "I would be wary of expecting the same kind of flexibility from the EU for Scotland as they've shown towards Northern Ireland.

"Some people draw the analogy because they've made these special provisions for Northern Ireland - watered down the indivisibility of the free market, a degree of ambiguity around the Northern Ireland deal - but there are specific reasons for that, not least the EU's role in Good Friday Agreement, and the fact that the vital interest of an existing member state were engaged... so I wouldn't assume the level of flexibility shown there would be shown to Scotland in future."

MSPs were told by Dr Zuleeg that while Scotland was part of the UK the "goodwill" in Europe would "not make much of a material difference."

"Scotland will leave, together with rest of UK, and will not have a particular role within the negotiations unless the UK government chooses to emphasis particular issues of importance to Scotland.

"When it comes to the question of independence, that's a different debate. I would not expect that the EU will engage in that debate unless it becomes more concrete than it is at the moment. Yes, there's sympathies for the position Scotland finds itself in but there would be practical questions raised and I wouldn't expect the EU to engage with that unless it becomes a real possibility."

Asked how Holyrood could deepen links with Europe, Dame Mariot warned that the "goodwill generated by the very vocal pro-European-ness of Scotland in the context of the Brexit debate" was likely to "evaporate" as the EU moved on to negotiations with the UK government over trade.

"We will no longer have Scottish members of the European Parliament making the case there," she said. "The Scottish Government will continue I'm sure to engage as much as it can with the EU, and with EU institutions, civil society. universities and so on and a lot of Scottish civic organisations will continue to do that, and ought to be encouraged to do that, but Scotland will not have much purchase under current arrangements.

"Scotland should be thinking hard about the areas where they... would want to proactively pursue contacts, or they will simply wither."

"Within the political declaration there's a paragraph on structures talking about both parties encouraging contacts and dialogue between the EU and Westminster parliaments, there's no mention of devolved parliaments in that, but given that the future arrangement will involve devolved matters, which is also true of Wales and Northern Ireland, it seems to me worth considering how this parliament is going to pursue future relationships with the European Parliament."

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/brexit-msps-told-eu-would-take-london-s-lead-in-recognising-an-independent-scotland-1-5079898

Brexit: MSPs told EU would take London's lead in recognising an independent Scotland

The European Union will not countenance an independent Scotland unless separation from the rest of the UK is legal and officially recognised

[the-reference-library]

John Mason says a thing, part 666

LINK: https://twitter.com/JohnMasonMSP/status/1217477442648100864?s=19

ARCHIVE: https://archive.is/i8yEg

SCREENSHOT:

[the-reference-library]

Did austerity kill 120,000 people?

“Austerity was not just a bloodless balancing of the books. It was paid for with people’s lives, 120,000 people”

That was the claim from left-wing commentator Ash Sarkar on last night’s Question Time. A clip of the comment was quickly shared on Twitter by Jeremy Corbyn, who added his own caption: “You can’t disagree with this.”

So is it true? The source

It’s probably not the first time you’ve heard this figure. We assume Ms Sarkar was referring to a study published in the online journal BMJ Open, titled ‘Effects of health and social care spending constraints on mortality in England: a time trend analysis’, which hit the headlines in 2017.

The report’s authors, academics at University College London, compared trends in mortality in the years before the Conservatives took office in 2010 with the years after. They found that in the 2000s, death rates were falling while in the first three years of the 2010s, they increased.

The researchers used this comparison to quantify a “mortality gap” — the difference between the number of people who actually died in the early 2010s versus the number of people who would have been expected to die had death rates continued to decline at the rate previously predicted.

At the same time, they tracked “associations between [government health] spending and mortality.”

How did they reach the 120,000 figure?

The study’s authors estimated that there were nearly 45,000 more deaths in the years 2012 to 2014 than would have been predicted by earlier mortality trends.

They then extrapolated those figures to cover the period 2010 to 2017, which yields the estimated 120,000 “excess deaths.”

Is austerity to blame?

As FactCheck and Full Fact have reported before, this study’s findings should be handled with care.

The researchers concluded: “we have found that spending constraints since 2010 especially [public expenditure on social care] may have produced a substantial mortality gap in England.”

But other scientists have raised doubts.Professor Martin Roland, who specialises in health services research at the University of Cambridge, responded to the paper at the time.

He pointed out that while something seems to have happened in 2014 that caused deaths in the UK to rise, “the link to health and social care spending is speculative as observational studies of this type can never prove case and effect.”

Dr Richard Fordham, senior lecturer in health economics at the University of East Anglia, was also cautious about such “longitudinal studies,” noting that “different time periods are rarely identical.” So it may not be fair to compare trends from one decade (the 2000s) with another (the early 2010s), as this study has done.

Indeed, he says the paper’s suggestion that extra deaths were linked to falling nurse numbers is “a plausible hypothesis,” but “other explanations are available.”

He suggests some alternatives: 

Patient cohorts may have changed (for example more end-stage, longer-term illnesses)

Patients may have succumbed to different or new diseases (e.g. MRSA, cirrhosis, etc.)

or had greater multiple morbidities (asthma plus diabetes plus cancer, etc.) than similar cohorts of the same age before them.

Professor Roland concludes that the study’s authors “overstate the certainty of [the] link” between excess deaths and cuts to government funding.”

In other words, the paper does not prove that austerity caused the 120,000 “excess deaths” that the authors estimate may have occurred between 2010 and 2017 (based on three years’ worth of data).

In 2019 another study, this time from left-leaning think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, estimated there were 130,000 deaths in England between 2012 and 2017 that could have been prevented.

Unlike the UCL researchers, the IPPR don’t attribute the figure directly to austerity (although some outlets reported it as such). However, the authors note that “prevention services and public health has been severely impacted” by the policy.

But again, this is not the same as proving cause and effect — and the IPPR authors don’t claim to have done so.

FactCheck verdict

Jeremy Corbyn shared a claim from a left-wing commentator that “Austerity was […] paid for with people’s lives, 120,000 people.”

It seems to come from a 2017 study that linked cuts to government healthcare to extra deaths that occurred in the 2010s compared to the number we’d have expected to see had the mortality trends of the 2000s continued.

But the study is limited by a number of factors. The “120,000” figure comes from data covering 2012 to 2014 which was then extrapolated to cover 2010 to 2017.

More importantly, it does not prove that austerity policies actually caused the recorded and estimated extra deaths. As scientists from the Universities of Cambridge and East Anglia have noted, there are various other explanations for the change in death rates (e.g. different diseases affecting people of the same age).

Ultimately, we cannot say — based on the evidence in this study —  that austerity policies caused 120,000 extra deaths. Source: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-austerity-kill-120000-people Archived Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20190925050221/https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-austerity-kill-120000-people

[the-reference-library]

The ex-pat fallacy

TL:DR It's a logical fallacy to say that post independence Scottish residents will be ex-pats of rUK regards pensions. - Ex-pats can ...

[the-reference-library]

Scottish Pensions - from the SNP

 So, the SNP don’t know what will happen for State Pensions come any future Indy - but they seem so certain that rUK will hand over money

[the-reference-library]

GERS can't tell us what an independent Scotland would look like.

Nationalists can, and do, take things out of context, and create their own "Fake News"