Once again Leah you have had to teach a professor of economic some fundamental principles of economic theory as identified by Adam Smith. You have to ask yourself, surely Mark Blyth must understand these fundamentals of economics, how could he possibly teach the subject if he was so ignorant of its basis? So it can't possibly be ignorance, it must be deliberate misrepresentation.
I am sure your thesis would have been enlightening :). It’s fine that he is tied to a well established paradigm but sounds as if he offered no critical or comparative analysis of the possible limitations of his position ( sometimes economist seem to forget that Economics is a Social Science and all that implies) and worse drew ( if I’ve understood you) some very specific conclusions about Scotland’s inability to operate as an independent economy with no empirical basis for his views.
Yes, it's quite incomprehensible that he would make such inaccurate and harmful statements. Julian Smith, a Dear Scotland subscriber, just emailed me with the following observation:
Not only is Mark Blyth wrong, he displayed an extreme form of the Scottish Cringe; a mind colonised by decades of an abusive relationship within the U.K.
His frame of mind was probably formed in his youth and has become more extreme because of distance and time. As Richard Murphy pointed out yesterday, he would never have accepted such an analysis from his students, so how could it was ok to say what he said in an interview?
I was reading that he's a neoclassical economist which is why he holds the views he does. I was also trained in neoclassical economics but it never made any sense to me because it was at odds with what I could observe happening in the economy. It's just as well I never pursued a PhD in the subject!
These were my thoughts when I read his decidedly aggrieved comments. I'm not an economist, but the facts are plain, especially in Believe in Scotland's comprehensive publications.
Good, I hope it doesn't. I hope enough people have learned that the Project Fear lies that were peddled in 2014 were because the BritNats were scared to death of Scotland leaving this desiccated union.
From today’s comments- while he has views (most) many would not agree with, he was invited to share them and elements seem to have been edited to support a unionist view which he would not fully support. Interesting example of the toxic action to support the union?
My takeaway fron the Scotonomics Conferemce is that we need many kinds of sovereignty for independence to be successful, amongst which is resource sovereignty. At the moment Scotland owns very little of its resourcesn and resource sovereignty will be harder to obrain than monetary sovereignty.
"It's not the money that is the problem it's the resources."
Furthermore, the current Scottish administration has done a poor job for us. They sold off ScotWind for a pittance - a one-off payment of just £700m. At the same time as this 'auction', an auction of offshore wind acreage, New York byte, that was a quarter the size of ScotWind's area, went for £4 billion. There is much more they could do if they had the interest or the ability. I fear they lack both.
Pity it wasn't considered beforehand that the unionists would capitalise on his more stupid remarks. It is really foolish to say Scotland would have nothing to sell the rest of the world.
It almost makes you agree with Gove that 'experts' are not all they are cracked up to be. The system itself is ignorant; certainly self-servingly blind.
Prof Blyth perhaps needs to take account of Scotland's colonial 'condition':
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2024/03/19/the-real-economic-price-of-the-uk-union-for-scots/
Yes, I did a piece on how the union has robbed Scotland - it's not comprehensive, but devastating nonetheless. https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/how-the-union-has-robbed-the-scottish
well said Leah!
Once again Leah you have had to teach a professor of economic some fundamental principles of economic theory as identified by Adam Smith. You have to ask yourself, surely Mark Blyth must understand these fundamentals of economics, how could he possibly teach the subject if he was so ignorant of its basis? So it can't possibly be ignorance, it must be deliberate misrepresentation.
I am sure your thesis would have been enlightening :). It’s fine that he is tied to a well established paradigm but sounds as if he offered no critical or comparative analysis of the possible limitations of his position ( sometimes economist seem to forget that Economics is a Social Science and all that implies) and worse drew ( if I’ve understood you) some very specific conclusions about Scotland’s inability to operate as an independent economy with no empirical basis for his views.
Yes, it's quite incomprehensible that he would make such inaccurate and harmful statements. Julian Smith, a Dear Scotland subscriber, just emailed me with the following observation:
Not only is Mark Blyth wrong, he displayed an extreme form of the Scottish Cringe; a mind colonised by decades of an abusive relationship within the U.K.
His frame of mind was probably formed in his youth and has become more extreme because of distance and time. As Richard Murphy pointed out yesterday, he would never have accepted such an analysis from his students, so how could it was ok to say what he said in an interview?
I hope you send him this and tell him to ‘think again’- either not good at his subject or has another agenda?
I was reading that he's a neoclassical economist which is why he holds the views he does. I was also trained in neoclassical economics but it never made any sense to me because it was at odds with what I could observe happening in the economy. It's just as well I never pursued a PhD in the subject!
These were my thoughts when I read his decidedly aggrieved comments. I'm not an economist, but the facts are plain, especially in Believe in Scotland's comprehensive publications.
I watched that show in disbelief, bloody (adopted) Americans coming here with 'project fear' Well it won't work this time pal!
Good, I hope it doesn't. I hope enough people have learned that the Project Fear lies that were peddled in 2014 were because the BritNats were scared to death of Scotland leaving this desiccated union.
From today’s comments- while he has views (most) many would not agree with, he was invited to share them and elements seem to have been edited to support a unionist view which he would not fully support. Interesting example of the toxic action to support the union?
My takeaway fron the Scotonomics Conferemce is that we need many kinds of sovereignty for independence to be successful, amongst which is resource sovereignty. At the moment Scotland owns very little of its resourcesn and resource sovereignty will be harder to obrain than monetary sovereignty.
"It's not the money that is the problem it's the resources."
A sovereign Scotland can take a large stake in our resources as other nations have done. Until we have those powers we are stuck.
Furthermore, the current Scottish administration has done a poor job for us. They sold off ScotWind for a pittance - a one-off payment of just £700m. At the same time as this 'auction', an auction of offshore wind acreage, New York byte, that was a quarter the size of ScotWind's area, went for £4 billion. There is much more they could do if they had the interest or the ability. I fear they lack both.
He was there to disrupt and make us think.
Pity it wasn't considered beforehand that the unionists would capitalise on his more stupid remarks. It is really foolish to say Scotland would have nothing to sell the rest of the world.
Yes- I wondered how Richard would have viewed his views. Maybe you can get them on the same platform to ‘share’ their views 😂
It almost makes you agree with Gove that 'experts' are not all they are cracked up to be. The system itself is ignorant; certainly self-servingly blind.