Viceroy Ian Murray says a small business that must balance its books is like a government with a sovereign currency and central bank that doesn’t, demonstrating once again his woeful ignorance of government finance.
Is it possible that Murray and Reeves are so ignorant of economics and Government financial working, or are they deliberately trying to mislead the public? I think it must be an attempt at mass deception, they surely can't be that ignorant? Or so incapable of learning how Government finance works.
Hard to know, but certainly Reeves has displayed for many years her neoliberal credentials. I think it all boils down to fealty to English Labour's donor class who are expecting payback from Starmer's administration. He was, after all, handpicked by these donors to lead neoliberal Labour so that nothing fundamental would change for the wealthy elites.
' Holyrood isn't a government but a devolved administration'. There lies the problem.
Most people in Scotland view Holyrood in the same light and they do Westminster, no matter now we try to point out the big differences.
I was working abroad when the vote to set up a devolved administration in Scotland was voted on. I remember at the time thinking that I would have said NO. Because 'They' would write the rules etc, and would always have the upper hand.
Alex Salmond made a mistake in calling it a 'Government'. He must have known that he was simply administering Scotland on behalf of Westminster.
How can we convince the Scottish electorate that we really are a 'Colony' when we go along with the title 'Scottish Government'.
When you see the language that the UK mainstream directs at the performance of the SNP at Holyrood - and it certainly hits home. Every decision the SNP make in Holyrood can be attacked from some quarter.
What would be the situation in Scotland today if we had a Labour/Lib-Dem administration in Holyrood, and a Starmer Government in Westminster, and we were witnessing total exploitation of Scotland's massive resource potential for the benefit of England.
The SNP could have a field day.
In the 1970s - I was there - we had a highly successful Scotland's Oil Campaign, and got over 30 % of the vote in the second 1973 election. We got a message across.
How can we get our message across today when we witness the brutal daily attacks on the Scottish so-called Government and the denigration of the SNP as a political party.
I agree, Nick. With hindsight, calling Holyrood a government was a mistake because it created the expectation that Scotland could do more to counter Westminster rule than in fact it can. Devolution was always going to be a trap, a cul-de-sac. Power devolved is power retained. And the Scottish civil service is headed by picks from Whitehall so London is always in control.
Is it possible that Murray and Reeves are so ignorant of economics and Government financial working, or are they deliberately trying to mislead the public? I think it must be an attempt at mass deception, they surely can't be that ignorant? Or so incapable of learning how Government finance works.
Hard to know, but certainly Reeves has displayed for many years her neoliberal credentials. I think it all boils down to fealty to English Labour's donor class who are expecting payback from Starmer's administration. He was, after all, handpicked by these donors to lead neoliberal Labour so that nothing fundamental would change for the wealthy elites.
More likely they are deliberately misleading. Doing what they're telt by their masters.
' Holyrood isn't a government but a devolved administration'. There lies the problem.
Most people in Scotland view Holyrood in the same light and they do Westminster, no matter now we try to point out the big differences.
I was working abroad when the vote to set up a devolved administration in Scotland was voted on. I remember at the time thinking that I would have said NO. Because 'They' would write the rules etc, and would always have the upper hand.
Alex Salmond made a mistake in calling it a 'Government'. He must have known that he was simply administering Scotland on behalf of Westminster.
How can we convince the Scottish electorate that we really are a 'Colony' when we go along with the title 'Scottish Government'.
When you see the language that the UK mainstream directs at the performance of the SNP at Holyrood - and it certainly hits home. Every decision the SNP make in Holyrood can be attacked from some quarter.
What would be the situation in Scotland today if we had a Labour/Lib-Dem administration in Holyrood, and a Starmer Government in Westminster, and we were witnessing total exploitation of Scotland's massive resource potential for the benefit of England.
The SNP could have a field day.
In the 1970s - I was there - we had a highly successful Scotland's Oil Campaign, and got over 30 % of the vote in the second 1973 election. We got a message across.
How can we get our message across today when we witness the brutal daily attacks on the Scottish so-called Government and the denigration of the SNP as a political party.
I agree, Nick. With hindsight, calling Holyrood a government was a mistake because it created the expectation that Scotland could do more to counter Westminster rule than in fact it can. Devolution was always going to be a trap, a cul-de-sac. Power devolved is power retained. And the Scottish civil service is headed by picks from Whitehall so London is always in control.