Was Scotland's independence referendum rigged?

Well, was it?

Was Scotland's independence referendum rigged?  I dunno.  And I dare say never shall.

But I observe the following:

• In order to create a 10% majority in an 85% turnout, there must have been one heck of a lot of rigging, and that wouldn't have been easy to cover up.

• Conspiracy theorists always abound.  However, the "evidence" that seems to be circulating, including video, seems to merely highlight incompetence and minor cock-up rather than conspiracy.  I don't suppose there has been a flawless count in the history of elections, anywhere.

I would not deny, however, that the powers in Brussels did not wish to see a "yes" majority.  I also agree that the separatist movements in Scotland and elsewhere are bolstered by the authoritarian attitudes and money-hunting of centralist power-thirsty politicians.  Since these politicians aren't going to change their ways, the protests against them, all leading to separatist trends throughout Europe, will continue.  I also agree that things could get nasty, especially when the inevitable economic down-turn comes around again.

But let's not forget, as I said before, the SNP are socialists, and socialism doesn't work.  Whatever you think of Alex Salmond, what he said when he announced his resignation is right; now is the time to make the Westminster politicians stick to their promises made just before the 18th of September.  Maybe, just maybe Scotland can progress towards its own brand of capitalism, reduce socialism, all without secession and the inevitable medium term turbulence and bust that that would have condemned its people to endure.

I was struck by what a nineteen year old apprentice welder working in Dundee, earning not much more than the minimum wage, told his Mum before he voted: "Why would I want to swap a stuck-up politician from London with one from Edinburgh?  There must be a better way - I'm voting 'no'."

Enough said.

Scotland's indepencence vote - a civil "war"

I voted "no" to independence yesterday, 18th September.  But not because I don't think Scotland could be independent.  Here's why:

I've said it again and again over the last few years: There is no reason why Scotland should not be independent.  There are plenty of examples worldwide of small and prosperous nations - Switzerland, Singapore to name but two.  But the Scottish Nationalist Party is socialist; indeed, I believe it harbours communists.  One of its most famous communists was the poet Hugh MacDiarmid who wrote some wonderful poetry in the Scots language (not Gaelic), and I believe quite a number of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) have quietly continued to adhere to his views.

I know of no instance of a socialist society that has also been prosperous in the long term.  Arguably the greatest thinker and economist of any time from any part of the world, a Scot, Adam Smith, born in Kirkcaldy, lived Edinburgh, said that profitable societies work due to the "invisible hand" of commerce being allowed to operate freely.  In a nutshell, we all do what we need and want to do, and by and by everything humanity needs and desires is produced, developed, designed, implemented.  This is Capitalism.  It seems to me that this is largely how the USA worked up till the turn in the 1990's, with a few hiccups along the way.  Its what made her a superpower.

Socialists, on the other hand, meddle, fudge, build ever bigger government (the US is now in a socialist trend - Obamacare, for example), get into more and more debt, build ever bigger government to hunt down ever more money to pay for their experiments - a vicious circle.  It doesn't work.  The Englishman, Thomas Paine, probably the most enlightened revolutionary who ever lived said, "Society in every state (of being) is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one...".  With his support and writings, George Washington roused and inspired a rabble of cold, wet and hungry farmers to stand up to the biggest empire the world had known up to that time, and kick it out!  Good riddance!  Paine was and is right!

I voted against the intolerable evil of big, socialist government - not against the idea of independence per se.

So why do I say that Scotland is now in a civil "war"?  Simply this; nearly half of the population seems to want one thing (55%), the other half the opposite (45%).  Or that's what they think.  I really don't believe most Scots have drawn the distinction I have between Socialism and bigger government on the one hand, and prosperity with independence on the other.  There will be a price to pay for this, and Alex Salmond and the SNP will be blamed by history for the troubles to come.  However, the SNP is really only symptomatic of a greater trend; the loss of confidence in governments across much of the world, and the backlash against the corruptness of it all.

There will be a reckoning.  Investors will struggle to find safety for capital, let alone a return.  The situation will only favour traders, but a good many of them will loose their shirts, too.

Can I take heart from the fact that the overall turnout to vote was a staggeringly high 85%?  Are Scots democrats?  Or, as some commentators have said, did they really just vote for their pensions and self-interest?  I really don't know, but they couldn't be blamed for it.  But I do know that how it plays out won't be predictable or especially pleasant.

How depressing.

"Oh, poor Scotland" - Giuseppe Verdi's lament, "MacBeth"

Will Scotland fail?

By Bill Bonner 
Baltimore, Maryland
Dow up 103 yesterday… into record territory again.

Gold up $14… still recovering last year’s losses.

Tomorrow, we intend to outline our big picture view. But today, we’re going to reply to colleagues with caveats, quibbles, and corrections.

First, our colleague Merryn Somerset-Webb, who lives in Edinburgh, Scotland, took issue with our suggestion that small governments are, ceteris paribus, better than big ones:
“If Scotland votes for independence it will be as a socialist nation not a wealthy capitalist one. The result will be profound misery… I really don't think it is something to wish for… Already a disaster in the making… What small countries actually do these days if they aren't tax havens full of educated people (Switzerland) is indulge in one variety or the other of nepotism/theft/corruption/public sector crowding out and then collapses.” 

She’s probably right about that. Big country or small one, the ruling elite always wants as much mis-government as the country can afford – and often more! 

The whole idea of modern government, we remind readers, is to pretend that the feds work for the citizen. The little guy is led to believe that his enemies will be smitten, that the rich will be robbed so that the stolen loot will be given to him, and that all he holds dear will be protected, enhanced and made obligatory. It’s hard to feel sorry for the guy… even when the feds clean him out.

"The Daily Reckoning", 25 February 2014
www.moneyweek.com

Big Government = Big Cost

Lest we forget, history shows this equation to be true:

Big Government = big cost and usually poor decisions

The "poor decisions" bit is subjective, and I won't deal with it.

However, "big cost" is easy to quantify.  Luckily for me Ross Clark writing in "The Spectator" has done the job brilliantly - see here.

He says that over the past year (2012) he spent £36,048 on his family, and £47,582 in tax (direct and indirect).

He summarises succinctly:

"I just happen to have looked through my bank statements and started to wonder why the government can’t do what I, and an awful lot of other people, have managed to do over the past few years: trim a little here and there, do without the foreign holiday, shop around for bargains and generally get my spending down without sleeping in a tent and ceasing to eat."

Here, here.

Nearly all investment is coloured by tax implications.  Is this truly a way to make an economy competitive?  History doesn't support this notion.

And please don't think that an independent Scotland would be immune from such mismanagement - by any party!

Infinitely stupid

Reading a recent issue of "MoneyWeek", I was struck by a comment in the editorial, which was entitled "Infinitely stupid".  In the editorial the following comments were made regarding the decision by the US Federal Reserve (the US' central bank) to allow quantitative easing (QE), or money printing, ad infinitum :

"...Dylan Grice of Société Générale ...is ...unimpressed.  QE Infinity isn't just debasing global currencies ...it is debasing our society.  At its most fundamental level, "economic activity is no more than an exchange between strangers".  It depends on trust between those strangers.  And as money is the agent of exchange it must also be the agent of trust.  Debase it and you debase trust.  Let's not forget that "history is replete with Great Disorders in which social cohesion has been undermined by currency debasements".  Might we be headed in the same direction?"

5th October 2012,  Merryn Somerset Webb, Editor, MoneyWeek

The funny / spooky / worrying thing is that when dropping my daughter off at the school bus this morning, the driver told me Obama had been re-elected President of the US.  I hadn't heard, not being an avid news follower.  The brief conversation wound on about the global financial mess, then he said, "I think it will come to war.  Looking back on history there always is one when capitalism is in crisis."

He's noticed.  I've noticed.  Who else has?

Save your gold, silver, jewellery...

Scottish Independence - an open letter to Alex Salmond

I've posted a letter to the First Minister of Scotland regarding the plans for independence from England.

Click on the link on the blog, above this called "Scottish Independence - an open letter to Alex Salmond".