ThE LSE report on poor Scotland and their non-critical friend

Professor Richard Murphy has utterly debunked the LSE report suggesting Scotland would be poorer after independence. You can read it here:

I’ve written already to expose the LSE’s willingness to give you what you want, for a price but, today, George Kerevan has drawn our attention to this footnote in the report:

We are grateful to Angus Armstrong, Jim Gallagher and Mairi Spowage for useful discussions about the Scottish economy and Scottish data.

Who is Gallagher?

He’s the main researcher at Gordon Brown’s Our Scottish Future thunk tank and a member of the Scotland in Union Board.

And NO, he’s not a real professor, just an honorary one based on experience as a senior civil servant.

And NO, he doesn’t look like me.

20 thoughts on “ThE LSE report on poor Scotland and their non-critical friend

  1. This probably ranks alongside claims that an independent Scotland without the Queen as head of state would be a REPUBLIC.
    Shock,horror,do they mean like the USA?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Johnson on his visit stated that we had stated what Independence would look like, constitionally. This is a major worry for the establishment, what happens to the crown. We are going to hear a lot more about this as indyref gets closer. It’s a major asset, like who actually will own trident, to have when we get to negotiations with westminster.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Golfnut

        Who the F***k wants to own Trident
        And for what it is worth Boris DOES not has finger upon the button far less own it
        The bloody thing is leased from the USA
        go and read the terms and conditions of that

        Like

      2. The assumption is that England/R UK will be the successor state. They will own Trident. If Scotland turns round and says, no we own it, it’s housed within our legal jurisdiction and we intend to close this base down and decommission Trident. If you want Trident, make sure it’s out of our Territory before Indendence day. Whether we are able to claim Trident will depend entirely on whether our process for leaving the union includes withdrawing from the T of U, which is one of the major reasons why they are so interested in the future ‘ constitutional arrangements ‘ between Scotland and England.

        Like

  2. I have said before that any report on Independence will be negative to frighten the undecided.What I would like to see is someone do an in depth study on how England a country with 60+ million would cope without Scotland there must be someone who could do this.
    The fear of the Union is that they would no longer be a main player on the world stage just and that is the whole worry they have.What I can’t understand if we are such a basket case why do they want to hold on to us.
    As an aside Dross still baning on about the vaccine is just to take our minds of the shambles of his Brexit on farming and fishing.

    Come on someone do a report on how poor ENGLAND would be without Scotland.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. But they’ll be better off without us, remember? All that money they graciously send us to keep our heads above water?

      That’s probably because that nice Mr Jack says we’re at the heart of the UK economy, so would struggle without them.

      Or something like that. I’m confused… ;S

      Like

  3. Another report written by established and recorded Unionists to describe Scotlands finances!

    Comparable with asking Tory donors to write a paper on the Westminster tax system.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The lead author of this LSE report, Hanwei Huang – who appears to have an academic post at the City University of Hong Kong – has written previously on Brexit.

    ‘The costs and benefits of leaving the EU : trade effects’ by Dhingra, Swati; Huang, Hanwei; Ottaviano, Gianmarco; Pessoa, João Paulo; Sampson, Thomas; Van Reenen, John. In: Economic Policy, Vol. 32, No. 92.

    From the abstract we learn of negative impact forecast for the UK economy:

    “…. Welfare losses for the average UK household are 1.3% if the UK remains in the EU’s Single Market like Norway (a ‘soft Brexit’). Losses rise to 2.7% if the UK trades with the EU under World Trade Organization rules (a ‘hard Brexit’).

    A reduced-form approach that captures the dynamic effects of Brexit on productivity more than triples these losses and implies a decline in average income per capita of between 6.3% and 9.4%, partly via falls in foreign investment.

    The negative effects of Brexit are widely shared across the entire income distribution and are unlikely to be offset from new trade deals.”

    And widely shared across all nations of the Union regardless of national democratic choice.

    Like

  5. Was he not also co author of the UK gov report (2014)Which stated that among many other things that Scotland had no legal international footprint( obviously the ICJ ruling on Lockerbie passed him by) and of course that Scotland didn’t exist( despite the international recognition of ‘ country status’ is the boundaries of legal jurisdiction. It doesn’t look like he’s a friend to ( at least in his mind anyway) Scotland the non existent country.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Keep up the amazing work! You provide such important background eg re the LSE report. You will be a thorn in the flesh….and boy does Scotland need you. M&J Wishart

    Get Outlook for iOS
    ________________________________

    Like

  7. And just for completeness:

    In addition to his other politically motivated affiliations, (Professor) Jim Gallagher is an Advisory Council Member of Scottish Business UK (SBUK. See https://scottish-business.uk/about-us/professor-jim-gallagher/ ). Here we also learn that he advised the Better Together campaign in the 2014 Scottish referendum.

    Readers will remember that SBUK was founded by Robert Kilgour. Its website states: “SBUK is sending a clear signal to the Scottish Government that we do not welcome the additional uncertainty created by the continued threat of a second referendum on breaking up the United Kingdom.”

    Where does one’s public commitments to oppose Scotland’s independence end and ‘disinterested’ academic objectivity over future forecasts for that same country begin? We might hope but cannot know.

    Like

  8. The combined value of Scotlands oil and gas exceeds that of Norway
    So many other assets in Scotland too and a fairly wee population.
    Scotland will be better off on its own handling its own affairs we dont need England to take all our money and decide how much we get back then tell us what we can spend it on.
    But and its a big BUT ,
    The most important reason that Scotland should become independent is that Scotland is a country of over five million people with copious evidence of excellence we are not a child in need of supervision no country in the world is that.
    We dont need England telling us that it will buy our vaccines for us we dont need them dumping nuclear weapons next to our biggest city we dont need that huge chemical plant right next to Edinburgh.
    We are capable and have said we are going to vote again on independence .
    We dont need England to decide when the time is right
    We will decide ourselves

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.