gold cast bar, a photo by hto2008 on Flickr.

He’s arguing that Gordon Brown wasn’t an innumerate idiot when he sold most of the UK’s gold reserves at a ridiculously low price, as most people had assumed.

What he really did was trying to salvage the banking system:

It seemed almost as if the Treasury was trying to achieve the lowest price possible for the public’s gold. It was.

[...]

Faced with the prospect of a global collapse in the banking system, the Chancellor took the decision to bail out the banks by dumping Britain’s gold, forcing the price down and allowing the banks to buy back gold at a profit, thus meeting their borrowing obligations.

If true, this puts the gold sale in a completely different light. It was perhaps after all the right thing to do at the time (although I wonder whether bailing out a few banks would actually have cost more than the value of all that gold today), but why didn’t Gordon Brown afterwards try to strengthen the banking system instead of letting them continue their merry games until the system finally crashed in 2007?

PM meets with Angela Merkel, a photo by The Prime Minister’s Office on Flickr.

However, it’s now increasingly clear that voters are drifting towards UKIP for many different reasons (immigration being one of the major ones), which means that the referendum promise now looks utterly futile.

However, many Tories (such as Lawson) are already stating clearly that they’ll vote No, no matter what, just as others (such as Heseltine) are planning to vote Yes even if Cameron doesn’t get a good deal.

UKIP will of course recommend a No in all circumstances:

What we will see is nothing more than the Wilson renegotiations in the Seventies that will be trumpeted and applauded by the establishment as a great victory for the Prime Minister and Britain, as these things always are. Nothing of any substance was achieved in the Seventies, nor will it be today.

In these circumstances, I really can’t see why the other EU countries should enter in serious negotiations with David Cameron’s government. There might be a few voters who will actually look at the deal before deciding on Yes or No, but my gut feeling is that it really won’t make much of a difference during the referendum campaign.

My advice would be to refuse to change one iota in the UK’s membership terms, or perhaps even ask the UK to join Schengen and some of the other EU policies that the UK has opted out of over the years. In other words, make this a fully in or fully out referendum, not a fifty or ninety percent out one.

I sincerely hope the upcoming EU referendum won’t affect Scotland in the slightest because we’ll already be an independent country and a full EU member by 2017.

Isoglosses for ‘last’, ‘cross’ and ‘sun’. Based on this image by NordNordWest modified by User:Xhandler, with isoglosses from An Atlas of English Dialects
.

For some bizarre reason one split I never suggested in these blog posts was in many ways the most obvious one.

As a linguist, I’ve been aware for years that English dialects split into two main groups: Southern English south of a line roughly from the Severn to the Wash, and Northern English north of this line. (Scottish dialects are a completely different story.) Three of the most important isoglosses are shown on the map on the right.

However, this line turns up in lots of other contexts, e.g.:

• Economics: “The current government’s attempts to bridge the north-south divide look doomed to failure. All but one of the 20 worst districts for hidden unemployment lie north of a line from the Severn to the Wash [...]”
• Politics: “South of a line drawn from the Wash to the Severn estuary, Labour has just 10 seats outside of London.”
• Geology: “The line links the mouth of the River Tees between Redcar and Hartlepool in the north east of England with the mouth of the River Exe in Devon, the south west. The lowlands (sedimentary rocks) are predominant to the east of the line and higher land (igneous and metamorphic rocks) dominates to the west. As well as geology, those areas to the north and west of the line are generally wetter in climate than those to the east and south. Similar lines are commonly drawn, for similar purposes, between the Severn Estuary and the Wash, and between the Severn and the mouth of the River Trent.”
• Ornithology: “[The nightingale is] a secretive bird which likes nothing better than hiding in the middle of an impenetrable bush or thicket. In the UK they breed mostly south of the Severn-Wash line [...]”
• Medicine: “Although the 1916 and 1917 waves of meningitis in the civil population were less intense than the primary wave of 1915 [...], the underlying pattern of heightened disease activity in counties to the south of the Severn-Wash line persisted.”

I’m sure there are many more examples, but these should suffice to show that the Severn-Wash line is the most obvious border. North England and South England would be different in so many ways that they would quickly develop separate identities.

Obviously I don’t think England will ever be divided, but the consequence is that an undivided England will always dominate the UK to such a great extent that Scottish independence becomes a necessity.

Should Scotland be an independent country?

I had this idea that the way to express “should” would be through some obscure verb form, but when I finally looked it up in my copy of “Scottish Gaelic in Three Months” today, I learnt that it’s expressed as bu chòir do “it’s proper for”.

With that information in hand, it didn’t take me long to find a BBC blog page which gives the question as Am bu chòir do dh’Alba a bhith na dùthaich neo-eisimeilich?

Although I have no way to verify it, this looks correct to me. The structure is as follows:

Am	bu	chòir	do dh’	Alba	a bhith	na	dùthaich	neo-eisimeilich
Q	is	proper	for	Scotland	to be		country	independent

(I’m not entirely sure about the na. I believe it means “in her” here — “in his” would lenite the following word, and the genitive form of the definitely article would require the genitive form of dùthaich — and I suspect it’s here to bind together the infinitive with the rest, but I must admit I don’t remember the details.)

If the government provided ballot papers in Gaelic, too, they would presumably then look as follows:

Am bu chòir do dh’Alba a bhith na dùthaich neo-eisimeilich?

• Bu chòir
• Cha bu chòir

I wonder whether it would change the number of Yes and No votes if the question in English had been “Is it proper for Scotland to be an independent country?” too…

I really don’t understand what Cameron is trying to achieve by trying to renegotiate the EU membership terms and then holding a referendum with only two options: the new terms or leaving the EU altogether (without any option to opt for full EU membership instead).

I could understand if he was threatening his EU colleagues that he’d hold a referendum if they didn’t allow a renegotiation, but what is the incentive for other EU leaders to waste time and money renegotiating the membership terms when it’s quite likely the UK will go for a Norwegian solution anyway?

If I was Merkel or Hollande, I’d say no to renegotiation (or at the most give Cameron the tiniest opt-out possible), and tell the UK put up or pull out. Giving in to Cameron would just create a precedent for other countries that you can get your way by threatening to leave, and they’d probably benefit from companies relocating to the continent to stay within the EU.

Furthermore, there is a decent chance that the UK after a decade in the Norwegian Limbo would ask to become a member again, at which time the EU could decide to allow the UK back in only if they signed up to the full package without any opt-outs.

Apart from this, does Cameron really think the British economy really needs five years of uncertainty, during which time very few companies will create EU jobs in the UK? Obviously, it’s an important decision that would need to be discussed in detail, but this is pushing it.

From a Scottish point of view, I hope Cameron’s referendum will convince many undecided voters that it’s actually less risky to vote Yes to independence in 2014 than to vote No, simply because an independent Scotland will be more likely to be an EU member in 2020 than the UK.

It also brilliantly exposes the hypocrisy of many of the Better Together campaigners, who have been accusing the Scottish Government of doing exactly what they’re doing themselves now.

When I created my independence blog, Arc of Prosperity, I decided I would at first publish relevant posts on both blogs.

However, it’s not ideal that there isn’t a primary location for each post. For instance, it means comments on the same story aren’t always made in the same place.

I’ve therefore decided to put my blog postings about Scottish independence exclusively on Arc of Prosperity from now until the referendum.

I’ll post appetisers here, but you’ll be required to follow a link to read the full story.

Scottish Labour seem to be spending all their resources on attacking the SNP in every way possible and on spreading fear and uncertainty about the prospect of Scottish independence. We haven’t heard much about their visions for Scotland after 2014, no matter whether we vote Yes or No, apart from their determination to introduce university tuition fees and possible also prescription charges.

However, I hope and believe they’ll change after a Yes vote. Here’s how I imagine the process would work:

The day after the referendum (autumn 2014) — Scottish Labour press conference with Johann Lamont, Alastair Darling and the Scottish members of the shadow cabinet in Westminster, Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy and Margaret Curran. They declare that although they’re disappointed with the result, they will respect it, and they will work with the SNP and other Scottish parties to achieve the best possible deal for Scotland in the independence negotiations. Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy and Margaret Curran resign from the Shadow Cabinet.

Late 2014 — Scottish Labour sever all ties to rUK Labour.

Late 2014 — The Scottish independence negotiation teams are announced. The SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon will head the main team, but Labour politicians get to lead several of the important teams, in particular Douglas Alexander who becomes the head of the foreign affairs team and Jim Murphy who is put in charge of the defence negotiations. Several Liberal Democrat and Conservative politicians also get chosen to lead negotiation teams.

Late 2014 — Several Scottish MPs announce they will apply for rUK citizenship and stand for Westminster seats in England. At the same time, some Scottish MPs representing English seats declare their intention to move back to Scotland and try to get into the Scottish Parliament in 2016.

Late 2014 — A few Labour MSPs give up their seats “for health reasons”. Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy and Margaret Curran decide to contest these seats. They are duly elected without too much trouble.

Early 2015 — Johann Lamont decides to resign as leader of Scottish Labour because her leadership was too closely tied to the failed Better Together campaign. Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy and Margaret Curran all decide to run for leader. After an intense campaign, Jim Murphy becomes the new leader of Scottish Labour. [I'm not implying here that Jim Murphy is Labour's best politician, but he happens to be my local MP.]

7 May 2015 — Westminster elections. By common consent, all main parties in Scotland decide not to put up challengers to the incumbents, given that independence is now only a year away.

April 2016 — Scottish Labour launch their manifesto for Scottish Parliament elections. Now that they can develop their own policies without undue interference from London, they’re suddenly against tuition fees and prescription charges again.

1 May 2016 — Independence Day.

5 May 2016 — Elections to the Scottish Parliament. The winner is unexpectedly Labour, and Jim Murphy becomes Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Scotland.

I guess it’s time to evaluate my predictions for 2012:

1. The referendum on Scottish independence won’t take place yet. Right.
2. SF will leave the Danish government. Wrong, but they changed their leader.
3. It will again become possible to get a Danish passport in Scotland. Well, not for adults, but small children can now again get it here as far as I know.
4. The euro will not collapse – all current members will remain inside the Eurozone. Right.
5. The British inflation rate (measured by CPI) will not fall below 4%. Wrong — it fell as low as 2.2% before rising again.
6. UEFA 2012 will be won by the Netherlands. Wrong.
7. After a year with record-breaking levels of rain, Scotland will enjoy its second-warmest year ever. Wrong; Scotland had a very warm March, but not in general a very warm year, and although it has been the wettest year ever in England, Scotland hasn’t been quite as exceptional.
8. The Icelandic volcano Katla will erupt and cause a new flight ban over Europe. Wrong.
9. The Russian government will be forced to step down and call fresh elections. Wrong.
10. The Eurovision Song Contest will be won by Georgia.Wrong.

So, about 2 1/2 out of 10.

I’m afraid that Troels — who predicted “the negation of each individual statement” — produced a more accurate forecast.

The distribution of different types of seats over the past six elections.

However, Nate Silver has written an excellent article on Five Thirty Eight about the the development of ultra-safe, strongly partisan seats in the House of Representatives. He writes: “As these figures make clear, the number of swing districts has been on a steady decline since at least 1992, and the number of landslide districts on a steady rise.”

I think the obvious solution would be to take redistricting out of the hands of politicians, but for some bizarre reason this doesn’t always seem to appeal to Americans.

The release of data from the 2011 census in England and Wales makes for interesting reading. (Scotland’s census won’t release any equivalent data until some time next year.)

One thing I found very interesting is how different London is. It’s not immediately obvious when you read the bulletins how big this difference is, because they haven’t published the data for England and Wales without London. However, it’s a relatively simple calculation to work this out, so here are a few of the statistical indicators, showing first London, then England and Wales without London, and then England and Wales including London. (I was thinking about excluding Wales from the table, but it was easier to leave it in, and most of the time Wales didn’t seem to be too different from non-London England.)

London is a wonderful city, and part of its charm is that it’s a truly global city.

What is important is for Londoners to realise that they’re living in a place that is very different from the rest of England and the UK. For instance, Westminster politicians have to be careful not to propose policies based on what would work in the neighbourhood they live in when they’re in London.

Also, one should seriously consider making London independent (or at least a devolved nation inside the UK).