(inspired by the Scottish equivalent http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1653463626207)
Wednesday 28 September 2011
Wherever something is wrong, something is too big.
I've just come across this excellent article by Paul Kingsnorth on the Guardian website from last Sunday, reminding us of Leopold Kohr's warning 50 years ago that the global system would grow, and grow until it imploded. Kohr also argued that small states and small economies are more peaceful and prosperous than great powers or superstates. Here are some quotes from the article. You can read the full article on guardian.co.uk
"Wherever something is wrong," he (Kohr) insisted, "something is too big."
"Settling in the US, Kohr began to write the book that would define his thinking. Published in 1957, The Breakdown of Nations laid out what at the time was a radical case: that small states, small nations and small economies are more peaceful, more prosperous and more creative than great powers or superstates."
"The world should be broken up into small states, roughly equivalent in size and power, which would be able to limit the growth and thus domination of any one unit. Small states and small economies were more flexible, more able to weather economic storms, less capable of waging serious wars, and more accountable to their people. Not only that, but they were more creative. On a whistlestop tour of medieval and early modern Europe, The Breakdown of Nations does a brilliant job of persuading the reader that many of the glories of western culture, from cathedrals to great art to scientific innovations, were the product of small states."
You can buy 'The Breakdown of Nations' by Leopold Kohr from Amazon or any good independent book store.
The following comment was received via email, the contributor was having problems leaving a comment. Some very good points... I have therefore decided to incorporate it into the post.
"Wherever something is wrong," he (Kohr) insisted, "something is too big.""Settling in the US, Kohr began to write the book that would define his thinking. Published in 1957, The Breakdown of Nations laid out what at the time was a radical case: that small states, small nations and small economies are more peaceful, more prosperous and more creative than great powers or superstates."
"The world should be broken up into small states, roughly equivalent in size and power, which would be able to limit the growth and thus domination of any one unit. Small states and small economies were more flexible, more able to weather economic storms, less capable of waging serious wars, and more accountable to their people. Not only that, but they were more creative. On a whistlestop tour of medieval and early modern Europe, The Breakdown of Nations does a brilliant job of persuading the reader that many of the glories of western culture, from cathedrals to great art to scientific innovations, were the product of small states."
You can buy 'The Breakdown of Nations' by Leopold Kohr from Amazon or any good independent book store.
The following comment was received via email, the contributor was having problems leaving a comment. Some very good points... I have therefore decided to incorporate it into the post.
This is a good book and certainly one to read.
Two points - Kohr lived for years in Aberystwyth - a fact missed by the Guardian author for some reason. His contribution to Welsh political thought has been great and I believe, Wales affected him too.
The one irritating point with the book is the title and the common mistake in English of confusing a 'state' with a 'nation'. So, for instance, when Estonia became independent in 1991 it wasn't a 'new nation' (it's a very ancient nation) it was a 'new state'. Likewise, from a Welsh nationalist point of view, most African countries are not 'nations' they are 'states' and so their demise is not, in itself, a cause for concern. Of more concern is the cultural and linguistic situation of the nations/linguistic communities within those states. So, Kohr's title is misleading.
The title would be much clearer if it was 'The Breakdown of States' as what Kohr is proposing, in the European scenario, is the reintroduction or emergence of the historic nations of Europe - Wales, Scotland, Brittany etc. and then the historic regions - Bavaria, Picardy etc. The theory being is that smaller states are closer to the people and that, even if you do get some crack-pot dictator then it's only the small part of the continent which is in danger not the whole continent - compare Albania's Hoxha to USSR's Stalin or had Napoleon stayed in Corsica rather than governed France.
This process has mostly been completed in Eastern Europe (some of his suggestions and maps are a bit quirky and lacking in historic and geographical detail and reality) but Eastern Europe has mostly turned out as Kohr (and Welsh, Estonian, Slovak etc.) nationalists campaigned for. Western Europe - Britain, France and Spain, to a much lesser extent.
His other insight is that a Welsh peasant in WWI would have no quarrel with a Bavarian or Silesian peasant but that a 'British' peasant did with a 'German' one.
In any case, certainly worth a read.
PS - where's the plack or bust to Kohr in Baker Street, Aberystwyth!? C'mon Plaid councillors on Aber town council!
Siôr
Tuesday 13 September 2011
Radio Wales Phone-in 12/09/2011 - Welsh Independence
One of the best radio discussions on Welsh Independence for a long time, hosted by Jason Mohammad on BBC Radio Wales.
Radio Wales Phone-in 12/09/2011 - Welsh Independence
Copyright BBC Radio Wales.
Radio Wales Phone-in 12/09/2011 - Welsh Independence
Copyright BBC Radio Wales.
Sunday 11 September 2011
Too Poor to be Independent – the same old story
An excellent article by Sion Jobbins. Shorter version originally appeared on cambriapolitico.com "Is Wales Economically Viable?" and in the Cambria Magazine.
This ‘can’t afford independence’ is a common refrain by commentators and politicians alike, and is currently used with great gusto as an argument against Scottish independence. But a quick glance through the articles, editorials and letters page of the past makes it clear that Wales and Scotland haven’t been the only European countries ‘which can’t afford independence’. It seems to be the standard line every time a small country strives for freedom.
Malta was one example. An editorial in The Times on 7 January 1959 noted gravely:
Norway was another country which ‘couldn’t afford independence’. Like Malta prior to independence, it had an amount of self-government, but within Sweden. One of the great bones of contention for Norway was that the consular service and tariffs were biased towards the more agrarian Swedish economy rather than the exporting Norwegian one. Even though the call for greater independence was widely felt across Norway, there were still some who were afraid of it and its consequences.
On 6 July 1892, The Times published a letter by ‘R.H’ entitled, ‘A Warning from Norway’:
In a rare article on Icelandic politics, The Guardian wrote a sentence on 23 March 1908, which I guess has been used for all former colonies:
In this respect, the general tone of the British mindset varies from a mild independence-scepticism to hostility towards most forms of independence. A scepticism which is at times more irrational and unscientific than that which the ‘romantic’ nationalists are accused of.
There are presently 192 members of the UN – they can all ‘afford independence’. This month there will be another when the UN will accept its latest member, South Sudan. Yes, South Sudan can ‘afford independence’. There is also another country which is expected to declare independence this summer. It is the one country which in terms of its fractured geography, fractious politics and crippled economy you would expect to hear an argument that it ‘can’t afford independence’. That country is Palestine. However, in much the same way that Scotland seems to be uniquely the only oil-producing country in the world which British left wingers think would be poorer with independence, Palestine seems to be the only state which no left winger questions if it could ‘afford independence’.
Which leads me to question if there is a deeper reason for the historic reaction which some of our self-appointed ‘progressive’ friends have against independence for smaller European nations?
In a little quoted article titled ‘The Magyar Struggle’ in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung on 13 January 1849 the co-founder of Communism, Freidrich Engels wrote of the ‘primitive’ and ‘counter-revolutionary peoples’ of Europe. These were nations such as the Basques, Bretons, Scottish Highlanders and Serbians whom he patronised for not having even reached the stage of capitalism. He calls them ‘völkerabfälle’ (racial trash / residual nations). He says:
But back to July 2010. Of course, South Sudan gaining independence is hardly an economic inspiration for Welsh independence. Not even the South Sudanese wish to celebrate their economic fortune. But then, the comparison for all economic scenarios, pre or post independence, in the short term at least, is the context of the neighbouring countries.
So, let’s discuss independence in another frame? Maybe we should view economic independence in light of it just being another economic transition.
The Welsh economy has been through several major economic transitions; agrarian in the early 19th century, then an industrial revolution, and a managed (or badly managed) process of de-industrialisation.
Independence would be but another economic transition. No Welsh economist or politician would advocate the Welsh economy to be the same in 20 years time as it is now. There will be change whatever happens, so why not a more fundamental economic change with independence as the vehicle?
There are of course those who argue that Wales is ‘too poor’ and I’ll leave that debate to those more capable than me in the statistical war of attrition but I’ll make a few comments.
The Welsh economy has been in historic decline since 1923 when the price of coal peaked. During that time Wales has been through 3 of the 5 stages of constitutional states. It’s been governed as an integral part of ‘the Realm of England’ (1536-1959); as a part of England but with some administrative functions - the Welsh Office period (1959-1999); and as a state with some self-government (1999 until the present day).
There are two stages left, generally speaking. The first is self-government with some taxation powers and then independence. Both the first three constitutional settlements have not improved Wales’s economic well-being. Why not, from an economic point of view, try the other two?
In the same way that I believe independence is a vehicle to revive a weak language and culture I believe economic independence is the best way to revive a weak economy. It is the journey as well as the destination.
And I’m not the only one who thinks so. As predictable as the articles ‘can the Turnip-eaters afford independence?’ are the articles post independence by the same papers which point how better off, economically and culturally, the countries are.
One quick example, again from that barren rock in the North Atlantic, Iceland – the little country which had the courage to tell their bankers were to go.
On, 1 December 1938, twenty years and a World War after The Guardian’s dire assessment, The Times wrote a glowing report on Iceland’s twentieth anniversary of independence from Denmark. Subtitled with the decidedly modernist, ‘Roads and Radio’ the Times notes succinctly:
So what of Wales? Wales today is guilty of voting for a sort of national Gombeenism form of economic politics. The Gombeen man is the Irish politician who’s only out to get some economic or social gain for his constituency, devoid of a broader political or philosophical outlook. Wales, by belatedly wanting ‘fair funding’ from Westminster, sulking over ‘unfair cuts’, ‘demanding’ electrification of railways, but shirking responsibility over large energy generating projects or taxation policies is only furthering the Gombeen image of itself. It’s humiliating and unnecessary.
In his recent article, ‘Small is cute, sexy and successful: Why Independence for Wales and other countries makes Economic Sense’ in the Harvard Kennedy Review, Adam Price makes a case for independence for ‘small’ nations. He compares the economic fortunes of independent Luxembourg and its neighbour, the German province, Saarland since the Second World War. The case is compelling. A similar case could possible be made in relation to Singapore which became independent of Malaysia in 1965 and Zanzibar which lost its independence and joined Tanganyika to form Tanzania in 1964.
But we needn’t look to foreign lands for inspiration or precedent. There’s a successful case of Wales not being ‘too poor to be independent’ in every parish in our land – the founding of the Church in Wales in 1922.
Like those Wilsonian new East European states, it could hardly have been formed at a worse time! After 800 years, the Welsh church became independent during what the Rev D.T. W. Price in his book; A History of the Church in Wales in the Twentieth Century (1990) calls ‘the locust years’. ‘Nonetheless,’ as the Rev Price notes, ‘by 1937 it was generally felt, and rightly so, that the financial condition of the Church in Wales was as sound as it had been before disestablishment.’
Independence would force politicians and us voters in Wales to grow up. We would be economically viable because we would have to be – we’d have to learn to swim. Let’s look at ‘good practice’. After communism, bling-capitalism, imperialism, state socialism, supra-national states or religious statehood, the nation-state and independence is the one political construct which not one state or people has turned its back on. Independence works. It’s time Wales made independence work for her.
‘Wales is too poor to be independent. It’s not economically viable.’Funny, were Wales given a penny every time somebody said that, then Wales would certainly be economically viable!
This ‘can’t afford independence’ is a common refrain by commentators and politicians alike, and is currently used with great gusto as an argument against Scottish independence. But a quick glance through the articles, editorials and letters page of the past makes it clear that Wales and Scotland haven’t been the only European countries ‘which can’t afford independence’. It seems to be the standard line every time a small country strives for freedom.
Malta was one example. An editorial in The Times on 7 January 1959 noted gravely:
‘Malta cannot live on its own … the island could pay for only one-fifths of her food and essential imports; well over a quarter of the present labour force would be out of work and the economy of the country would collapse with out British Treasury subventions. Talk of full independence for Malta is therefore hopelessly impractical.’The Times published a letter on 21 January 1964 by a Joseph Agius of Ta’ Xbiex on Malta stating fearfully of:
‘... the folly of giving independence to Malta when we are not economically prepared for it.’Malta gained independence on 21 September 1964. It is essentially a city state on a barren rock; from a British point of view it was a very large dock. In 2009 its GDP at $23,800 per capita was similar to other former imperial port cities like Liverpool, Newcastle or Marseilles.
Norway was another country which ‘couldn’t afford independence’. Like Malta prior to independence, it had an amount of self-government, but within Sweden. One of the great bones of contention for Norway was that the consular service and tariffs were biased towards the more agrarian Swedish economy rather than the exporting Norwegian one. Even though the call for greater independence was widely felt across Norway, there were still some who were afraid of it and its consequences.
On 6 July 1892, The Times published a letter by ‘R.H’ entitled, ‘A Warning from Norway’:
‘… I may add that, as regards the immediate point of consular representation, the opinion of the commercial class in both kingdoms, as expressed in the chambers of commerce, beginning with the Norwegian capital itself, is decidedly hostile to it… At the same time it seems scarcely possible that the leaders of the movement can clearly realise the fate they are preparing for the country by what may well be termed a suicidal agitation … would not a free national existence but subserviency, not to say bondage to Russia … [Norway] reduced to conditions of a central Asian khanate.’Norway gained independence on 13 May 1905. It didn’t become a ‘central Asian khanate’.
In a rare article on Icelandic politics, The Guardian wrote a sentence on 23 March 1908, which I guess has been used for all former colonies:
‘It is very interesting to note that in this connection that Denmark has to pay a heavy price for her nominal possession of Iceland in the form of a large annual subvention [that word again!] to the Budget of the island.’To bring us closer to our present time, Slovakia gained independence in the famous ‘Velvet Divorce’ in 1993 and again the questions of its future were raised. In a generally balanced editorial, The Independent on 31 December 1992 noted:
‘… there is no shortage of potential disputes. Currency union is doomed, with the Czechs determined to balance their budget and the Slovaks expected to head down the road of deficit financing and inflation.’The Guardian’s report two days after independence of the two new states on 3 January 1993 highlighted that:
‘many people see the split as a failure and others are nervous about proving themselves in an uncertain world.’What no report on Slovak (or Czech, Norwegian, Icelandic or Maltese) independence seem to suggest or foresee is the economic success which they have been.
In this respect, the general tone of the British mindset varies from a mild independence-scepticism to hostility towards most forms of independence. A scepticism which is at times more irrational and unscientific than that which the ‘romantic’ nationalists are accused of.
There are presently 192 members of the UN – they can all ‘afford independence’. This month there will be another when the UN will accept its latest member, South Sudan. Yes, South Sudan can ‘afford independence’. There is also another country which is expected to declare independence this summer. It is the one country which in terms of its fractured geography, fractious politics and crippled economy you would expect to hear an argument that it ‘can’t afford independence’. That country is Palestine. However, in much the same way that Scotland seems to be uniquely the only oil-producing country in the world which British left wingers think would be poorer with independence, Palestine seems to be the only state which no left winger questions if it could ‘afford independence’.
Which leads me to question if there is a deeper reason for the historic reaction which some of our self-appointed ‘progressive’ friends have against independence for smaller European nations?
In a little quoted article titled ‘The Magyar Struggle’ in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung on 13 January 1849 the co-founder of Communism, Freidrich Engels wrote of the ‘primitive’ and ‘counter-revolutionary peoples’ of Europe. These were nations such as the Basques, Bretons, Scottish Highlanders and Serbians whom he patronised for not having even reached the stage of capitalism. He calls them ‘völkerabfälle’ (racial trash / residual nations). He says:
‘these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution.’Is this the root of the historical world-view among some so-called progressives, of deep hostility towards independence for some European nations ? Is it that these progressives (and economists) see the larger nations, as Engels would say as ‘the main vehicle of historical development’ to the detriment of smaller nations who seem, by definition, to be insular and counter-revolutionary?
But back to July 2010. Of course, South Sudan gaining independence is hardly an economic inspiration for Welsh independence. Not even the South Sudanese wish to celebrate their economic fortune. But then, the comparison for all economic scenarios, pre or post independence, in the short term at least, is the context of the neighbouring countries.
So, let’s discuss independence in another frame? Maybe we should view economic independence in light of it just being another economic transition.
The Welsh economy has been through several major economic transitions; agrarian in the early 19th century, then an industrial revolution, and a managed (or badly managed) process of de-industrialisation.
Independence would be but another economic transition. No Welsh economist or politician would advocate the Welsh economy to be the same in 20 years time as it is now. There will be change whatever happens, so why not a more fundamental economic change with independence as the vehicle?
There are of course those who argue that Wales is ‘too poor’ and I’ll leave that debate to those more capable than me in the statistical war of attrition but I’ll make a few comments.
The Welsh economy has been in historic decline since 1923 when the price of coal peaked. During that time Wales has been through 3 of the 5 stages of constitutional states. It’s been governed as an integral part of ‘the Realm of England’ (1536-1959); as a part of England but with some administrative functions - the Welsh Office period (1959-1999); and as a state with some self-government (1999 until the present day).
There are two stages left, generally speaking. The first is self-government with some taxation powers and then independence. Both the first three constitutional settlements have not improved Wales’s economic well-being. Why not, from an economic point of view, try the other two?
In the same way that I believe independence is a vehicle to revive a weak language and culture I believe economic independence is the best way to revive a weak economy. It is the journey as well as the destination.
And I’m not the only one who thinks so. As predictable as the articles ‘can the Turnip-eaters afford independence?’ are the articles post independence by the same papers which point how better off, economically and culturally, the countries are.
One quick example, again from that barren rock in the North Atlantic, Iceland – the little country which had the courage to tell their bankers were to go.
On, 1 December 1938, twenty years and a World War after The Guardian’s dire assessment, The Times wrote a glowing report on Iceland’s twentieth anniversary of independence from Denmark. Subtitled with the decidedly modernist, ‘Roads and Radio’ the Times notes succinctly:
‘Side by side with the political liberation of the country, developed the gradual economic emancipation of the island.’The article continues by outlining the many benefits gained since independence, especially in the fields of modern communications
So what of Wales? Wales today is guilty of voting for a sort of national Gombeenism form of economic politics. The Gombeen man is the Irish politician who’s only out to get some economic or social gain for his constituency, devoid of a broader political or philosophical outlook. Wales, by belatedly wanting ‘fair funding’ from Westminster, sulking over ‘unfair cuts’, ‘demanding’ electrification of railways, but shirking responsibility over large energy generating projects or taxation policies is only furthering the Gombeen image of itself. It’s humiliating and unnecessary.
In his recent article, ‘Small is cute, sexy and successful: Why Independence for Wales and other countries makes Economic Sense’ in the Harvard Kennedy Review, Adam Price makes a case for independence for ‘small’ nations. He compares the economic fortunes of independent Luxembourg and its neighbour, the German province, Saarland since the Second World War. The case is compelling. A similar case could possible be made in relation to Singapore which became independent of Malaysia in 1965 and Zanzibar which lost its independence and joined Tanganyika to form Tanzania in 1964.
But we needn’t look to foreign lands for inspiration or precedent. There’s a successful case of Wales not being ‘too poor to be independent’ in every parish in our land – the founding of the Church in Wales in 1922.
Like those Wilsonian new East European states, it could hardly have been formed at a worse time! After 800 years, the Welsh church became independent during what the Rev D.T. W. Price in his book; A History of the Church in Wales in the Twentieth Century (1990) calls ‘the locust years’. ‘Nonetheless,’ as the Rev Price notes, ‘by 1937 it was generally felt, and rightly so, that the financial condition of the Church in Wales was as sound as it had been before disestablishment.’
Independence would force politicians and us voters in Wales to grow up. We would be economically viable because we would have to be – we’d have to learn to swim. Let’s look at ‘good practice’. After communism, bling-capitalism, imperialism, state socialism, supra-national states or religious statehood, the nation-state and independence is the one political construct which not one state or people has turned its back on. Independence works. It’s time Wales made independence work for her.
Friday 9 September 2011
Would an independent Wales be better off than the status quo?
Excellent balanced piece by Sion Barry, Western Mail, Aug 12 2011
THERE was some interesting research published recently by former Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price, who is keen to return to the political arena after time spent at Harvard in the US.
THERE was some interesting research published recently by former Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price, who is keen to return to the political arena after time spent at Harvard in the US. His research, entitled the Flotilla Effect – Europe’s small economies through the eye of the storm, claims that it has been smaller and more agile nations in the EU which have, on average, experienced higher economic growth rates than larger countries since 1990, while also being quicker to emerge out of recession.
Mr Price and his co-author Ben Levinger, also a Harvard researcher, claim that four key factors make small nations economically successful: openness to trade, social cohesion, adaptability, and big government in a small country.
Their headline figure is that Wales could be around 39% richer, and the Welsh economy could have grown by 2.5% a year, if it had achieved independence around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall and had followed a similar pattern to other similar small nations.
In contrast, regions or countries which have rejected independence have performed poorly.
But could Wales really have achieved this average, or would it have been well down the rankings in the small nation growth table – or conversely even above?
While a hypothetical question, Mr Price has re-ignited the debate on how an independent Wales could perform economically.
Of course since 1990 the fastest growing economies have been those with some of the world’s biggest populations, notably China, India and Brazil.
But back to the issue of Welsh independence. Firstly, of course, there would need to be a democratic mandate with a majority of AMs and possibly of Welsh MPs in Westminster backing independence. And even if a referendum was called and turned out to back independence, it would also need endorsement from the UK Government.
Many argue that Wales is “too small” – although this is an economic strength according to Mr Price – and doesn’t generate enough tax receipts, both personal and corporate, to support itself. Coupled with current high economic inactivity levels, they believe that Wales would fall even further behind on key economic indicators if it broke away from England.
An independent Welsh government could also be faced with the need of having to strike a deal with the Treasury on what percentage of the UK’s national debt – currently running at an eye-watering £900bn – it would be liable for. On a population calculation that could leave Wales with a potential bill of £45bn, although no doubt it would look to negotiate a non-repayment position as with Wales receiving more per head in government spending than the UK average, independence would immediately generate savings for an English government.
An independent administration could also argue that it would be entitled to a share of any future assets sales by an English government, which it could use to offset any national debt repayment charge.
Critically, how would an independent Welsh Government generate sufficient income?
While there might be pain initially it should look to reduce personal and business taxes and promote itself to the world as western Europe’s most “friendly business location”.
There is evidence that lower taxes not only attract new investment into economies, but act as a spur for increased indigenous business inactivity, which in turn increases the overall tax take.
With a more competitive tax regime Wales could not just attract high-net-worth individuals, but, over time, leading head office operations from the south-east of England.
A lower tax regime would also help in attracting more investment from overseas.
Wales could look to continue to receive UK government-funded public services.
For example, a Welsh government could be happy to continue with a BBC licence fee to ensure it maintains public service broadcast output for Welsh viewers – although news content would have to feature more Welsh content.
With utilities and telecom providers long since private, it would be a case of business as usual for consumers in Wales – while retailers would also still trade in Wales, perhaps with the added incentive of a lower VAT regime.
International and UK banks, as well as mutuals, would continue to operate as they do now.
On currency Wales could opt to join the euro – providing it is still in existence – or potentially peg its currency to sterling.
From a global perspective there is a link between being resource rich and economic growth; just look at Australia and Canada.
Wales does have an abundance of natural resources which could be of great benefit to its balance of payments. There are still huge reserves of coal in South Wales, as well as methane gas. Advances in carbon storage and capture technology could see Wales emerging as a significant exporter of coal in the future.
It is also well placed to develop renewables in areas such as wind and tidal power.
There are many examples of new states created in Europe since the 1990s, to study how new nations go about running things for themselves, like the new countries of the Balkans and Slovakia following its decision to break away from what is now the Czech Republic.
And if Scotland went independent first – the SNP has far wider support than Plaid Cymru – then there would be an even better model to work off.
However, current prospects of an independent Wales remain extremely unlikely, with the only show in town being more devolved powers – but taking a pragmatic view you should never rule anything in or out.
Thursday 8 September 2011
Wednesday 7 September 2011
The Flotilla Effect - Adam Price - Independent Wales could have been 40% richer
A very interesting report by former Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price and Ben Levinger about the he potential economic benefits of Welsh independence. Adam Price is currently attaining a scholarship in Harvard (USA).
Adam Price claims that if independence was achieved in Wales at the same time as the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, Wales would be 39% richer today in the current economic climate. Small nations tend to perform better which indicates that Wales would perform well in a World Crisis.
Adam Price claims that if independence was achieved in Wales at the same time as the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, Wales would be 39% richer today in the current economic climate. Small nations tend to perform better which indicates that Wales would perform well in a World Crisis.
- The Flotilla Effect - Europe’s small economies through the eye of the storm - plaidcymru.org
- Download the Flotilla Effect - Adam Price and Ben Levinger (PDF)
- Why Independence for Wales and Other Countries Makes Economic Sense - Adam Price - harvard.edu
- The Flotilla Effect - A wealthier Wales with independence? - oggybloggyogwr.blogspot.com
- Small country, massive disagreement - Adam Price - waleshome.org
- Independent Wales could have been 40% richer, says Plaid Cymru report - guardian.co.uk
- Independent Wales would be 39% richer, claims ex-MP - bbc.co.uk
- Wales Can Be An Economic Success Story Too – Carmarthen Journal Column August 24, 2011 - jonathanedwards.org.uk
- Plaid Cymru claim independent Wales could be 39% richer - leftfootforward.org
- Independent Wales could be 39% richer - welshrepublic.com
- Why Independence for Wales and Other Countries Makes Economic Sense - huffingtonpost.co.uk
It's been a long time...
But we're back!
We hope to be posting more regularly once again from now on. If you would like to contribute please contact us. In the meantime, here are some great Welsh independence related links that have appeared since we've been away!
We hope to be posting more regularly once again from now on. If you would like to contribute please contact us. In the meantime, here are some great Welsh independence related links that have appeared since we've been away!
- Why Independence for Wales and Other Countries Makes Economic Sense - huffingtonpost.co.uk - August 2 2011
- Adam Price: Plaid Cymru should admit it dreams of independence - Western Mail - June 15 2011
- Why Wales deserves independence – Part 1 / Part 2 - freewales.org
- SNP success will inspire campaigners for Welsh independence - Western Mail - May 9 2011
- Independence for Wales - Welsh Ramblings blog - April 2 2011
- Welsh Independence? Discussion on democracyforum.co.uk - June 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)