William Thomson identifies a major contributory factor to "Scotland's malaise", apparently without realising he has done so. It is not "the lack of a vision for our independent economy and society", but rather an excess of 'visions' all competing for the prize of being declared the 'one vision'. That's the thing about economics - it provides near infinite scope for difference without significance.
In principle, every single one of us might have our own personalised 'vision' for Scotland's economic arrangements post-independence. In fact, we could all have 'visions' the way we have shirts - different ones for various occasions. Or for different audiences. And none of those 'visions' need be fixed. We are each of us at liberty to modify our vision in light of new information or changed circumstances or because it makes our bum look big.
That the Scottish Government (SNP) lacks vision in the sense of imagination can hardly be disputed. Why would they be so immovably stuck in the mindset of 2011/12 if they were capable of imagining something more relevant to the markedly changed circumstances of 2024. But when it comes to visions in the sense of more or less complete pictures of Scotland's post-independence economy (and everything else) then the independence movement suffers not from a dearth, but a superabundance. A veritable mountain of 'visions' which buries and smothers the core constitutional issue.
We hear endless talk of these 'visions'. Daily - or so it seems - we have some individual or organisation announcing a new prescription for post-independence Scotland's economy which is supposed to supersede all the others. Though the proponents of those others tend to disagree. Or agree on partially or conditionally. The ensuing 'debate' is seldom enlightening. It wouldn't matter if it were because nobody is listening anymore. They had all stopped listening to the economics stuff by the summer of 2014 at the latest, having wearied of the interminable and unwinnable game of statistic trumps.
It's all just background noise now. But it is not benign. We are urged to talk only of these 'visions' of BEING independent as we are shooed away from the matter of BECOMING independent. There is a reason the economically minded want to talk about economics and not the constitution and it is that they are economically minded. Which tends to leave little space for anything else. There is, I would venture, no topic you can raise with those inclined to see the world in terms of economic models which they will not turn to a discussion of economics within a minute or two. Little wonder they call it the dismal science!
There is a reason also that politicians resort to talk of 'visions' without ever touching on the subject of realising said 'visions', other than to assure us that it requires voting for them. Talk of 'visions' is easy. As I said, we all have one. Or a wardrobe-full of them. A new 'vision' can be conjured in moments. It may take a little longer to deck it out with charts and graphs and spreadsheets and learned opinions to give it bulk if not weight. Talk of 'vision' is easy. It is easy to give such talk a veneer of rationality by throwing in a few artfully selected statistics. It is easy to make talk of 'visions' inspiring by applying some grandiose rhetoric. It is easy. That's why politicians prefer it. It is easy not least because every vision is valid. It is not subject to proof. It's an imagined thing. The average person can imagine a hundred impossible things before breakfast. We tend to be quite at ease with merely improbable imaginings.
By contrast, talking and thinking about the process by which the 'vision' might be realised is hard. Extremely hard. Too difficult for our political elite, it seems. Were the topic of a process by which independence might be restored to be part of our political discourse, it would be but moments before it became obvious to all that our politicians are either clueless or they know the answer but too afraid to say it aloud.
And it is all utterly pointless. It is pointless because there is no economic 'vision' that is perfect and likely to remain so. Economies are organic, not mechanical. A prescription for Scotland's economic health on day one could be poison by day ten. Economies are inherently and necessarily unstable. They are dynamic. Economic models are not made of concrete. They are fashioned from blancmange. Economic forecasts are somewhat less reliable than betting tips. As John Kenneth Galbraith said, "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.".
The proliferation of economic 'visions' is pointless also because none of them can be imposed on post-independence Scotland. Stated in the simplest possible terms, the constitutional issue is about who decides. Our role is to bequeath to our successors the power to decide. It is no part of our role to decide for them. Not that we could, in any case. Post-independence Scottish Governments will decide, having been elected by the people of Scotland for that purpose. Our legacy to independent Scotland will be the nation and all it contains along with a provisional constitution just to make it all official. Other than that, they the people will decide. Not we the people.
None of it will matter if we do not decide on a process by which to restore our independence and initiate that process as a matter of urgency.
It seems to me that the Scottish Government, whichever party it might be or has been, is operating in the same way as Westminster, that is without a proper, national agreed, written constitution. Which might go to someway in which it operates, as you suggest, without change economically and otherwise since 2014.
Surely Scotland needs an agreed written constitution, regardless of Westminster, before it can become independent. Scotland and its people need to know how an independent government's parameters are so defined in accordance with the wishes of the people it is elected to govern.
There is an unofficial constitution already in existence, put together initially by experts and modified thus far by the nation. The current government says it is working on a constitution. I don't believe them. Where is the evidence? Why have we not been involved?
Yes, the SNP has been elected to govern Scotland but without any input from ourselves. The 'Claim of Right' would be hard put to put into use without a modified and modern constitution allowing a procedure so to do.