Accounting for the Dissolution of a Nation State: The Price of Scotland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to shed new empirical light on the role of Accounting in shaping historical events. This is pursued by way of an analysis of the formation of Britain via the treaty of union between Scotland and England in 1707. That analysis is split up into two distinct periods, whose events overlap and are weaved together here through a multifarious accounting discourse. Firstly, in negotiating the Treaty of Union in 1706-7, the sum of (English pound) 398,085 10s was offered as an inducement to the Scottish political and financial elite. This 'Price of Scotland' was arrived at using a complicated discounted cash flow calculation, legitimised by 'experts' and succeeded in mystifying to some extent the myopia and self-interest at the heart of the union negotiations. Secondly, one of the articles of the Treaty ascribed a key accountability role to Scots customs and excise revenue collectors post-union in order to ensure that future sums would be paid to 'Scotland'. However, a failure to discharge this accountability meant that said money could not be paid. Out of this failure of accountability emerged the Royal Bank of Scotland in 1727, an entity that was to have a significant impact on Scotland's future economic development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".