from http://myweemusings.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/facts-and-figures-explained/

Fantastic article ahead :

Today's article highlights the facts about Scotland's economy and expels the myths that as a nation we are 'too wee, too poor, and too stupid'. Nothing, absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. 

The facts are there to be read and they prove we are big enough, rich enough, and definitely intelligent enough to be Independent. But don't take my word for it, read the article...

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts” – Daniel Patrick Moynihan

So here are the facts about Scotland’s economy I have compiled which will hopefully help expel the myths of our own inadequacy.

MYTH 1)
“Scotland is too wee to be a viable independent country“

Scotland has a population of around 5.3 million, compared to rUK’s population of approximately 58 million. You don’t need to be a mathematical wizard to see we are smaller, however we are not too small. If you look at the top three wealthiest countries in the OECD (as detailed below) you’ll see that the argument that Scotland is “too wee” is ridiculous and also a blatant lie.

1) Luxembourg – population 523,000 – GDP per capita 86.3

2) Norway – population 5 million – GDP per capita 57.3

3) Switzerland – population 7 million – GDP per capita 48.7

MYTH 2)
“Scotland is too poor to be a successful independent country”

We have been told for decades that Scotland is the subsidy junkie of Britain, that the rest of the UK pays our way in the world. It’s not surprising that this myth has long gone unchallenged, after all we only make up 8.4% of the UK population; so it must be true that the rUK pays for Scotland, mustn’t it?

Well, no actually, that isn’t true at all.

Making up only 8.4% of the UK population, Scotland actually accumulates almost 10% of the overall tax revenue of the UK (£53.2 billion), which means that Scottish people contribute more tax per head than the rest of the UK. This isn’t just a one off either, Scotland has actually paid more tax per head than the rest of the UK every single year for the last 30 years.

“But you receive more spending per head compared to rUK and you have a deficit of £12 billion”

This line is always, rather smugly I might add, trotted out when it’s pointed out that Scotland raises more tax than rUK. Whilst it’s completely true that Scotland does receive more spending than rUK, it’s not really accurate to say Scotland *spends* more. It’s worth having a deeper look into that spending, who spent it and where it goes.

i) THE SPENDING

In 2012/13 Scotland’s total public spending bill was £65.2 billion, compared to UK’s spending (excluding Scotland) of £609.9 billion.

The spending of Scotland’s £65.2 billion is broken up into two categories:

Identifiable spending: is that which can be identified as being spent to benefit the residents of a particular country or region of the UK. For example, benefit spending can clearly be allocated to the country or region where the recipient lives. Identifiable spending accounts for 86% of total public expenditure on services.

Non-identifiable spending: is that spending which is incurred for the UK as a whole, rather than residents of a particular country or region. The largest categories of non-identifiable spending are defence and interest on government debt. Non-identifiable spending accounts for 14% of total public expenditure on services.

So, of that 86% total identifiable public expenditure on services, Scotland’s Government and Local Authorities had control of approximately £38.5 billion. With that money, the Scottish Government provided the people of Scotland with (among other things) a free publicly owned NHS, free higher education, free prescriptions, free public transport for pensioners, free personal care for the elderly, a publicly owned water board, and also a freeze on council tax. It also attributed to non-reserved matter spending on public order & safety, housing & local amenities, recreation culture & religion, public & common services, and environmental services.

£26.6 billion of Scotland’s total expenditure was spent by the UK Government on Scotland’s behalf, this includes £9.3 billion of “non-identifiable” spending. It’s worth noting that the “non-identifiable” spending isn’t the actual amount spent IN Scotland, but rather an estimate based on Scotland’s population share (8.4%) of the overall spending by Westminster which is deemed as “non-identifiable”. For instance, in 2007/8 Scotland spent an identifiable amount of £400 million on defense in Scotland, our population share of non-identifiable defense spending by the UK Government was £3.1 billion . However, in actual fact we only saw £1.9 billion of that amount spent on defense in Scotland on our behalf.

Scotland’s share of debt interest payments to the UK Government was £4.1 billion for 2012/13. This is our share of interest on a per capita basis. There are no official figures kept for how much of the debt was accrued by Scotland, so we pay a population share on the basis that everyone shoulders the debt burden equally across the United Kingdom. Our debt spend is classed as non-identifiable spending.

So we now know for a fact that the Scottish Government & Local Authorities spent £38.5 billion IN Scotland, and that the UK Government spent £17.3 billion IN Scotland. Unfortunately we cannot say with absolute certainty that every penny of the remaining £5.2 billion of non-identifiable expenditure (£9.3 billion minus £4.1 billion debt spend) was spent IN Scotland. However, what is absolutely certain is the fact that Scotland didn’t SPEND it – the UK Government did.

I think it’s worth mentioning here that of the money Scotland has control over, the current Scottish Government manages to stay within its allocated budget.

i) THE DEFICIT

The first thing we should note about the deficit (and this is true for revenues too), is that the figures for Scotland are quoted in three stages:

Excluding oil & gas

Including oil & gas on a per capita share

Including oil & gas on an illustrative geographical share.

Meanwhile the figures for the UK automatically include a 100% share of oil & gas.

Another thing which is worth mentioning is that the much quoted £12 billion deficit figure, is the Net Fiscal balance which includes capital investment of public spending on things like new schools being built, hospitals, new roads etc. The Current Budget Balance gives an entirely different deficit figure, a much lower £8.5 billion.

The current balance budget deficit for the UK is £91.9 billion, and £114.7 billion for their net fiscal balance deficit (again, these figures include a 100% share of North Sea revenues in their calculations – a wee bit misleading I feel)

As we can see, both Scotland and the UK are running at a deficit, they both spend more than they create – This isn’t a sole problem for Scotland.

Now, here’s where things get interesting! If you take those figures for Scotland and compare them to the UK figures on a percentage of GDP, here’s what we find.

A) Scotland’s current balance budget, including geographical share of North Sea – 5.9% of GDP

i) UK’s current balance budget, including 100% of North Sea – 5.8% of GDP

B) Scotland’s net-fiscal balance, including geographical share of North Sea – 8.3% of GDP

i) UK’s net fiscal balance, including 100% of North Sea – 7.3% of GDP

There isn’t a whole hell of a lot in it. This isn’t a one horse race with the UK bolting ahead whilst Nicola Sturgeon stands on the sidelines screeching “c’mon Scotland, move yer bleedin’ arse” like some Scottish Eliza Doolittle attending the indyref races. On the contrary, this is a photo-finish. It would be extremely interesting to see a comparison with UK figures including their illustrative geographical share of North Sea instead of a 100% share. I wonder why the UK Government chooses not to highlight these figures…

Anyhoo, moving on.

HOW WILL THESE FIGURES CHANGE IN AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND?

Here’s how our economy works at the moment: All monies raised in Scotland are immediately sent to the UK Treasury, they then give us our share of money allocated through the block grant, which is based on the Barnett Formula. The Barnett Formula sets out the rules in how money is divided between England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales; and is based on a population percentage of each nation. The Barnett formula is not written into law, it is a purely monetary administrative system and there have been constant calls for it to be re-devised or scrapped entirely since it’s introduction. It’s a subject which is often seen addressed within the House of Lords. Let’s be clear here, the money which Scotland receives is entirely dependent on the agreement of the UK government, who could at any time scrap the Barnett Formula if they so wished, or alter it so that Scotland would receive less money than we do at the moment in order to make things “fairer” across the United Kingdom.

In an independent Scotland, we would cut out the Treasury middle man. All monies raised in Scotland would be allocated and spent by Scotland, we would no longer have to rely on money being given to us through block grants or have to worry that our funding could be cut by a Westminster Parliament the people of Scotland largely didn’t vote for and are grossly outnumbered in the hundreds by way of representation.

The argument over Scotland’s expenditure and deficit being a reason to vote against independence largely relies on the assumption that an independent Scotland would continue the spending trend we do at present.

With independence comes the powers to change how our money is spent. We would no longer be sending our per capita share of money down to help refurbish Westminster, or to build a high speed railway which stops 100 miles away from Scotland’s border. We wouldn’t help subsidise the some 780 peers within the House of Lords (an undemocratic and unelected drain on tax payers expenses). We wouldn’t be planning to spend a share of £34 billion on renewing nuclear deterrents on the Clyde when 220,000 children in Scotland are living in poverty with a further 50,000 estimated to join that already horrific number by 2020.

We can choose to create a fairer tax system, we can choose to enable tens of thousands of people back into work by transforming child care policies, we can choose to properly tackle the poverty that has plagued Scotland’s streets for far too long. It all comes down to choice, Scotland’s choice.

The power to change what we are comes only with independence, and that is why I am voting yes for Scotland.

Forbes from March

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnicholson/2014/03/05/5-reasons-why-scottish-independence-would-be-an-economic-disaster/

Currency – There is currently 4 currency options open to an independent Scotland. Sterling in a formal currency union (as it is now) Sterling – without Westminster cooperation (such as Panama), The Euro or an independent Scottish currency. With Nobel winning Economists stating Osborne’s statement as a bluff (after all what does he know of economics. His degree is in history. Alex Salmond’s is in economics). Mr Klaus is a former Czech president. Speaking at an event in Edinburgh University this week, Mr Klaus – referring to comments made by Jose Manuel Barroso in a BBC interview – said: “It is arrogant of the EU to say Scotland and Catalonia will not be members.” Mme Garriaud-Maylam, a senior French senator specialising in foreign policy. Speaking in the French Senate, Mme Garriaud-Maylam said: “The threats formulated by Mr Barroso are inappropriate and the result of Spanish and English pressure. London is increasingly worried. They (EU threats) are not credible. If Scotland votes for independence, it will stay in the European Union. It would be in England’s interest.”

Oil – Westminster own reports say that oil prices will continue to rise and oil production will be there until 2055. Page 24 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/175480/bis-13-748-uk-oil-and-gas-industrial-strategy.pdf . This is excluding further discoveries.Never mind the fact that the industry itself see’s North Sea Oil being there far into the future. You state oil revenues, this is countered by oil companies coming out and saying that the reason there has been mixed investment into the North Sea due to Westminster’s inability to keep a stable tax and fiscal policy. 16 changes in 10 years by Westminster Governments. Plus the remaining oil left is valued at AT LEAST £1.5 Trillion.

Banks – Ahh the banks, the banks that became Scottish AFTER they crashed. The UK bailed out the banks in 2008 to the tune of £66 Billion, Scottish GDP for 2008 was, ohh only £145 Billion. Damn. Also the US federal reserve bailed out UK banks by about roughly $1 Trillion. Banks are bailed out where the contagion is, not where their head office is. The real question on the banks is : Would an Independent Scotland have allowed the banks to bet like theres no tomorrow with everyones money?

Credibility – http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-an-independent-scotland-could-become-the-richest-country-on-earth-9096120.html Also Satandard and Poors the global ratings service said “Even excluding North Sea Output, Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assessment” Feb 2014. “if its geographic share of North Sea Oil and Gas is taken into account, Scotland’s GDP per head is bigger than that of France” <- Financial Times Feb 2014. Also the GERS reports (Government Expenditure Revenue Scotland) confirm that Scotland contributes more tax per head, and in all actuality is essentially robbed of £4.4 Billion per year. 8.4% of the UK population pays 9.9% of UK tax take.

Natural Resources – Scotland is Europe's largest oil producing nation and also boasts 25% of Europe's renewable energy potential. Scotland has a vast range of sectors and oil is only a small part of it. Around 15% of Scotland's economy. On contrast oil makes up around 25% of Norway's economy and I don't hear them complaining.

I would suggest that before you repeat the BBC propaganda (which has been found guilty of favouring the No side by its own BBC Trust) and the Better Together campaign (which calls itself Project Fear) you do some research on the subject and ask yourself, who is better placed to govern Scotland? London Centric Westminster or a government that actually stays in Scotland. As Vince Cable MP said "London is becoming a giant suction machine draining the life out of the rest of the country"

Sorting Fact from Fiction

Sorting Fact from Fiction:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/youdecide2014/scotland-the-uk-10-myths-10-facts-oykn

Myth: Our global relationships won’t change

Fact: Scotland would be a new country. We wouldn’t inherit all the international deals the UK has struck over many years, decades, and even centuries (everything from extradition and trade treaties to the International Declaration Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons). So we’d have to start from scratch, negotiating to join everything from the UN to Nato.

Actual Fact : Scotland would not be a new country, it is already a country. It was a country before the treaty of union, it still is today. We wouldn't inherit all the international deals the UK has struck that is true, but if it is true for Scotland it must be true for the rUK. It was the UK not the rUK that signed those treaties. If the UK is a successor state, Scotland must be too. Otherwise both must start from scratch.

Myth: We’ll still play the National Lottery and share much-loved national institutions with the UK

Fact: It’s called the National Lottery – not the International Lottery. You can’t buy a ticket in France, so why would it run in an independent Scotland? The same goes for everything from the Met Office to the benefits system. We’d have to spend millions setting up new institutions.

Actual Fact : We may or may not be able to play the National Lottery, chances are we will as it is a privately run institution not a UK government one. Technically the “national lottery” is an international lottery. The UK itself describes itself as a country of countries. Does anyone else see the plural there? The benefits system, yes because we are unable to program a computer to transfer funds from government into personal bank accounts. Contrary to popular belief, computers are not difficult to program. All it takes is a little training and some patience. Scotland is more than capable of setting up such a system. Spend Millions in doing so? Well maybe, but once you factor in the rebate we should receive from rUK to the tune of £4.7 Billion for HS2, we'll still be making a net gain.

Myth: We’ll be an EU member (and inherit the same terms and conditions that the UK currently enjoys)

Fact: We’d have to apply as a new state and negotiate entry – it’s hard to imagine it would be an easy process (look at how long it took Croatia to join - almost eight years), and even harder to imagine that we’d be given advantageous terms (like the UK rebate or opt-outs, including from the Euro).

Actual Fact : Well given that it is widely accepted that Scotland will be in the EU as a continuing member this point is almost redundant. Though joining the EU isn't a 1^st come 1^st served basis. If you meet the criteria, you can join immediately. East Germany was welcomed into the EEC within 1 year of unification with West Germany. The Scottish Government has set a period of 18 months for these negotiations. “realistic” was the term used by the UK's official independent lawyer on the subject. There is also no mechanism to force countries to join the Euro (the UK likes to promote this Euro opt out to try to appease Eurosceptics that they are better than the rest of the EU when in reality they could just do what Sweden do), just like there is no mechanism to essentially kick Scotland out and force her to re-apply. The UK's rebate lasts until the next EU budget in 2020. Then it is re-negotiated. Scotland is applying for no detriment membership to the EU. Meaning that no other members will be left out, and everything will continue, with Scotland paying her share instead of handing over her taxes to Westminster to pay it for her. This seems the most logical route.

Myth: We’ll keep the UK pound

Fact: Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems have all made clear if we leave the UK we’ll also leave the UK pound. A currency union would not work for Scotland or the rest of the UK – it will not happen.

Actual Fact : New Labour, Lib Dems and Tories are either economically illiterate, or they think we are. They do not own Sterling, just like the US doesn't own the US Dollar. Panama etc … This point is tired and old, especially given the “of course” to a currency union as reported in the Guardian from an unnamed UK minister.

Myth: We wouldn’t have to bailout our banks – international investors bailed them out before

Fact: During the last crisis the UK taxpayer shelled out £66 billion to bail out the banks – more than £1,000 for every man, woman and child in the UK. Including guarantees, UK taxpayers gave more than £320 billion of support to Royal Bank of Scotland alone. Could we really afford these sorts of sums on our own?

Actual Fact : Banks are bailed out based on where the contagion is, not where the head office is located. Take 2008, RBS do about 10% of their business in Scotland. Scotland would then have paid 10% of the bailout. Barclays was one of the major UK banks to be bailed out by the US federal reserve, as it did an awful lot of business across the pond. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Myth: The answers are in the independence white paper and it all adds up

Fact: The white paper does not answer the key questions. Many of the independence plans, for example on currency and EU membership, are in the hands of foreign governments who would be acting in the interests of their own citizens ahead of Scotland’s. And the white paper does not add up - the plans to cut taxes and extend childcare need £1.6 billion of additional funding.

Actual Fact : Currency – no one can tell any government what it can use a legal tender. There are also 4 currency options in the white paper. EU – already answered, Scotland will be in the EU. The EU needs Scotland for energy, agriculture and fishing. If Scotland is not in the EU those treaties will not apply and Scotland could not allow foreign vessels in her waters. The Scottish route is also vital to get to Norway's waters too, will the EU really let go of all those fishing grounds? £1.6 Billion in extra funding – post indy the UK will need to pay Scotland £4.7 Billion for her share of the “national infrastructure” HS2, which will come no where near Scotland. £4.7 - £1.6 = £3.1 Billion left to play with. That'll do nicely thank you.

Myth: There would be tax cuts and more spending in an independent Scotland

Fact: Scotland spent £12 billion more than it raised in taxes last year (that’s from the Scottish Government’s own figures, including North Sea revenues). So it’s hard to see how we’d be able cut corporation tax and air passenger duty on one hand but still spend more on benefits and create an oil fund on the other.

Actual Fact : Scotland runs a deficit, like every other country. It is a smaller % of GDP that the UK's to be honest. Scotland's deficit was so high in the last financial year due to “record investment” in the north sea. Which of course offsets tax receipts. When the North Sea starts producing again deficit bye bye, Though the deficit is relying on Scotland's spending being the same. Here's me thinking we'd make savings by not paying for the Royal family, the Westminster gravy train, Trident and HS2.

Myth: Westminster won’t devolve more powers

Fact: More powers were devolved in the Scotland Act 2012 (the largest devolution of tax powers in the UK’s history). As a result we now set even more of our own laws, from motorway speed limits to regulating air weapons. Plus, all three main UK parties have promised more powers will be devolved in future.

Actual Fact : Johann Lamont called further devolution “propaganda” - enough said.

Myth: You can’t trust unionists, they’re just negative

Fact: The union has been a huge success story (from joint sporting glory to the amazing scientific collaborations that created Dolly the Sheep!) for more than 300 years – that’s why the rest of the UK doesn’t want us to leave.

Actual Fact : The Union has been such a success story that 59 countries have left Westminster's control since the American Revolution. Sports stars will continue to train together and scientists will continue to collaborate. Much in the same way that science is conducted today. Unless it's North Korea or maybe China, science doesn't stop at borders.

Myth: Remaining North Sea oil and gas is worth £1.5 trillion - and at least £6.8 billion in Scottish tax revenues in first year of independence

Fact: The Scottish Government assumes that oil and gas can be produced at zero costs (so rigs and pipelines can be built and run for free, and oil workers don’t need to be paid), despite the remaining oil being further off-shore and deeper under the ocean, so it costs more to extract. Over the last two years, taxes from the North Sea have been £3 billion below the Scottish Government’s most pessimistic forecast – that’s the same as our entire education budget.

Actual Fact : There is debate over how much in value is left of North Sea Oil. The lowest is the OBR's £1.5 Trillion. European experts say its closer to £2.5 while the industry itself says £4 Trillion. The truth is, that oil is a bonus to the Scottish economy not the centre of it. It would be foolish to base an entire economy around one sector, unless of course you're the UK and that sector is the casino style banking of the city of London. Also the total for tax revenues include tax paid by north sea workers, not just from the sale to allow these oil companies to use our resource. The cost of extraction and building is taken by the oil companies not the tax payer

Scotland Yet: A film about independence - Trailer #1

Labour's Devo Max slip up

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11145721.Region_has_nothing_to_fear_economically_from_independent_Scotland___but_there_ll_no_review/

In brackets is an extract copied word for word

(Interviewed by The Northern Echo, Johann Lamont rejected suggestions that Scotland is poised to gain a huge economic advantage over its neighbouring region, in return for voting 'no' to independence.

Instead, Ms Lamont urged people in the North-East not to believe "propaganda" about extra powers and riches heading to Edinburgh, saying: "We shouldn't let people divide us."

However, she risked controversy by rejecting a review of the much-criticised Barnett Formula, which delivers much higher public spending to Scotland than to the North of England.

Ms Lamont said: "I believe it has served us well. There is no desire to get rid of the Barnett Formula.")

Scotland is a nation, a country. Not a region. You would think the leader of "Scottish Labour" would know that. If we were just a region, why do we have a different legal system in Scotland? Why do we have our own parliament, of which she is a part of? Why do we have a different electoral system from the rest of the UK? The only thing that keeps Scotland in the UK was greedy men selling Scotland out for gold in 1707.

The myth that Scotland was in debt in 1707 is exactly that, a myth. Darian was privately funded by Scot's nobles, not loans from others. When their investment didn't work out for them they cashed in by selling their country to the neighbours from the south. No vote for the common people of the land was given. How very democratic. The Treaty of Union was signed behind closed doors, under fear that heads would roll in the streets if the public ever truly found out what was going on. No-one was told until it was done.

Regardless of how ever much is raised in Scotland through taxation, which has been higher than the rest of the UK in every 1 of the 33 GERS reports that have been released, we will always be a slave to Westminster in London. Let's all forget that child poverty and food banks are on the rise here. Your gracious Labour leader has decided that although these pesky facts that affect the lives of the people, the Barnett formula will stay. So every cut in England's public spending (NHS selloff) corresponds with a cut in Scotland's block grant. Effectively FORCING PRIVATISATION of Scotland's vital public services.

The leader of UK wide New Labour, Ed Milliband, has previously stated he will “Rule Like Thatcher”, anyone remember how well she looked after the working class and poorest in society? He also continually drones on about the squeeze the recession has caused the Middle Class. This is it. The working class, on which Labour was founded on to protect, have been sold out for ski holidays and a new car every 3 years.

This is why Scotland needs to vote #Yes.

This is why Nicola Sturgeon said at the SNP conference : “don't vote no to stop the SNP, vote YES to reclaim the Labour party.”

(Holyrood has already won permission to issue "Braveheart bonds" for capital investment in roads, hospitals, schools and flood defences, with borrowing powers up from 500m to 2.2bn.)

I love the word “permission” here. It shows the derogatory view in which we are held.

(Meanwhile, the 30-year-old Barnett Formula gives Scotland 733 more per person than the much poorer North-East - a figure that has more than doubled from 361, in 2010-11. )

Actually it hasn't. Scotland's dwindling population due to emigration down south to find jobs has actually freed up those funds

("Scotland will not be getting more money, it will simply be accountable for raising more of its money. I hope that dispels some myths." )

It does Johann, it dispels the myth that Labour are the party of devolution that you like to brag about – even though she actually opposed it before it happened, cough cough.

(Asked for a referendum prediction, she said: "We are fighting for every single vote, but I'm optimistic that hope will triumph over grievance." )

As are we Johann. Hope that Scotland can get rid of neo-liberal politicians. Hope that Scotland can undo the tireless work of successive New Labour and Tory Governments that have been slowly but surely dismantling the Welfare state. Hope that Scotland can finally be free to make her own choices. As Tommy Sheridan says #HopeOverFear

#ReasonsForIndy

Better Together said in yesterday's record : Well he still can't tell us what currency we'll be using, or what will happen to schools and hospitals.

The pro-union side do know that education and healthcare are already under Scotland's control don't they? Nothing will change, well they'll be given the extra funding they need seeing as we won't be paying the Westminster gravy train anymore, or for nuclear weapons, or for illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan etc etc. What they don't say is that with reductions in England's public spending, Scotland's block grant gets cut due to the Barnett formula. This means that if Scotland stays in the UK, and with the English NHS being sold off as quickly as it can be without mass revolt the Scottish Health Service will suffer dwindling finances and would be forced into privatisation. Same goes for Education. Young people would have to pay for having the audacity of attempting to achieve higher education. 

Currency is a non issue in my opinion. We could use Knuts, Sickles and Gallions for all I care. The value of a currency is only what value people believe it has and what its backed up by (previously gold though in Scotland's case an independent Scottish currency would be petrol backed - a certain Mr Gordon Brown sold most of the UK's gold though we left the gold standard many many moons ago - so an indy Scottish currency would be a very hard currency rather like Norway's) not what name is on it. If it was sterling then the entire island economies would balance that out. 

That said, there is very little Westminster could do to stop Scotland continuing to use the £ except moan about it. Think Panama with the US dollar. Also if the pro-union side had even bothered to read the white paper, they would know that 4 currency options were put forward by the fiscal commission. The currency union was chosen as the most favourable not just for the people of Scotland, after all any one of the 4 would do just fine, but for England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well. As the treaty of union would be dissolved and the UK would not exist. There would be no rUK unless new treaties were drawn up and signed by the remaining parties. 

Mr Osborne's and co downright rejection of such a joint currency venture shows just what he, and those who supported him i.e. Mr Balls and Mr Alexander, think. That the pound belongs to Westminster and no-one else. It has a distinct air of "it's my ball, you can't play" about it. In other words, childish. Furthermore the Republic of Ireland used Sterling for roughly 60 years after she broke free from Westminster's grasp, yet that inconvenient truth seems to have been forgotten by the Better Together campaign, who seem to want to create as much uncertainty around the issue as possible. 

The #indyref is not and has never been about Alex Salmond, the #YesCampaign have been saying this from day 1. Alex Salmond is even on record on Scotland Tonight saying "it's not Alex Salmond's version of independence, the people of Scotland will decide what kind of country we want to live in" That was a long time ago he said that, I think 2012 or the beginning of 2013. 

 Labour died in 1997, its New Labour now. People seem to forget that. Labour were the voice the left needed, New labour decided to take a step to the right to try and fight the Tories on their home ground instead of standing their own. With the rise of UKIP, mostly in England, the 3 main political parties are moving further and further right, while Scotland generally stays to the left of politics. New Labour needs to go back to old Labour but are missing a force like UKIP on the left to counter the pull of UKIP. 

An independent Scotland would be the best thing that has happened to these islands for a LONG time. It would not only balance power centres across the island, but it would shake up Westminster too. The people of England (especially the North), Wales and Northern Ireland would see what Scotland could achieve and they would demand the same from their elected officials. It would create a fairer society for all 63 million people that stay on these shores. 

There has been voiced opposition from Spain, France and Italy though not one has said they would veto the Scots from being in the EU. They are currently fighting battles in their own respective countries trying to suppress succession movements with certain regions of their lands, but the UK is not a country. It is a union of countries. Scotland is not a region or a province but a nation. 

Scotland deserves a chance to make her way in the world again, and I'll be playing my part in making it possible. I will be voting Yes for my country, for the old and the young, for the sick and the poor, for the healthy and everything else in between. I'll be voting Yes because it's the right thing to do.

The Financial Times joins Project Fear

Now not everyone has access to the Financial Times website so I've taken the liberty of copying the article, then comprising my own analysis. Sorry for the length of this but there was a lot to cover.

I'm not a political expert, nor a financial one for that matter but here it goes:

The FT Article:

Shrill, leaderless and fizzing with all the emotional power of a bank statement. That is the abridged verdict on the campaign to persuade Scots to vote against independence in September’s referendum – from its own friends. As polls start to make secession look plausible, if nothing like probable, unionists are urged to state a more romantic case for the UK than the logistical ordeal of undoing it.

They should resist. There is no evidence that sentimental unionism would be outperforming this hard-headed version. Better Together, the pro-UK campaign, should certainly curb its apocalyptic tone but its line of attack is probably the best available. Scots who are emotionally committed to the union will vote for it. Scots who are emotionally set on independence will vote that way. This referendum was always going to be settled by the undecided, who are not tugged by their souls one way or the other. Exposing them to practical doubts is only sensible. Those doubts, about an independent Scotland’s currency and EU status, have just turned out to be less intimidating than expected. Going all mawkish now about “300 years of history” would suit only Alex Salmond,the nationalist first minister who, on top of his cold ingenuity, can out-emote anyone.

Unionists should stop fretting about their campaign. Their predicament is much worse than that. Whatever happens in September, it takes a feat of self-deception not to see that Scotland has become a very different political culture from England, if not also the rest of the UK, and that the future is one of gradual estrangement.

This point is best made by reiterating two features of the referendum debate that we have come to accept as somehow normal. First, this is a debate in which even the staunchest unionists believe that Scotland will be given greater autonomy if it votes against independence. Some actually want their campaign to tout this offer as a “positive” reason to vote No. Why risk separation, so this supposedly stirring message would run, when you can have something similar under the safety blanket of the UK?

When even unionists accept that the union will become looser, its future is insecure. The next round of powers for Edinburgh will be followed by another, and another after that. Tony Blair once boasted that he has no reverse gear – neither does devolution, his main constitutional reform as prime minister. It is a process, not an event, and if its destination is not independence, it may be “devo-max”. According to February’s Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, this arrangement, which would empower Edinburgh on virtually everything outside foreign and defence policy, is the most popular. If it eventually comes, it is hard to see how MPs with Scottish constituencies could hold high office in Westminster or even vote on much legislation there, for their decisions would affect every part of the UK except the nation they represent. And these are mostly MPs of the left. Without them, the Conservatives could aspire to command the rest of the UK in near-perpetuity, unless Labour moved right to win more votes in England.

This is the other feature of the debate that is nothing like as benign as we treat it. David Cameron has largely delegated the unionist campaign because he rightly fears that interventions from a Conservative (and English) prime minister would set back the cause. So many people on all sides accept this as common sense that the dark implications for the UK are missed. So it is worth going over again: the prime minister of the union cannot front a campaign to preserve that union because he belongs to the wrong party, a fact aggravated by possession of the wrong accent. This is extraordinary.

Major figures in the unionist campaign confess that their prospects hinge on how likely another Tory-led government looks in Westminster by the time of the plebiscite, so loathed is the party up there. The Tories’ nugatory presence in Scotland has become a line of comedy, but the joke is on the future of the union. The most popular party in England, which accounts for 84 per cent of the UK’s population, cannot get a hearing in Scotland, which accounts for 8 per cent, and is denied a majority in Westminster because of it. This is the Tories’ own fault; parties are accountable for their own performance. Nobody, however, can look at this structural lopsidedness without fearing for the stress it puts on the union, or wondering whether the political gap with Scotland is actually bridgeable.

Scottish public life is growing so unlike England’s as to already resemble that of a separate state. Wonderfully, Mr Salmond can call for more immigration and live to tell the tale. No Westminster politician would try. Less wonderfully, he can espouse the kind of economics that would cause much of England to check that it was not 1975.

This disparity is not going away. The unionist campaign is a footling concern next to the deeper unionist plight. Independence may be averted in September but the trend of history is unmistakable.

Article from the Financial Times by Janan Ganesh



My take on it:






Where to start, where to start? Probably from the beginning would be best I suppose.



Plausible? When you see how much distance was gained in the last 12 months by the Yes Campaign – not the nationalist, they are a party. Yes is a movement – it looks more and more likely, not just a mere possibility. I mean it's plausible to say that mermaids exists because the human race has only explored around 15% of the world's oceans, not likely though. Again the idea of separation springs up too. How many times must the story be told. The UK is a union of separate countries, not 1 that is going to break apart like North and South Korea. Think of the name. UNITED kingdom. A treaty will be dissolved. That's it. I think of it like a business arrangement. Where 1 party has decided that the arrangement is not working for them, so they want to pursue other projects. Would that equate as 1 business breaking into 2? No It wouldn't. It would be 2 business' going their separate ways. Another way to look at it is, the In/Out referendum the Tories want to hold in 2017. Are they trying to break up the EU? After all it is a union of separate countries isn't it. The simple answer to that is no. They want to dissolve the treaties and go their own path away from Europe. Also most European officials and governments are seeing a Yes vote being the likely outcome in September.



If the Better Together Campaign is “hard headed” then I'm a talking remote control. That's how much sense that statement makes. Hard Headed means delivering facts, not making up useless provable lies and attempting to pass them off as such.
He does make a good point that those committed to Independence will vote for it, while those committed to the union will vote for that too and it will be the undecided voters who will swing it either way. Again though looking at the trend in the polls – as any 1 poll can be misleading in the greater context of the debate – the movement has been from No to Undecided to Yes. I have never come across anyone who has gone the other way. They may be out there, I've just not met nor spoke to them.



“Practical doubts” about currency or EU membership. I will type this very slowly. An Independent Scotland will use the pound sterling. That good? I'll try again. POUND STERLING. It is a fully trade-able currency, Westminster does not own it. You would think a writer for a financial newspaper would know that very basic principle. To say the pound is not available to an Indy Scotland when it was used throughout the Commonwealth when countries became Independent shows discriminatory policy towards Scotland. Or even just downright racism.



The closest example of European membership we have is Denmark and Greenland in the EEC, the predecessor to the EU. When Greenland became independent from Denmark, she had to negotiate her way OUT of the EEC. When she left, she was still classed as a member. From the EU to reject the same option to Scotland would put in jeopardy the idea that the EU is a shrine to democracy. An idea the EU itself likes to promote.



Again, another good point follows. The gap in the political spectrum between Scotland and the largest member of the UK, England is startling. Scotland has an inclusive view of the world where as England, granted it is mainly in the south, is still stuck on this island mentality. UKIP's uprising being the result of this.



The safety blanket of the UK. Ahh yes that blanket that served us so well by invading other nations in the middle east at America's request. Rich Hall, an American comedian, said in 2010 Americans were looking forward to the UK elections to see “who would be Obama's bitch”. Its funny cause its true, though at the same time not funny at all to see your life being dictated to from across an ocean. This safety blanket also put nuclear weapons 25 miles from Scotland's largest city because there is no-where to put them down south as it would be too dangerous. Not our problem chaps. You want them, you pay for them and you house them. Its like buying a horse then setting up the stable in your neighbours garden because you don't want your grass trampled. Then having the cheek to charge your neighbour for the pleasure because they get to look at it.



Next round of powers being delivered. Well as I wrote in my earlier post. Johann Lamont put the lie to that. “Instead, Ms Lamont urged people in the North-East not to believe "propaganda" about extra powers and riches heading to Edinburgh, “



Labour would need to move to the right to win votes from Tories. Does he mean further than they have already moved to the right? If so I don't want to be a part of that.

“This is the other feature of the debate that is nothing like as benign as we treat it. David Cameron has largely delegated the unionist campaign because he rightly fears that interventions from a Conservative (and English) “ Again the anti-English propaganda springs up. We don't hate the English. We hate getting governments and policies that the majority of our country didn't vote for. 1 MP in Scotland and we get all their policies. Even if we had 0 Tory MPs we would still be receiving Tory cuts, while bankers get millions in bonuses. That is not democracy in the slightest. We accept that when Scotland is independent and I vote for say Scottish Greens and the majority of the country vote for a rejuvenated Labour party. Then I will accept the Labour government. I might not like it, but the majority of the people who live here wanted it. That is the nature of democracy. Backbench Tories complain that the EU is run by people that weren't voted for in the UK, why is the argument different when it comes to Scotland?



“So it is worth going over again: the prime minister of the union cannot front a campaign to preserve that union because he belongs to the wrong party, a fact aggravated by possession of the wrong accent. This is extraordinary “ Again he repeats the anti-Engligh propaganda, this can be interpreted as neural linguistic programming. 1^st he planted the seed, now he's repeating it to ensure it grows. Its very simple campaign politics. Undermine your opponent, then reinforce it. At least he got the party bit right. We don't vote Tory. In the last 60 odd years ( I believe its 68 though not sure) Scotland voted Labour 90% of the time, got Tory 52% of the time How is that democratic?




Imagine in 2016, you look at the headlines in the papers that says : Scotland voted for (again an example) Scottish Greens. Scotland got Scottish Greens. A party Scotland voted for to decide Scotland's foreign policy, to decide her taxation, to decide ….. well to decide everything a government should decide. Holyrood was built for one reason and one reason only. To shut the Scots up. Holyrood was given a system of proportional representation, designed to stop 1 party having a majority so endless coalitions would be formed. Resulting in endless in-fighting so nothing really could get done. Proportional representation is actually the right way to run a government. It allows smaller parties a voice, after all they were voted for so why should they not get a say. What Westminster didn't count on was Scotland standing up for herself. An SNP landslide majority who would fight for independence. Who would fight for her people.