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.

The CBI

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27159618

Of course this is in the Scottish Politics section of the BBC website, so naturally comments are disabled.

The week that was.

A victory was claimed by the everyday person as the CBI finally withdraw their application to support a No vote in September's referendum.

The decision, which was made in confidence that the “vast majority” of its membership agreed with its stance. This may be true, given that the “vast majority” of its membership are members outside of Scotland. Its only natural that they want their docile cash cow to stay in their union which allows Westminster to keep subsidies flowing to these companies, and by that I mean keeping wages low and of course keeping those zero hour contracts the Westminster elite are awfully fond of.

That being said, how can the CBI say they had a mandate to register? Especially given that its own members say they were not consulted on the decision.

Many members resigned, most claiming a duty to impartiality on the subject like the broadcaster STV, a private company. On the other hand, the supposed public owned and funded by the Licence fee BBC took several days to come to the conclusion that as a public owned broadcaster it has to be impartial. We know of course this is not true. It has not only been found guilty of showing pro-union bias by academics, it was found guilty by its own BBC trust. Not to mention that it only suspended its membership after sustained pressure by pro-independence groups looking for clarity on its official stance in the debate.

The CBI boasted that the decision was taken at board level, then when members started dropping off this view changed. It tweeted that a lower level employee took the decision. Now I'm no expert but a decision that would affect the entire organisation would not be taken and anything other that board level. The decision to back a No vote was taken at the very top. Coincidentally the man in charge (Director General John Cridland ) has a small business interest involved in housing Trident at Faslane. An independent Scotland sees no value in WMDs and particularly the obscene amounts of funding they need to build and maintain while thousands of her citizens choose between heating or eating. Apparently the very idea that the most vulnerable in society should be helped when they need it (after all everyone needs help every now and again) upsets his personal business interests and how could he survive on only the meagre fortune he already has?

The legal advice the CBI has now undertaken (is it just me or should that not have been sought 1^st?) states that the application “should never have been made”. It has been branded an “honest mistake” yet given the aggressive nature of the entire No campaign I doubt this very much.

The CBI backed No officially as it has several engagements in Scotland in the coming months and it did not wish to fall foul of the electoral commission while performing its duties of speaking on behalf of business and how it will be managed in an Independent Scotland. Fair enough if you look at it like that, though it could have spent upto £10,000 without registering to campaign during the official campaign from 30 May to 18^th September. By registering, it would be allowed to spend £150,000 as a non party participant. Seems a bit fishy, "We have always said that the referendum is a decision for the Scottish people and we're not telling people how to vote.” - That is a direct quote.

So they're not telling people how to vote, so best to register and get the legal permission to spend 15 times what you could spend while doing what you were actually set up to do if that really is the case.

Another irregularity concerning CBI is, how many Scottish Members do they actually have? The CBI have previously claimed they represent 24,000 Scottish businesses, this BBC article states 1,200. Not exactly what you would call slight human error. A miscalculation of 20 is human error, 20 times is downright dishonest.

So now John is going, disgraced ex director general of the CBI is taking that long lonely walk. His attempt to join the official No campaign, and use their underhand tactics which can easily and reasonably described as scaremongering and bulling, has failed. A victory for the people and perhaps a sign of things to come? Here's hoping ...

Better Together's "positive" campaign

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/better-together-s-positive-new-advert-drive-1-3379191

The “positive case for the UK” begins with a billboard which states “more job opportunities for us as part of the UK” and “more powers for Scotland guaranteed”. Quite the change from Lord Robertson's “cataclysmic” speech in America just recently.

Yes it seems the former NATO head believes the unknown “Forces of Darkness” ( a direct quote, he actually said that. Honestly, we're talking about Scotland not Star Wars ) will be the loudest to cheer on September 19^th 2014 if a YES vote is delivered. And here's me thinking that the loudest cheer would be from the YES Campaign and all its associated member groups and individuals who helped persuade and actively voted for positive change. The truth is, this is no more than a bad attempt to bully Scotland into voting No. When questioned on Newsnight Scotland, his responses were, somewhat lacking in substance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW-yczNOy_I (apologies, but was the only YouTube video of the interview there at present)

For instance, around 1:30 the Lord says “if you look up the word 'Cataclysm' in the dictionary, you'll see that it says an event that has major repercussions and change.” WRONG. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as : A large-scale and violent event in the natural world. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cataclysm Sorry George, you're not even 2 minutes into the interview and you've already misled viewers. If you're willing to lie about the definition of a word (something it took me 30 seconds to disprove) what else are you actually willing to lie about?

Well back to the BT ad.

1^st of all lets look at their claim about employment. So far they have not been able to clarify what jobs would be created. Something they demand from the Yes Campaign at every available opportunity. With the CBI behind it (supposedly represents 24,000 Scottish businesses, when there is only evidence to support that 80 are members of CBI in Scotland) Better Together seem to have this point nailed down. Infact they don't. Since announcing that CBI (Confederation of British Industry ) are formally backing a “no” vote in September 3 businesses have left the organisation. It is also worth noting that – along with Standard Life – CBI opposed devolution in Scotland and the creation of the Scottish Parliament. Opposed the Calman Commission . Now opposes Independence without consulting its own members. So lets get this straight. I'm gonna grant CBI the benefit of the doubt here. Just because I can't find any evidence of more than 80 members of Scottish businesses doesn't mean that CBI doesn't have 24,000. Fine. CBI has a total number of 240,000 members meaning by it's own figures only 10% of its members are Scottish businesses and it couldn't even be bothered to ask them what they believed would be right to do. Should they take a side in the debate, or should they remain neutral (just like most of its members business' are).

Every now and again BT drag out some show pony on side with the Westminster Government to tell us that Independence will be bad for business. BP's Bob Dudley made a personal statement saying he thinks the Scotland should vote no, all the while BP continue to invest in the North Sea and are currently involved in Shetland http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2014/04/17/boom-time-again-at-sullom-voe/ The company officially has no plans to move out of the North Sea and sees it as a headquarters for the next 40 years or so.

Shell also said Scotland should vote no citing business stability reasons. Well Shell operates in many areas of the world full of different tax regimes and regulations so the highly skilled, welcoming North Sea would not be a problem. Infact there have been something in the region of 16 changes to the fiscal and tax regime in the oil sector by the UK government in the last 10 years. Yip that sounds stable. Given that the Scottish government has pledged to give the stability to the oil sector to allow it to grow and achieve it's potential. Shell's position is baffling to say the least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPqGHerXmAg

Its also worth noting that Shell cited the same “business stability” reasons when it supported Apartheid in South Africa. The morals of this company are questionable at best. Though the UK government gave millionaires tax cuts so obviously those same millionaires are going to support it.

2^nd point : More Powers – This can only refer to the Scotland Act of 2012 which is still to take effect and won't until April 2016. Funny how Westminster can immediately impose a bedroom tax for the poor but takes 4 years to hand over some reigns to Holyrood. Perhaps they're hoping for a more favourable Unionist party to be in charge in Edinburgh? I know the Scottish elections aren't until May, but really the amount of good things the current Scottish Government, the only 1 with a democratic majority in the entire UK, can do with this increase in powers is severely limited given that they'll be rather busy fighting an election campaign as there will only be a month to go till the day.

As I say, the more powers bit can ONLY refer to these minute increases from the Scotland Act (2012) as Johann Lamont (one of the key figures of Better Together) is reported in the Northern Echo to have said : 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." http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11145721.Region_has_nothing_to_fear_economically_from_independent_Scotland___but_there_ll_no_review_of_Barnett_Formula/?ref=var_0

Are we to believe her or Better Together? I thought they were on the same team? If BT can't get its own story straight then why should we believe anything they say??

“But Better Together warned that its new campaign will be part of a series of adverts that point out the risks involved in leaving the UK in terms of Scottish jobs, pensions and losing the UK pound. “ (lifted from the Scotsman article.)

Leaving the UK – is actually dissolving a treaty. UK doesn't exist after the treaty is dissolved.

Pensions - http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/joan-mcalpine-cut-keep-guide-3417385

Losing the pound - http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/02/14/how-scotland-can-keep-the-pound/

The constant repetition of this “losing the pound” nonsense is frankly getting tiring.

If you have a positive case for the UK then make it, and make it truthful. I know that's difficult for most politicians. Especially the failed Chancellor who flipped his house on numerous occasions all at the tax payers expense of course, was forced to pay back over claimed expenses and he was also in charge of looking after the UK economy when he allowed the casino type banking of London to crash and destroy the very thing his job was to protect. He now tells us that Scotland couldn't survive economically on her own. Sorry Darling, but given your track record I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't trust your maths.

Martin Sinclair

Low Level Employee at 'Cybernats are us'