There is lots of political jostling for position and scandalous scare-mongering going on from both camps, which is detrimental to voters obtaining the facts they need to make an informed decision. This means that many, including myself, find themselves in the undecided camp. With 3 weeks to go, this is rather scary!
This article was not written by me, but by a friend of a friend. Enormous credit must go to this author for their exhaustive research - it has been extremely helpful to me in organising my thoughts regarding the independence referendum. This author is a Yes voter, but I think the article has been written from an undecided / impartial perspective and has led the author to their Yes decision. Enjoy...!
Please read.
This document is comprised of information I have researched
and the conclusions are my own.
I am open to all discussions on this – in fact I welcome any
other views.
This referendum is too important to me to get wrong so if
you have views please let me know what they are.
I am not interested in opinions that are not backed up by
facts. Nor, if I’m honest, am I
interested in sentiment. I know William
Wallace was a good guy. I know we have
achieved amazing things across the world as a united nation. However, this is not the time for
sentiment. This is the time for looking
forward and working out if we can achieve more for our economy and ourselves if
we become neighbours to rUK rather than remaining partners with them.
Please be aware that if you comment on this I may bombard
you with more questions, particularly about your sources. I am not being difficult. I just want to get facts right in my head.
My current Yes stance is not set in stone. I am open minded about this and more than happy
to change my mind if positive and solid arguments are put forward for the No
campaign.
I will read everything that anyone sends me. I will question it (whether you are arguing
for Yes or No). I will make up my mind
based on my findings.
Thanks for reading this and, if you come back to me, thanks
for your input.
WHY I AM VOTING YES.
This is a personal view based on the research I have conducted
since the referendum vote was announced.
Like almost everyone I had questions and I often found that I wasn’t
getting clear or unbiased information from politicians on either side, the news
coverage or the media in general. I took
to the internet. Every time I had a
query, or if someone posed a question to me for which I had no answer or clear
picture, I trawled the internet for information.
I have tried to give links to key papers, news coverage or
blogs. I haven’t given them all as I
didn’t take note of everything I read during my journey and also, this would
end up being a very boring list of links with huge amounts of further
reading.
The sections are as follows:
Currency
EU
Oil
Economy
Trident, NATO and Defence
Devolved Scotland and Devo Max
Everyday Living
CURRENCY
It has been clearly stated by all three major parliamentary
parties that currency union will not be happening in the event of a yes. This leaves joining the Euro (if a member of
the EU), linking ourselves informally to £ (or another currency) or adopting
our own currency.
The Euro?
The Eurozone came into being with the Maastricht Treaty of
1993 and was to be implemented by 1999 at which time 11 out of the then 15 EU
member states joined. Since 1999, the
member states have grown to 28 of which only 18 countries actually use the
Euro. It is true that any country
joining the EU is legally bound (with the exception of Denmark and UK) to join
the Euro but this can only be achieved when “convergence criteria” have been
met. Sweden, who joined the EU in 1995
has never met the membership criteria (purposefully?).
The last three countries to join the EU were:
Romania 2007 – currency – Leu
Bulgaria 2013 – currency – Lev
Croatia 2013 – currency - Kuna
In 2004 ten countries joined the EU. These were:
Slovenia – currency – Euro (2007) Poland - currency - Zloty
Slovakia – currency – Euro (2009) Lithuania - currency - Litas
Malta – currency – Euro (2008) Hungary - currency - Forint
Latvia – currency – Euro (2014) Czech Republic - currency – Czech
Koruna
Estonia – currency – Euro (2011)
Cyprus – currency – Euro (2008)
Obviously Scotland being a part of the EU is at the centre
of us having to join the Euro. EU
membership is addressed later. What is
clear to me is that if we are a member (new or otherwise) of EU, we do not have
to automatically use the Euro. Simply
looking up the currencies of the EU member states and seeing when they joined
and what their currency is now proves this.
Currency Union with rUK
The more I read, the more likely I am to believe that a
currency union is possible and also probable.
A blog written by Rev Stuart Campbell http://t.co/LNZGpCBZsW - points out many
interesting facts using the UK GDP over the last few years of recession.
He looks at a BBC graph showing GDP growth from
1990-2014. UK growth 2007-2009 was -2.5%
at its lowest (for one quarter) but most of the time was less than this,
averaging out at -1.46% over five quarters.
He points out that this negative growth has “wrecked a havoc
on the UK’s economy” including our credit rating being downgraded, house prices
dropping by nearly 20% in a 12 month period, unemployment rising, wages cut or
static, etc, etc… “The recession officially ended in the middle of 2009…but the
brutal austerity…will outlast it by at least a decade.”
He talks of how the rUK will lose £ billions in oil revenue,
whisky exports, tourism, amongst others if we vote yes.
He confirms that the currency union rejection was taken on
the specific advice of former chancellor and Better Together chief, Alistair
Darling.
He talks of how Scotland is unlikely to reject a share in
the UK debts in return for a formal currency union – “if the rUK economy went
down the toilet it would drag Scotland with it”.
In the New Statesman, David Scheffer argues:
“the Scottish government, if it follows Osborne’s punitive
example, could refuse to negotiate about at all. Scotland need not negotiate sharing the UK
debt and could simply let Westminster shoulder the entire estimated UK debt of
£1.6trn in 2016/17. That is certainly the logic of the rUK being a continuator
state. Nothing in international law
requires Scotland to pay one sterling pound of UK debt if the rUK is deemed the
continuator state. Nonetheless, the
Scottish government has already offered
to accept the liability of an estimated £100-£130bn as an independent
Scotland’s share of the overall UK debt, but only as the end point of
post-referendum negotiations…. Dire warnings that Scotland’s credibility in the
markets would somehow nosedive if this transfer of debt were to happen overlook
two simple facts. First, the UK Treasury already has agreed to cover all UK
gilts in the event of independence, a point Osborne made in his speech. So there is no default on the horizon to
panic investors. Second, Scotland would start afresh as a debt-free nation with
the apparent agreement, indeed blessing, of the rUK”
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/flaw-osbornes-pre-emptive-strike-against-currency-union
Professor Jim Gallagher, recruited to the No campaign as a
Special Advisor, stated at the House of Commons Public Administration Select
Committee that the treasury currency union advice “might be right, it might be
wrong”.
The currency union rejection seems to have been instigated
at the behest of Alistair Darling and is based (from what I can make out) on a
memo from permanent secretary Sir Nicholas MacPherson to George Osborne on 11
February 2014. However, not only have
these claims been dismissed by leading economists such as Professor Leslie Young, also “in response to a Freedom of Information
request, the Treasury says it has no record of when Macpherson first warned
Osborne against a currency union before the February 11 memo, raising further
questions about its credibility.”
Scotland does a lot of business with rUK and vice versa. In the event of a Yes vote, will we find that
rUK government is prepared to endanger this business? I find it extremely unlikely. The media recently talked of an unknown
minister mentioning that “of course” there would be room for discussion and
compromise on currency union (citing Trident as a bargaining tool).
Given the number of countries worldwide with formal currency
unions, if we have one with rUK we will still count as an independent
country. Formal currency unions exist
between (amongst others):
Euro – 18 countries
SGD Singapore Dollar - Singapore and Brunei
CFA Franc – 14 countries
It may be that rUK tells us that we cannot have a formal
currency union but this does not stop us from using the £. Any country in the world can use any currency
it likes. You can’t stop it. Countries informally using another country’s
currency include:
Hong Kong dollar – used by Macau
New Zealand dollar – used by Cook Islands, Nauro, Niue,
Pitcairn Island
Swiss Franc – used by Liechenstein
US dollar – used informally by 10 countries including
Ecuador, El Salvador, Panama, British Virgin Islands.
Taking Panama as an example, as it seems to be cited by most,
it should be noted that it has an economy growing faster than ours and is the 7th
most stable economy in the world according to the Adam Smith Institute.
The Bank of England has stated that it is willing to speak
to both sides about a formal currency union – if both sides agree. “The Bank of England would implement whatever
monetary arrangements were put in place.” (Mark Carney)
In his speech when he
visited Scotland in January, Mark Carney stated:
“What follows is not an assessment of whether Scotland will
be overall better or worse off under independence – that is a multi-faceted
judgement for the Scottish people. It does not pass judgement on the relative
merits of the different currency options for an independent Scotland, but
instead draws attention to the key issues. This is a technocratic assessment of
what makes an effective currency union between independent nations.”
After he has set out his arguments for a successful currency
union based the success or not of those existing around the world, Mr Carney sums
up:
“All aspects of any such arrangement would be a matter for
the Scottish and UK Parliaments. If such deliberations ever were to happen,
they would need to consider carefully what the economics of currency unions
suggest are the necessary foundations for a durable union, particularly given
the clear risks if these foundations are not in place…. In short, a durable,
successful currency union requires some ceding of national sovereignty.”
National sovereignty is defined as:
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an
independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are
derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and
power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.
What is not discussed by Mr Carney because, as he says, it
is not up to him, is what part of and how much national sovereignty would need
to be ceded.
Here’s another thing, it may be called the Bank of England
but it is not England’s bank with their money from which they hand us cash on a
benefit scheme only from the kindness of their hearts. The BoE was nationalised after WW2. This means it is OUR bank too. Please note that any argument that we will
have no influence over our currency/interest rates if independent is null and
void as the BoE is independent of the UK Government. Together or apart, we have no influence on
decisions made by the BoE.
Finance Secretary John Swinney has called for the
Westminster to detail the share of Scotland’s assets from the UK coffers
“Mr Swinney's call follows comments from the Chief Secretary
to the Treasury Danny Alexander who himself recently admitted to the Scottish
Parliament that an independent Scotland will inherit a share of UK assets. He
said billions of pounds could be paid to an independent Scotland in cash as
many of the assets paid for by Scottish tax-payers will be physically located
in the rest of the UK.”
It is true that if we do not have a formal currency union
with another country, we will find borrowing harder. However, other countries manage so why
shouldn’t we? We currently make up 8.4%
of the UK population and in 2012-13 we contributed 9.3% of the government
revenue - £53.1 billion. In 2008-9 we
contributed 10.3% of the total government revenue.
OUR OWN CURRENCY?
Ireland continued to use the £ in the immediate aftermath of
their split with UK, introducing their own currency in 1928 and pegging it
initially to the £.
I don’t think that initially our own currency is a viable
option. There has been no talk of this
from either side and so I won’t dwell on it.
There have been various reports ranging from us going
bankrupt to us becoming AAA rated and one of the richest countries in the world. I’ve given up listening. I’m not saying it will be easy but I do know
that other countries have formal currency agreements, informal currency use or
have set up their own currency post-independence. Some have worked better than others but there
are success stories in each area. It
should also be noted that £ sterling was not, itself, “independent” until very
recently:
Whatever happens, we will have money. We will not be bartering our children for a
loaf of bread!
Economy
In 2012-13 – Scottish revenue (minus North Sea revenue) was
8.2% of the UK revenue. Our expenditure
was 9.3% of the UK spend. Our balance deficit was £14.180 billion (excluding
North Sea revenue) which is -11.2% of GDP.
This is against the UK deficit of £91.930 billion which is -5.8% of
GDP. Add in the North Sea revenues per
capita/geographical to Scotland’s revenue and our deficit drops to -5.9% of
GDP.
In 2011-12 including North Sea Revenue our deficit was -3.1%
of GDP compared to UK deficit of
-5.9% of GDP and in 2008-09, a year of worldwide recession, Scotland
didn’t have a deficit. We were
(including North Sea Revenue) +0.6% of GDP compared to the UK total deficit of -3.5% of GDP.
Oil revenue, it should be said, was much higher in those two years:
£10,872 billion in 2011-12 and £12,393 billion in 2008-09, due to higher prices
or productivity.
For further analysis see this blog from John Jappy, a former
budget specialist for the Civil Service:
Mr Jappy says: “As a former budget specialist, on analysing
the figures over the last five years, I have found that even during the deepest
economic downturn since the 1930s, Scotland's finances have been healthier than
those of the UK to the tune of £8.3 billion, or nearly £1,650 per person in Scotland. The figures show that, over the past 5 years,
Scotland has generated 9.5% of UK taxes but received just 9.3% of UK spending.
Whereas Scotland ran a current budget surplus in 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09,
the UK last ran a current budget surplus in 2001-02. Furthermore, Scotland has
generated more tax per head than the UK as a whole for every single one of the
last 33 years”
A Better Together argument is that Scotland receives more
income from WM than it puts in
“Scotland receives over £1200 a year more per head of
population in public spending than in other parts of the UK.”
This refers to the Barnett Formula and is actually not
true. The Barnett Formula does allocate
more per head to Scotland than to England but it also allocates more per head
to Northern Ireland and Wales than it does to England. If you break if down even more, more £ is
allocated per head to London than is to Scotland.
Below are links to government reports and also a couple of
publications regarding the Barnett Formula.
The Formula itself was set up in the late 1970s, is based on the 1888
Goschen Formula and is named after Joel Barnett who came up with the idea when
he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
“The formula’s basis is that it is simply Treasury
‘policy’. It is not enshrined in
statute, or given any legal or constitutional form. It is simply set out in an internal document
of the UK Government.” It is signed off
by the Secretaries for the devolved parliaments of Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland in Westminster. The devolved
finance ministers do not sign this off or approve this when it is updated.
The formula is based on quite a few points which are (from
what I can make out):
It applies only to expenditure that the devolved
administrations are responsible for (rather than anything under Westminster
control).
The formula divides up public spending across the four
regions of UK (England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales) based on percentage of
population which is taken as 100% across the whole. Therefore, in 1970 England received 85% of spend,
while Scotland received 10%. This meant
that Scotland received 10/85th of what England received or
11.76%. Since 1999 this has been amended
annually so in 2002 Scotland received 10.23% of the English share.
In addition to this block amount, the Treasury decides if
public funding is UK wide or England only.
If spending is England only, the devolved areas receive a percentage
amount based on calculations above which they can spend as they like. An example of this would be Crossrail
(benefiting London and the South East) which was deemed to be England only
spend. The devolved administrations all
received “consequential” payments which in Scotland’s case was approximately
£500 million. Some spending, however, is
deemed to UK Wide and an example of this would be the Olympics which was deemed
to benefit the whole country. As a
result there were no “consequential” payments to the devolved administrations,
even though the main benefactor was London.
Each devolved administration can also claim money from the
UK Contingency Reserve and the decision to award this money is made by the
Treasury. Examples of money being
awarded have included the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in 2001 and the
cost of policing the G8 summit at Gleneagles in 2005.
The Barnett Formula was only meant to be short term solution
and many argue that it is unfair particularly on the English. One of the biggest issues with changing the Formula
seems to be cost. It should be
remembered that just because something is only meant to be short term
initially, it doesn’t mean that it can’t be amended (as the Barnett Formula has
been, many times) to fit in with a
changing world. Income Tax was
introduced as a temporary measure by William Pitt the Younger to pay for the
Napoleonic Wars.
Lack of understanding as to how the Barnett Formula actually
works can and does lead to misinformed and biased comments (particularly from
the English). This is one of the main
reasons we are seen as “subsidised”
I can’t find complete details for any particular year
showing what the base amount for each part of the UK was or how the
consequential payments were worked out.
It is true that even Lord Barnett feels that the Formula should be
changed. However, as the Formula is not
a law, the Treasury could change it if they wanted to.
In the case of an independent Scotland, the Barnett Formula
money would no longer be coming our way.
It should be noted, however, that figures working on a Scottish economy
post independence have never included these figures.
In the above link, the Better Together campaign claimed
about Scottish figures for a budget post
independence “This calculation assumes that the Barnett formula – used to
calculate Scotland’s budget – would still be in place of Scotland voted to
break away from the rest of the United Kingdom. It would not. The Barnett
formula would end with independence.”
However, “the SNP has pointed out that the recent
calculations which showed an independent Scotland would have a smaller deficit
in 2010/11, had nothing to do with the Barnett formula but were in fact based
on the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS).”
This seems to back up the argument that, once again, BT are
prepared to issue half facts (as with the claim that Scotland receives more per
person that everyone else in the UK, above) or just outright lies.
“When Scotland’s
banks collapsed in 2008, the entire UK signed the cheque that kept your branch
open and money in your ATM.”
The implication here is that these are Scotland’s
banks. The Bank of Scotland and Royal
Bank of Scotland (I assume they are talking about them) were indeed rescued by
the public purse. However, the majority of business completed by both banks
these days is actually London based not Scotland.
“Bank of England governor Mark Carney has told MPs there was
"a distinct possibility" RBS would have to relocate if Scotland voted
for independence.” This is a BBC article from March 2014. Why would they have to move south? “His comment was in reference to EU rules
requiring a bank's HQ be where it has the bulk of its activities”
So, Better Together is implying that the banks are based in
Scotland and had to be bailed out but actually the majority of their business
is in London.
“For sure, the Royal Bank of Scotland is registered under
the starry dome of Dundas House, a handsome townhouse in Edinburgh's Georgian
New Town.
But it has been a long time since the bulk of the bank's
business was conducted here.
Likewise, Lloyds Banking Group is registered in Edinburgh's
Old Town, in a building which helps define the city skyline, under the green
dome of the old Bank of Scotland headquarters.
But this is more an accident of corporate history than an
indication of where Lloyds makes its money” says the BBC report (see link
above)
“Neither bank will comment officially on whether their
registered offices would move, let alone on what effect such a move might have
on their head offices or on jobs.”
The report goes on “But if the effect on employment was
minimal such moves could be good news for an independent Scotland, removing the
prospect of having to bail out these giants if they ran into trouble again.”
So, we appear to be looking at the movement of a brass plate
and registration document. These banks
are no longer “Scottish”. They have not
been for a long time. Better Together
are deliberately misleading once again.
“one of the nationalists’ favourite arguments is that we pay
more in tax than we get out in spending. This is just not true.”
What it doesn’t tell
you is that the whole of the UK receives more per head of population in public
spending than it puts in. We certainly
have received more in £ than we have put in in the last year but so has the
rest of the UK. That is why we are in
debt. That is why the UK government
continues to rack up debt.
“Two impartial expert bodies have both said that if we go it
alone we would need to make severe cuts to our budget almost immediately if we
were to balance the books. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicted that we
would need to make up to £6bn worth of cuts in the coming years.”
Once again, half a
story from Better Together here. We may
see increased austerity in an independent Scotland. We will definitely see increased austerity in
an ongoing united kingdom.
Above is a BBC report from 2012 confirming the government’s
announcement of “the biggest cuts in state spending since World War II.” It goes on “Savings estimated at about £83bn
are to be made over four years. The plan is to cut 490,000 public sector jobs”. It is currently 2014. We are only half way through the cuts. There are more to come if we stay with the UK
so why use this as an argument against independence? In fact George Osborne
confessed in his Autumn budget 2013 that austerity would continue until 2018.
I could continue on the Better Together leaflet but I think
you see where I am coming from. The
information is half baked. They are not
giving you the whole picture on the economy.
It is true that our wealth is currently based on oil. Without it, if you look at the government
figures, we would be that subsidised country we are so often accused of
being. Scotland has other natural
resources and we are learning to harness these, not just to provide for
ourselves, but to provide for others outside our country. We have wind and
water and neither of these will run out.
Last year 40.3% of our energy generated came from renewable
sources and we exported 26% of the energy generated. Scotland is aiming for 100% renewable energy
generation by 2020 and we are on target for this. We are investing in tidal power and wind
farms are becoming more efficient. As an
independent country it will not be long before we supply 100% of our own energy
needs from renewable sources. We may
even expand on our exporting.
In the above You Tube link, at 52.33mins, a post graduate
renewable energy student points out that Orkney has been told that it will be
10 years before they will be connected to mainland Scotland to enable them to
export the extra electricity they are currently generating (last year 103% generated
– 3% could not be exported). She also
points out that the UK government is bound by OFGEM and that this is not an
issue related to the referendum. Her
belief is that an independent Scotland will give a higher priority to linking
the peripheral areas
Our water needs are accountable to us through the Scottish
Government – our water is not privatised!
We have plenty of water and this will become one of the world’s most
precious commodities in the future if over 90% of world environmental scientists
are to be believed. Water is hard to
export and move around whilst keeping fresh so it is an interesting conundrum
as to how we would achieve any exporting on a large scale. In the meantime, we are using water to
provide us with power – hydro stations, tidal energy..
The above link is the most recent report on our economy and
while it urges caution in some areas:
“To date, much of the recovery has been consumption-led.
While welcome and consistent with other post-recession periods, this will have
to be accompanied by a pick-up in real wage growth and household incomes if it
is to be sustained at current levels. Otherwise there is the potential risk of
a reversal in household finances and the deleveraging (paying down of debts)
process which was a prominent feature in the period up to 2013. Linked to this
also is the recovery in the housing market and the extent to which this is
driving consumption.”
It also looks ahead with optimism:
“Scotland’s economy grew by 1.6 per cent during 2013, the
first calendar year since 2007 with four quarters of growth. Economic output is
now expected to surpass its pre-recession peak during the first half of 2014.”
We have other factors that are unique to Scotland for our
economy – the whisky industry is a classic example. We also have thriving tourist and textiles
industries. Scottish food – salmon,
beef, lamb, shortbread etc etc is exported across the world.
As with almost every country in the world, we have much to
do to recover from the recession, there is no denying that – but would we be in
a better position to recover if we are part of the UK or independent? Note the part in the quote above about growth
– “this will have to be accompanied by a pick-up in real wage growth and
household incomes if it is to be sustained at current levels”. I do not see that the current UK government
is doing much to improve real wage growth (unless you are already rich). While recently MPs were awarded an 11% pay rise,
NHS staff were told that the top bands of each grade only would receive a pay rise
of 1%. Many people in both the public
and private sectors have had their pay frozen for several years while food
prices rocket. I do not see a movement
towards “real wage growth” in the UK at present. Nor do I see this being addressed by
potential successors of the current WM government. I do see efforts from the Scottish Government
to increase wages across the board (all NHS staff to receive 1% pay rise) and
to help those hit by certain taxes – more on that below.
There is growing unrest across all of the UK about the
constant investment in London. Newspaper
articles speak of a London-centric country.
The new HS2 rail link will connect Birmingham and London initially and
then extend further north and yet in Scotland some of our key roads are in
urgent need of upgrading. The HS2 link
will cost the UK taxpayer approximately £50.1 billion according to the
government’s estimates but many fear the cost will be higher. Within England (where the link will be
situated) there is growing concern about various aspects of the rail link –
even “The Commons public accounts committee has accused the Department for
Transport of failing to present a “convincing strategic case” for HS2 by basing
its argument on “fragile numbers, out-of-date data and assumptions which do not
reflect real life”.
Given that the link is not estimated to reach the north of
England before 2033, it is hard to see how Scotland will benefit. HS2 and the increasing concern at a
London-centric UK show that it is not just the Scottish who feel alienated by
Parliament and their remoteness from the rest of the population.
“Since 2010, 79% of private sector jobs growth had occurred
in London. Britain's next nine largest cities accounted for just 10% of all new
private sector jobs created”.
I do not think that this imbalance is good for the growth of
the economy of UK in the long run.
However, I believe that we are more likely to help ourselves
get out of this situation by investing in our people and our corporations. Numerous case studies have proved that if you
invest in the education of your young, you will reap the rewards. Scotland in the 18/19th Century
proved this by having one the best education systems worldwide with 75% of the
population able to read and write. We produced a staggering amount of entrepreneurs,
engineers, economists, scientists, doctors, teachers – I could go on. Smaller projects worldwide currently prove
this theory. The SQA Curriculum for Excellence may have
its faults and teething problems but this is an attempt to address the issue
that not everyone is suited to academia and some people learn better by doing rather
than being told. The new National 4 and
National 5 system seems to be trying to give those who will do well in
vocational careers, the chance to experience them from a young age and giving them
more opportunities to get onto those career paths in the first place. Many
businesses in Scotland have become involved in this strategy, giving young
people a chance to work as interns (paid), or be taught basic business skills
like answering the phone, conducting themselves at interviews etc.. With regard to further education, Scotland
has five universities that feature in the top 200 universities list worldwide
(2013). If we continue investing in the
education of our young, the long term outlook for our country can only be
positive.
EU Membership
I’m quite bored by the whole EU thing as so much rubbish has
been spouted about it and so I am going to site a few facts and then let you
make up your own mind.
There is no precedence set for whether or not we can remain
in the EU, whether we have to re-apply or whether we can even join as an
independent country. Our situation has
never happened before and is unique.
There have been cases where two countries split (the Velvet Divorce of
Czechoslovakia into Czech Republic and Slovakia) and after Greenland obtained
Home Rule from Denmark, Greenland was removed from the customs territories and
legal framework of the EU following its decision to leave the EU.
There has been a prominent case of one member state becoming
larger by encompassing a non member. The
Unification of Germany came into effect on 3 October 1990 at which point East
Germany was immediately welcomed into the European Community. East Germany joined West Germany as a member
state (becoming one member state) after the Maastricht Treaty came into effect
in early 1993. From what I can make out,
this intervening time was simply ironing out a few issues and ticking boxes.
The link below is to a UK government page.
It states:
“Arrangements for Scotland’s EU membership would need to be
in place simultaneously with independence
· Scotland’s 5 million people, having been members of the EU
for 40 years; have acquired rights as European citizens
· For practical and political reasons they could not be
asked to leave the EU and apply for readmission.”
It says more but I think you get my drift. Even the UK government thinks we will become
a member of the EU.
The above is a newspaper article with quotes from both the
Spanish Prime Minister Senor Rajoy and the outgoing EC President, Senor Barosso
– both state that we will not be allowed to continue as an EU state. However, nobody seems to have questioned
where these men obtained the authority to speak on this. It is well known that Spain has independence
issues of her own – could they be biased and trying to avoid a precedent being
set? Barosso’s claim in not so easy to
explain – I am still tracking down possible motivation to this, especially in
light of the EU legal stance, see below.
"The Commission has no intention of beginning to
speculate about different scenarios relating to the upcoming referendum in
Scotland and their possible implications."
This quote is from an email reply sent to David Ferguson who
wrote to Romero Requena, Director General of the Legal Service in the European
Commission this year. The email, sent on
25 March 2014, was from Jens Nymand Christensen, Director of
Secretariat-General of the European Commission and the email starts:
"Thank you for your letter of 25 February addressed to
Mr Romero Requena, Director General of the Legal Service in the European
Commission, to which he has asked me to answer…"
On reading the rest of David Ferguson’s blog and the
Westminster Report I found much of what they say makes perfect sense. Why would the EU go out of its way to cause
problems to people who have been in the EU for 40 years? Why would they be so vitriolic? Can they,
lawfully, push us out of the EU at all?
More recently the incoming EC President Jean-Claude Juncker
stated that he would be looking for a “break from enlargement” of the EU. Although many claimed this was a blow to the
Scottish cause, Juncker’s spokeswoman confirmed that he was “not referring to
Scotland” and an EU official later stated that Juncker “would not want Scotland
to be kept out”.
OIL
As with the currency issue, the thorny topic of oil attracts
wildly diverse opinions and statements from both sides
In April 2014 HM Revenue & Customs released their
statistics of “Government Revenues from UK Oil and Gas Production”.
The figures don’t look good.
“In the last two years Corporation Tax revenues have declined by 60%
from £8.8 billion in 2011-12 to £3.6 billion and Petroleum Revenue Tax by 45%
from £2.0 billion to £1.1 billion in 2013-14.”
Further investigation into the same document reveals the drop in revenue
in the last 2 years is “a result of lower production and higher
expenditure”. It doesn’t say that the
drop in revenue is due to less oil.
My investigation of oil revenues and the industry in general
has led to a few eye opening nuggets of information.
Total revenue 2013-14 (exc gas levy) was £4.67 billion
dropping from £6.13 billion the year before and £10.87 billion the year before
that. However, revenue went right down
to less than a £ billion in 1991-2 and I cannot remember anyone saying the oil
was running out then.
The Scotsman after the 2013 report made the following
comment about the revenue drop
“A gas leak and evacuation at the vast Elgin oil field in
the North Sea a year ago, which led to an 11-month unplanned shutdown, was by
far the biggest cause of the slump in oil and gas production. The closure of
the oil field, which accounted for around 5 per cent of the UK’s total oil and
gas production before the accident last March, knocked an estimated 0.2
percentage points off the UK economy in 2012. It resumed production earlier
this week but is not expected to reach full capacity until 2015.”
What is less well known is the huge investment in new
technology by the oil companies over the last couple of years. Investment, I discover, has been £14.4
billion – that’s quite a lot to spend in a country where the oil is about to
run out.
Other factors don’t add up.
If the oil is decreasing, why are so many oil and oil related companies
building brand new offices in Aberdeen?
There are several business parks being built at the moment
in Aberdeen. The most prestigious one is
called Prime Four where the first tenants moved in this year. http://primefour.co.uk/life-at-prime-four/tenants
The above link shows you the companies that have taken
tenancies at Prime Four and gives comments by each. Here is what a couple of them say:
Apache - “Our recently announced acquisition of the Beryl
field and related assets will significantly expand Apache’s operations in the
North Sea and heralds a new period of growth. Prime Four represents a very
positive environment for our new, combined team. Our decision to locate there
underlines our ongoing commitment to the UKCS and the North East of Scotland.”
– James L House, Region Vice-President and Managing Director of Apache North
Sea Limited
Nexen Petroleum Limited – “The UK North Sea is a key
producing area for us, and we are continuing to actively explore in the region.
Going forward, Prime Four provides us with an excellent world-class base for
the long term.” - Bob Fennell, Director of Operations for Nexen Petroleum UK
Ltd
There are several other business parks – ABZ, Stoneywood,
Aberdeen Gateway, D2, Balmoral as well as new office buildings on the river in
Aberdeen itself where companies like GDF Suez have built or are building their
new offices.
One thing I know for certain is that businessmen do not
build new offices nor invest in something where they do not see a profit to be
made. I am 100% sure that these people
are not investing to show approval for Alex Salmond or the Yes campaign. There is oil.
There is going to be oil for some time.
The oil companies see it and we should too.
In July 2014 it came to light that there appears to be
unexpected quantities of oil found off Shetland. Nothing has been confirmed officially,
however, it seems that either there is more oil than was thought or perhaps
that it is easier to extract. Rumours
are flying about this
Let’s not dwell on that though and stick to the facts such
as the link below which confirms that Acer Solutions set a target for employing
more staff in Scotland in 2014 and have already passed that target
And have a look at Acer Solutions’ 2nd quarter
report below – look at page 9 under Regions
“The North Sea is Aker Solutions’ biggest market and recent
large offshore UK and Norway discoveries have led to
several new field developments. Investments are expected
to remain high, even as exploration and production spending
is seen flattening in the short term.”
This is not the language of a company that expects to see
little or no return.
I also came across this blog which I found very informative. This is worth a read.
There is also the recent announcement of a 22% increase in
international sales from our oil and gas supply chain from 2011-12 to
2012-13. http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/International-oil-gas-supply-chain-grow-to-record-levels-c28.aspx
While America remains the world leader, we are doing ok on our side with the
export of oil related products and expertise – again, an indication that it
doesn’t appear to be running out in the near future.
I recently became involved in a twitter discussion with
someone who quoted a Moody’s report on oil which did not look good:
(sorry, you have to sign up for Moody’s to see this – it’s free)
This Moody’s report is not hopeful of oil revenues
increasing – the overall conclusion being that we should not depend on oil
revenue and without it we will not manage to balance our books. They give several sources including GERS
(Scottish Govt figures), OBR and Eurostats
Above links are to Scottish Government figures and
Eurostats.
I have a few problems with the Moody’s report which my
“combatant” on twitter was unable to explain to my satisfaction. Please note that there is a difference
between budget balance and fiscal balance.
All of the information below is based on Fiscal balance.
The Scottish Government figures show a fiscal deficit for
Scotland 2012-13 of -8.3% and show a fiscal deficit for UK of -7.3%. The Moody report states that the UK fiscal
deficit is -5.2% - where have they got this figure? On application to Moody’s by my sparring
partner, they confirmed that they took the Scottish figures from the Scottish
Government report (can see that – they match), and the UK figures from
Eurostats. Not sure about mixing and
matching sources, but still.
I emailed the Scottish Government and asked for verification
of the figures. Their response is
attached here:
As you can see, they confirm what I thought about mixing
statistic sources.
The Scottish and UK
governments use “public sector net borrowing” for their calculations while OBR
and Eurostat calculate their deficit figures differently “this deficit measure
is on a gross rather than a net basis and it does not include the entire public
sector”
“A meaningful comparison of Scotland’s and the UK’s fiscal
positions can only be made, however, if the deficit figures are on the same
basis. In order to compare Scotland’s net fiscal deficit of 8.3%, the only
comparable number is the 7.3% figure, as published in GERS.”
Moody’s also use OBR forecast to strengthen their (already
shaky) argument.
The OBR forecasts show less oil and gas production and lower
price – p92 – based on DECC www.gov.uk/oil-and-gas-uk-field-data
The quote below is from p95 of the OBR report
“Our oil price forecast moves in line with the average of
the futures curve over the ten working days to 27 February 2014 for the next
two years, and is held flat at that level for the remainder of the forecast
period. Movements in oil prices and the sterling/dollar exchange rate mean that
the sterling price of oil is slightly higher than we assumed in December until
2015-16 and lower thereafter. We use the same method to project gas prices.
These are also lower than we assumed in December.
4.17 Oil and gas production forecasts are based on the
central projection published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change
(DECC). Oil production fell 8.8 per cent in 2013 and gas production fell by 7.2
per cent. Oil production is expected to fall a further 3.6 per cent in 2014 and
then remain flat across the remainder of the forecast. These forecasts are
little changed since December.”
Hang on a minute – they have calculated their forecast for
two years based on 10 days and then kept the forecast flat – no increase, no
decrease, FLAT! Am I reading this right?
P97 shows that they have indeed left production of oil at a flat rate of 39.2
million tonnes per year from 2014/15-2018/19 and gas product at 12.7 billion
tonnes per year from 2014/15-2018/19.
What about the investment by oil companies? What about the returns they
are expecting? What about the new office blocks and quotes above from the oil
companies themselves talking about “new period of growth” and “long term”? I am neither impressed nor convinced. All the other figures in the report show
movement – why not the north sea revenue figures?
Finally, instead of basing the figures on what OBR and
Moodys say, what does the Oil and Gas sector itself say? In their Activity Survey 2014, Oil and Gas
UK, the voice of the offshore industry, say:
“Over the last three years, production has declined 38 per
cent, but with the combination of new field start-ups and fields coming back
on-stream, it is expected to begin to pick up in 2014.
• Whilst production efficiency has fallen from an average of
around 80 per cent to 60 per cent over the last decade, it is expected to
improve in 2014.
• As a result,
operators are more positive about their asset performance, with more than 80
per cent predicting production will improve in 2014, compared with less than 50
per cent anticipating such a trend in 2013.
• Looking ahead, 25 fields are expected to start production
in the next two years bringing combined reserves of 1.3 billion boe on-stream.
By 2018, 40 per cent of production will come from new field developments; this
emphasises the need to continually mature opportunities following exploration.”
Please note that the above report from Oil and Gas was
issued prior to any recent results from places such as Claire Ridge. So oil production will be going up according
to the people whose job it is to know.
OIL FUND
A small aside on the oil subject. There has been a lot of talk from Yes
campaigners of an oil fund such as Norway has.
Norway is a different case to us.
Oil was discovered in the 1960s and the Norwegian Government set up its
own oil company in 1972. They have had
an oil fund since 1996. We, however, can
make the most of the oil that is left and start an oil fund. We can put some money aside for that rainy
day which appears to come every few years when the oil revenue drops. I am totally for this. After a Yes vote, this will be a priority for
me and will heavily influence how I vote in the Scotland elections. All the income from oil to date has been squandered
– all of it! And when it runs out, it
will run out whether we are part of UK or independent. The most commonly held figure is that there
are about 50 years left of oil and I would rather be in a country that had made
provision for that day.
Last year’s drop in revenue from oil brought the UK
government £4.7billion. In 2012-13 the revenue brought in £6.1 billion. The total UK government receipts forecast for
that year http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf
were £591.7 billion. Oil provided just
over 1% of the UK government’s revenue.
And that was in a bad year. If we
make no provisions and simply spend the cash from this finite resource we will
find that the populace will one day have to make up that difference in income
with nothing to show for the additional wealth we had.
An oil fund has not been suggested or discussed by WM. If we stay with rUK, an oil fund will not
happen. It recently transpired that an
oil fund was rejected by the UK Labour Government under James Callaghan in the
1970s.
The above link is John Jappy explaining the oil situation in
the 1970s and the government’s attitude to Scotland and oil in general. Makes me wonder, if they lied about it before
aren’t they capable of lying about it again (OBR report)?
Maritime Borders
This is connected to oil and our sea revenues so it is
important.
The above picture shows the maritime border between English
and Scottish waters.
“In 1999 Tony Blair…redrew the existing English/Scottish
maritime boundary to annex 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters to England,
including the Argyll field and six other major oilfields. The idea was
specifically to disadvantage Scotland’s case for independence.”
These are the words of Craig Murray, ex Head of the Maritime
Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth office.
If Scotland votes to stay with the Union, is there any guarantee that
this border will not be pushed further north?
Mr Murray goes on:
“The UK’s other maritime boundaries are based on what is
known formally in international law as the modified equidistance principle. The
England/Scotland border was of course imposed, not negotiated. It is my cold,
professional opinion that this border lies outside the range of feasible
solutions that could be obtained by genuine negotiation, arbitration or
judgement.”
Mr Murray explains in his blog that “I was the Alternate
Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and was
number 2 on the UK team that negotiated the UK/Ireland, UK/Denmark
(Shetland/Faeroes), UK/Belgium, and Channel Islands/France maritime boundaries,
as well as a number of British Dependent Territories boundaries. There are very
few people in the World – single figures – who have more experience of actual
maritime boundary negotiation than me.”
Although all of the oil currently being extracted from the
North Sea is off Scottish land, it is not, in fact, all in Scottish
waters. If we remain with the UK we
stand more of a chance of losing our sea than we do of regaining any of
it. If we are independent, we can at
least fight legally for our offshore property back.
Trident, NATO and Defence
According to the RN website there are 6,500 naval and
civilian personnel at HMNB Clyde (Faslane and Coulport). This site is also home to 4 Nuclear
Submarines (Vanguard class) amongst other vessels and hosts visits from other
NATO naval vessels from time to time.
According to the Caledonian Mercury
blog there are between “12,500 and 16,000 people employed in the defence
industries in Scotland. Most owe their jobs to UK contracts – the shipbuilding
centres on the Clyde and at Rosyth, employing nearly 5,000 people between them
are a case in point.”
Most Scottish political parties are against having Trident
in Scotland, 30 miles from our largest population centre. We contribute as a part of the UK to the
upkeep and any potential upgrade of nuclear missiles. Lt Colonel Stuart Crawford pointed out in a
blog in 2010 (see link under Stuart Crawford within above link) that Trident is
not a deterrent. We are tied in to the
US with it and actually cannot even use it without their approval. Most people agree that if we use Trident in
anger, it would be disastrous so is it just an empty threat?
According to CND each warhead “has an explosive power of up
to 100 kilotons of conventional high explosive.
This is 8 times the power of the nuclear bomb that was dropped on
Hiroshima in 1945, killing an estimated 240,000 people from blast and
radiation.”
Each submarine carries eight nuclear missiles each of which
can carry up to five warheads.
Just as the three major political parties have ruled out a
currency union for Scotland in the case of independence, so the SNP and other
parties have ruled out Scotland continuing to play host to Trident in an
independent Scotland. Trident (or rather
the warheads and other weapons) would need to move south of the border to
somewhere suitably “remote”.
There is a planned upgrade to Trident coming about and this
is due to cost around £50 billion by budget government figures, although many
other estimates rate the cost at well over £100 billion. A recent report looking into alternatives
shows that replacing Trident would cost a great deal more than simply
upgrading.
The following caveat is in bold on the above government pdf:
“The costs presented are for comparison
purposes only. They are not suitable for budget setting or investment
decisions. Nor do they represent a comparison of equivalent constant capability
because the performance levels, vulnerability and postures differ between the
options”
I don’t understand much of the report, but the overall gist
seems to be that Trident is better and cheaper than any alternative. It doesn’t seem to look at a non-nuclear future.
Scotland does not want Trident. Maybe it’s because this is on our doorstep
and yet we seem to be kept in the dark about any leaks
I do not want to be part of a nuclear fuelled country and
the only chance I have of achieving that is through independence.
The jobs that are linked to defence in Scotland are both
civilian and through the armed forces themselves. If Trident moves south it is likely that the
naval personnel will go too. Of the
civilian posts across Scotland, the case is argued that many of these people
will lose their jobs. However, Scotland
will need her own defence forces.
Faslane is lined up to become the headquarters for the new Scottish
Defence Forces. It seems unlikely to me
that the civilian personnel currently employed by HM Forces would be overlooked
in the need for civilian personnel to work for a Scottish Defence Force.
I don’t know enough about the other civilians in defence
related jobs. I need to find out
more. I am unsure if the jobs at Rosyth
will get enough work from Scottish Defence or if they will be able to attract
business from overseas – does it even have to be defence related? I appreciate
that this is important and am continuing to search for information.
Stuart Crawford updated his original
thoughts on a Scottish Defence Force in 2012 and the above link details what he
believes we can achieve with a “modest” defence force.
Philip Hammond, Secretary of State
for Defence, had this to say:
“a small Scottish defence force would struggle to attract
recruits and was unlikely to be sustainable in the long term.”
Another argument is that we will be unprotected in the event
of independence. Below is a link to an
online news report about Scottish defence currently. It quotes Philip Hammond saying "We do not need a frigate stationed in
Scottish waters; We need good intelligence about the intentions of vessels
approaching the UK's area of interest, and we have that good
intelligence."
The report goes on to
confirm that “The Russian aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, strayed into
waters near the Moray Firth just before Christmas. The Royal Navy was left red faced and
vulnerable when its only option was to despatch a vessel from 600 miles away in
Portsmouth to shadow the Russian ship, taking 24 hours to arrive.” Apparently
after the Russian ship was sighted, the MOD resorted to social media to confirm
that Russian ships were indeed in that part of the world on exercises.
This confirms that under the current system we are perfectly
well defended as long as our enemies announce their intention to invade on
social media and give us 24 hours to react.
Quite frankly, given the military cutbacks that have taken place so far,
I do not think that “good intelligence” is showing itself to be much of a
replacement for a couple of frigates patrolling our waters.
Angus Robertson, SNP MP has stated:
“The RAF has no maritime patrol aircraft and the Royal Navy
has no conventional ocean-going vessels based in Scotland. These capabilities
are essential to properly managing northern security matters. After a Yes vote
in 2014 Scotland will join our northern European neighbours like Norway and
Denmark who take these challenges seriously and which will be to the benefit to
all in north Europe, including the rest of the UK.”
NATO
A great deal has been made of our
joining (or not) NATO if independence becomes a reality.
There are 28 members of NATO. 25 of
these 28 members do not have nuclear weapons.
The NATO website states: “NATO
membership is open to “any other European state in a position to further the
principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North
Atlantic area.””
Lord George Robertson has claimed
that it “would be cataclysmic for Scotland to become independent, it would aid
the forces of darkness, it would threaten the stability of the western world'.
“
His claims have been dismissed by
many, although there have also been reports in the media claiming that we will
not gain access to NATO. Unlike the EU,
I think it is likely that we will have to apply for membership of NATO, should
we wish to be a member. This belief is
justified by news reports of informal meetings between Scotland and NATO revealing
that we would “have to resolve military or territorial disputes with other
members before joining.” – see above on maritime borders and Scottish Defence
Forces. It makes sense that Scotland
would have to have agreed and defined borders plus some sort of defence force
prior to becoming a member of NATO – after all it is a military based
organisation.
DEVOLVED
SCOTLAND AND DEVO MAX
Scotland has had devolved powers for
15 years and has achieved much in that time under various successive governments,
within its limited budget.
Where England has priced a university
place at £9000 per annum, making further education impossible for many,
Scotland has maintained free further education for Scottish students.
In Scotland we have well balanced
meals provided to primary school children (I know we aren’t perfect – Martha
Payne’s blog proves that. However, when
my son was at primary school in Scotland, a conversation with a friend in
England revealed her child was given turkey twizzlers and chips on a regular
basis).
From January 2015, all P1-3 children
will have access to free school meals.
We have free part time nursery places
for three and four year olds and this is being extended to 2 year olds
We have free eye tests.
We have free prescriptions.
We do not have privatised water.
We do not have an increasingly
privatised NHS
The Scottish Government is giving a
blanket 1% pay rise to all NHS staff and supplementing pay for all those
earning under £21,000. http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-zones/management/nhs-nursing-staff-in-scotland-to-get-blanket-1-pay-rise/5068922.article
This is after it was revealed that in
rUK only those in the top band for each grade will receive a pay rise.
After the 11% pay rise IPSA the
“independent” body awarded MPs at the end of 2013, the Scottish Parliament has
confirmed that MSPs will in future receive pay rises in accordance with public
sector rises. http://www.ardrossanherald.com/news/roundup/articles/2013/12/12/482010-mp-and-msp-united-in-slamming-proposed-pay-rise/
All of these things have been
implemented for the good of all, not just a few. Over 15 years, we have been ruled by
successive governments that are working for social justice and equality.
Scotland has proved over many years by the way we vote, that we are a socialist
country. We continue to vote for
traditionally socialist parties to represent us in Westminster and we vote for
socialist parties to govern us from Holyrood.
I cannot see that we will change from this in an independent
Scotland.
Many parties arguing for independence
are also agreed on abolishing laws brought in by Westminster over which
Scotland currently has no control. This
includes:
The Bedroom Tax. A hated tax across the UK which is agreed to
penalise the poor, this would be abolished with immediate effect following a
Yes vote, it has been confirmed by the SNP government.
The Scottish government has been
trying to find ways of helping those affected by the tax and in December 2013
the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee confirmed:
“The Committee is disappointed that
factors outwith the Scottish Government’s control have delayed certain aspects
of the Home Energy Efficiency Programme. Whilst we acknowledge the importance
of funding energy efficiency measures we support the Scottish Government’s
proposed budget transfer from the Home Energy Efficiency Programme (coupled
with savings from the enterprise bodies and other budget lines) to provide
support to people as a result of the impact of the UK Government’s under
occupation of social housing charges (“the bedroom tax”).”
Devo Max
To be clear – there is no Devo Max
offer on the table. There have been
watered down versions discussed by parties who are not currently in power, both
Labour and the Lib Dems promising further powers to Scotland if we vote No and
if they win the 2015 General Election.
Recently the Conservatives have also come forward with a vague
suggestion that more powers would be awarded to Scotland in the event of a No
vote.
However, Devo Max, initially hoped by
many to be a third question on the referendum paper, was removed by the
Coalition. Alex Salmond was reported in
the papers as being “increasingly desperate to get a "devo max"
option to devolve more powers on the ballot paper” as the First Minister and
Prime Minister came close to agreeing the final wording of the referendum.
The reason Salmond was said to have
wanted Devo Max and David Cameron refused to entertain it, seems to have been
that both sides thought that in a straightforward yes/no vote, the No vote
would carry the day.
As we get closer to the referendum
and the opinion polls tighten, it seems that
“an historic opportunity was missed by the coalition in not offering the
Scots the option of “devo max” in the forthcoming referendum”. Even though the article below from which this
quote was taken, is of the opinion that the No vote will carry the day, it
still thinks Devo Max would have been a good idea.
I am certain that increased powers
are not in line for Scotland if there is a No vote. If further powers were not a problem, why did
the coalition refuse to allow it as a question on the ballot paper? You could argue that The Scotland Act 2012
will bring us increased powers no matter what any WM political party states but
I cannot find much in this Act beyond minor tinkering with the current
situation. If this Act gave us a large
amount of increased power over ourselves, this would have been used by the
Better Together campaign (and rightly so).
Since 1945 there have been 18 General
Elections in the UK. Scotland’s vote has
made a difference to the party in power twice out of all those 18 – 1964 and
1974. In 2010 the Scottish vote stopped
the Conservatives from carrying a clear majority. It did not stop them being the party in
power. We currently have no power over
our own destiny.
I am increasingly uneasy about calls
for the Barnett Formula to be scrapped in the event we vote No. Despite Scotland providing more per head to
the coffers of Westminster, it is due to the Barnett Formula that we receive a
higher percentage of the UK spend than our population suggests we should.
While I haven’t heard this being
spoken of by the No campaign at all, it is undeniable that there are rumblings
in rUK concerning this and I have read no official denials that it won’t be
scrapped. In the event of a No vote,
will we find ourselves facing greater austerity measures due to Barnett Formula
disappearing? I have tried not to
surmise too much in this paper only allowing myself to detail facts but this
does concern me and I can’t find any information to confirm that Barnett
Formula will stay in place.
EVERYDAY
LIVING
Will our cost of living go up if we
vote for Yes? Will it go up if we vote
for No? Will it go down in either case?
Food
Late 2013 brought us the information
that food bills would go up in an independent Scotland and the media covered
this in detail:
However, within one week, the four
major supermarkets denied that this was the case:
I do know that prices have been
increasing in a unified UK over the last few years. There is a link further down to a UK
government document that confirms household bills for those on the lowest
income will go up by over £800 a year following the most recent budget.
Jobs
There has been a great deal of
scaremongering over companies leaving Scotland in the event of an independence
vote. I suppose there may be some that
move or close their offices in Scotland in favour of increased employment
elsewhere in the UK. However, like my
argument about oil, why would a company do that – it will cost money to rehouse
people or employ and train new staff – money that could be profit!
In February Standard Life announced “it
was considering moving some of its operations out of Scotland as part of
contingency plans being lined up ahead of the independence referendum.” Johann Lamont spoke in the Scottish
Parliament saying “Standard Life has made plans to leave Scotland if Scotland
leaves the United Kingdom”. It should be
remember also that Standard Life “has previous form in these matters. As long
ago as 1992 it warned that devolution – never mind independence – might cause
it to relocate south of the border.” It
is still in Scotland. I’m not saying
that it won’t leave, it might. However,
it is listed on the London Stock Exchange and I’m not sure how shareholders
will take it when they are told that any profit 2014-15 will be used up
relocating and training staff, leasing and furnishing new premises etc
etc… You would have to wonder why it
would want to move anyway, considering it operates in many countries worldwide.
For every company that says it is
leaving, there is another that says it’s not.
Aberdeen Asset Management recently announced that it “will not take action to re-domicile any of its investment
trusts before the referendum on Scottish independence in September 2014”. They confirmed “The process of changing domicile
to England is costly”. I think I just
said that!
Companies go where there is
profit. Companies have outlets all over
the world. From a business viewpoint it makes no sense to leave a country
without finding out first if that country will give you favourable trading
conditions or not.
Benefits
It has been confirmed recently that
pensions will not be affected in an independent Scotland.
The existing Scottish Devolved
Government is doing more to help people on any form of benefit or subject to
any unjust law (Bedroom Tax) than the Westminster Government is. A change of Government in London could only
mean Labour becoming the largest party and Labour have vowed to continue the
austerity measures which have meant so much hardship for people who are out of
work, ill, on a low wage.
CONCLUSION
I have spent months reading and
trying to understand official reports and data.
I have listened to news reports and read newspapers on line – as many as
I can. We are currently a part of the
UK. I am not the only one, I know, who
is discontented with current affairs.
Apart from small (maybe petty) issues such as huge BBC coverage of the
Cup Final in England – Arsenal winning for the first time in 9 years - over the
weekend of 17-18 May and not a single mention of St Johnstone’s first Scottish
Cup Final win in its 130 year history, there are many things that concern me
about staying the UK. If we are better
together with the UK and they can offer us further powers, why haven’t they
implemented these before? Why are their
main arguments that we can’t do it, we are too small, too stupid? Why is there an assumption by these people
that we actually want to be a world power?
I have looked and looked for positive arguments for remaining with the
UK. Apart from being frightened to
strike out on our own or a sentimental bias, I cannot find any solid
arguments. I am increasingly angered by
statements taken as fact from politicians, business men, media that closer
inspection reveals are completely fabricated or contain half-truths and/or
massaged figures.
I think rUK is a great place and
would willingly be a friendly neighbour.
However, I am concerned by their increasingly right wing stance and the
rich/poor divide that gets bigger all the time.
See the two links below. One
stating that the lowest paid will see their household bills go up by over £800
per year according to a recent WM report and the other showing how the rich
have increased their wealth in the last few years.
I despise the fact that our WM
politicians fight tooth and nail to protect bankers’ bonuses and pay in Europe
whilst condemning the majority of the population to poverty, anxiety,
homelessness and even death. There are
over 2400 bankers in the UK who receive a wage of over 1million Euros per
annum. This is three times the number of
bankers in the whole of the rest of Europe on this wage. In Germany, the largest country in Europe,
the number of bankers on this wage is 170.
Why are these people protected?
What are they doing for us? Err,
not much. They brought the country to
its knees economically and the rest of us are paying for it while they are
rewarded with bonuses that they don’t deserve.
I hate the propaganda that speaks of
“hard working families” and “scroungers”, that vilifies immigrants when the
figures do not back that up. I agree
that there are always those that will sponge off the state but I would also
argue that there are not enough of them and they don’t receive enough money to
bring a country to its knees. The
bankers on their huge wages who play with our lives, the huge corporations who
pay no corporate tax, the MPs themselves who claim expenses for bird houses,
removal of wisteria from their garden wall, bookshelves, etc etc…. These are the people that are the
“scroungers” in my view.
I believe that if we vote for an
independent Scotland we can change the whole political spectrum. It is in our power. The interest, research and discussion across
the whole of Scotland proves that we really care about this vote. We are all taking an enormous interest in the
future of our country. If we vote Yes,
what is to stop us carrying that into our new parliament and voting for the
parties (possibly even new ones) that guarantee better equality across the
populace, good education, care for our sick and elderly. I have no problem with people making money
and becoming successful. I just don’t
like to see it at the expense of those who need help or guidance.
A strong argument against
independence seems to be that we cannot guarantee what will happen. This is also a strong argument against
staying with UK. I remember that the
recession came out of the blue – nobody expected it. You cannot guarantee anything in life. You need to make a judgement call based on
the information you have – that is what I have tried to do here.
Below is a newspaper article from
2012 explaining just how wrong forecasts by various people (particularly OBR)
have been in the past:
"a majority of economists did
not think we were in [a recession] when the three most recent recessions, in
1990, 2001, and 2007, were later determined to have begun." And yet we
still hang on the words of forecasters when they tell us what growth to expect
in five years' time.”
I am not basing arguments on
forecasts although I know many are. From
what I can see though, the arguments are always one sided. Recently both the Scottish Government and UK
government released figures on the future on the economy of an Independent
Scotland. They varied widely. The UK
figures were almost immediately disowned by the two professors that were held
to have “provided” most of the information but the No campaign don’t talk about
that, instead concentrating on picking apart the Yes campaign’s figures. By contrast, the Yes side sounded like a
stuck record decrying the No figures.
The only thing that came across to me loud and clear is that nobody
really knows what will happen – whether we stay in the UK or not. Ultimately this is not about economics, this
is about a decision to control your future or have it controlled for you.
One last thing – since and including
1945, well over 100 countries across the world have become independent. I have never read (let’s leave the Crimea out
of this – whole new can of worms) of ANY of these countries asking to return to
the fold and become dependent once again on another country.
This is a working document and will
constantly be updated. I welcome input from everyone. All I ask is that you quote your source to me
so that I can investigate further. I am
a Yes voter but I am open to discussion and information from all sides.
You are welcome to pass this on to
other people. However, as the document
is constantly being updated, you may want to apply for the most recent version
before passing it on. Certain queries
that people raise may already have been addressed in the revised document.
