- 1 -

Introduction

This is a follow-up to my previous compilation of pro-independence articles and arguments (which can be
found here). When I finished the last one, I wasnt sure if I should or need to follow up with a second one,
however, so many more articles have came out supporting independence that i thought it worthwhile
creating a follow-up.

The last compilation contained references up to the 24
th
June and this now contains references from the 25
th

June to around 5
th
September. At the time I started writing this new one, 4 weeks after I finished the last
one, I had accumulated over 250 references and by the time I had finished, there were at least 800
references and 500 images! Unfortunately this has pushed the number of pages past 300, which I know is a
huge amount to read in the closing weeks of the campaign (more than twice the first document) but if you
can read it all, itll be worth it. Otherwise, dip into it and use it as a reference.

By necessity, this will almost certainly be the last document I write on this subject there are and will be
many articles from both sides right up to the day of the referendum that will be relevant so please keep an
eye out for them (Facebook is good for being alerted to these). However, the majority will only reinforce the
arguments presented in this document (and even then this document only reinforces what was presented in
the last one).

As a result of the looming deadline, this compilation is likely to be a bit more rough around the edges as I
wanted to finish it 2 weeks before the referendum to give time to read it.

As before, I would recommend you follow each link and read the articles in full but I appreciate that this may
take more than the 2 weeks left to do!

This compilation does not contain the references of the last one (not deliberately) its a separate follow-up
and should be read in addition to the last one, if youve not already read it (the article Scottish
Independence). Ive tried to maintain the same headings as before to be as consistent with the previous
compilation but some have been omitted and some added.

I hope youll also find this one useful and that it persuades you to consider voting for Scotlands future as an
independent nation.


Thanks for reading and good luck!



- 2 -

The Independence Argument
There are many claims being made about the referendum, some deliberately made to try and cloud the
debate as to what the question really is. What does it boil down to? While economics, etc influence the
decision, the core question is, as discussed here, whether those who live and work in Scotland those who
contribute to it and depend on it are those who ought to have the governing say in who runs the place.
These are the electorate both for the future and for the current campaign. These are the people we say are
sovereign to be entrusted now and in future with our political decision making.

That is, we say that : -
a) Scotland constitutes a polity, a political entity, and that
b) democracy is in principle and practice the best way to run a polity.

Therefore
c) we ought to have an elected parliament in Edinburgh that can actually take the decisions on
taxation and welfare and war and peace that the parliament of any other, normal political
entity should expect to do.

If you accept that Scotland is a real country, and that democracy is the best (least worst) form of
government, then, within that definition, a Yes vote is logically the inescapable choice to make.

To vote No on September the 18th you have to contend either that Scotland does NOT constitute a polity or
that democracy is too good for it.

Or as someone else described it in a Facebook discussion:
Please answer the following two questions with a simple Yes or No.
1. Do you believe that a country should run its own affairs. Yes or No?
2. Do you believe that Scotland is a country. Yes or No?

It really is that simple!

Or if you want it even shorter Decisions affecting Scotlands future should be taken in Scotland or It is
important to remember that this is not a vote on policies but that those policies are made within Scotland

As this article argues, Its the governance, stupid. the central question [is] from where should the Scottish
people be governed, Westminster or Scotland? This is the supreme question- all others are secondary. The
democratic deficit of Tory rule we didnt vote for is the one thing that the Noes have done everything to
keep out of the debate. For them the referendum is to be about anything else.




- 3 -

Better Together (BT) continue to argue that this referendum is about Alex Salmond and the SNP to deter
many non-SNP (Labour mainly) voters. Its also about attacking the man rather than the argument, perhaps
because they can longer effectively attack the argument?






FYI, Blair McDougall runs the Better Together/ No Thanks / UKOK campaign under Alasdair Darlings
leadership...

- 4 -

Despite BTs claims that this referendum is somehow about Alex Salmond, as this article here explains, there
are far more groups and unaffiliated individuals involved in the independence campaign than even the SNP.

Furthermore, the desire for independence grows and several more Labour and LibDem figures have
announced their support for independence:
Former Labour MP Peter Kilfoyle backs Yes vote see BBC News
Dornan switches to Yes campaign: A councillor and former activist for both Labour and the pro-
Union campaign has declared his support for an independent Scotland see Milngavie Herald
Former Aberdeen Labour secretary urges fellow party members to vote Yes Allan Waite, 44, said
he had become disillusioned with Scottish Labour, which he said had moved away from its core
values. see Evening Express
A leading Liberal Democrat in the Highlands has revealed he is planning to vote Yes to Scottish
independence. Alan MacRae, who stood in the Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch constituency at the
2011 Holyrood elections, said he cant think of a single good reason to vote No. see Press and
Journal
Former minister in Scottish independence Yes vote Leslie Huckfield, who served in James
Callaghan's government in the 1970s, is urging Labour supporters to follow his lead and vote for
independence on September 18. He said an independent Scotland offers an opportunity to implement
the policies and causes that Labour has traditionally supported. (ITV News)
Edinburghs first female Lord Provost declares for Yes A member of Labour for about 20 years, she
left the party because: I just drifted away, disillusioned with Tony Blairs New Labour - it did nothing
for me. see here
Lib Dem ex-MP John Barrett to vote Yes John Barrett, who represented Edinburgh West, made
clear he was no fan of the SNP and vowed to remain a Lib Dem, but he said independence offered
Scotland an opportunity for change which would be forever lost with a No vote. see Edinburgh
News here and here
Dr Michael Foxley, a former Highland Council leader who has worked with Charles Kennedy and
Chief Secretary to the UK Treasury Danny Alexander, [is] backing the case for leaving the union.
see Scotsman and the Herald
Inverclyde councillor to defy Labour Party line and vote 'Yes' Greenock Telegraph
Former Scottish Labour chairman says NHS is safe only with a Yes vote The Scottish Labour
leadership has lost all credibility over its hypocritical denial of the threat to NHS in Scotland in the
event of a No vote, a former party chairman said today. Bob Thomson said Alastair Darling, Johann
Lamont and former Labour First Minister Lord McConnell were fooling no-one with their claims that
the Scottish NHS cannot be damaged by Westminster cuts, driven by rampant privatisation of the
health service in England. He said: It is no surprise that already more than 230,000 Labour
supporters have said they will vote Yes on September 18 and I have no doubt that this is due in no
small part to the sheer hypocrisy of Darling, Lamont and now Jack McConnell. see here
RMT members back 'Yes' vote BBC News
Skye Lib Dem councillor defects to Yes vote I will be voting yes because I believe Scotland deserves
to get the government it votes for in order to ensure its future success. We can be a successful,
independent country with the government the people of Scotland chose. The Press and Journal

Other surprise supporters for independence have included Sir George Mathewson, a former RBS chief
executive and chairman, who said that independence would be an opportunity not a threat and argued
that financial services in Scotland had been neglected by the Westminster government and its London-
centric policy. He also claimed that banks such as RBS and Lloyds could scarcely be described as Scottish
banks, adding that if there was a Yes vote in next months referendum it should be the rest of the UK
government that should be primarily responsible for dealing with the situation. Sir George also gave his
backing to Scottish Government plans for a currency union with the rest of the UK to be established if there
is a Yes vote on September 18, allowing an independent Scotland to continue to use the pound. (see the
Scotsman)

- 5 -

Ralph Topping, CEO of William Hill, in the Financial Times writes that The big gamble for Scotland is staying
in the union have spent the past six years as chief executive of a company whose 17,000 employees work in
Scotland, elsewhere in the UK and throughout the world. Businesses are accustomed to dealing with different
tax systems and employment regulations in the countries in which they operate. This rarely causes real
difficulties. And they know that national governments tend to collaborate where there is a mutual economic
interest indeed, they expect nothing less.

In the same way that the question about independence is really only about who you believe should govern
Scotland, what you believe constitutes your country should also determine your view about independence.
As Derek Batemen wrote here about Adam Tomkins, a Unionist commentator

Which is your country? In September we choose between two options Scotland or Britain. Tomkins
is in no doubt and I respect him for it because he doesnt fudge and wheedle or do The Proud
Scotbut routine. My phrase for this is Principled Unionism because it stands on a principle that he
feels deeply that he belongs to Britain and whatever emotion he holds for home or for Scotland, it is
subjugated in favour of his premier choice of nation the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland.

He acknowledges the real meaning of the independence question: Should Scotland be an independent
country? You vote Yes if you regard Scotland as your first choice nation and you vote No if you prefer
the alternative the UK.

Ultimately I believe that question trumps all others and will lie at the heart of the decision facing
Scots in the polling station. For Tomkins and all the many other British Scots, its as simple as that.
For me and the Yes community, its that easy.

You can add in all sorts of aspirations and side allegiances if you like. I believe for example that
independence will unleash Scotlands entrepreneurial spirit and our latent egalitarianism so that
independence is a route to that end but my main motivation above all others is that Scotland is my
country. And, if you need to hear it Britain is not my country.

I dont hate it or wish it ill, although I admit to detesting the apparatus of the British state which is
designed to feed an elite and which lies when it wishes (to be discussed separately). I want it be my
equal neighbour, my friend and ally not my boss.

So there you go is Scotland your country or Britain? If the former, you have to ask why you would vote No.
If Britain then your answer to why youd vote No is clear.



- 6 -

Economics

The unionist argument continues to imply that
Scotland is too wee, too poor or too stupid, or in
actuality incapable of governing itself. Unfortunately
they seem to continue to repeat these assertions
(this is a common theme that will be obvious from
this article) despite many in their own team declaring
the opposite in the past, and the many articles
showing this not to be the case.



In the last document, it was shown conclusively that Scotland would be wealthier if independent than
compared with being in the UK. And now even the Guardian and the Sun on Sunday published that
Scotland's GDP is 2,300 per head better than the UK average:


(See here for more details)

Furthermore, many articles were given in the last document supporting the view that Scotland is a net
contributor to the UK i.e. it subsidises the UK and not that the UK subsidises Scotland. Heck, even the BBC
continues to admit it (see here) even if Better Together continue to imply or deny it.

This article Scotlands century of lost wealth states that the historical Government Expenditure and
Revenue Scotland Reports (GERS) show that every year, for the last 32 years Scotland has generated more
tax per head than the average for the UK. This quashes the oil volatility myth because a low oil price has
- 7 -

never seen Scottish tax revenues, per head, go below that of the UK average. It also presents the following
graph that shows receipts for the individual countries within the UK for the past 15 years, with Scotland in
blue and at the top:



Bear in mind that the official GERS figures from the
UK should be treated as the absolute minimum of
Scottish revenue given many sources of revenue in
Scotland are currently attributed to England, such
as VAT and corporation tax on sales made in
Scotland by English-registered companies - see
here for a more detailed explanation. Furthermore,
much of the alcohol duty paid by our whisky
industry is not counted as revenue from Scotland -
alcohol produced in the UK and exported abroad
becomes subject to UK alcohol duty at the point of
export, and a large proportion of Scotlands
multibillion whisky exports gets shipped out from
ports in England. The UK Treasury counts the duty
levied on this whisky as income from the tax region
in which the port is situated.




Billions of pounds of Scottish revenue disappears from the official statistics, and doesnt count as Scottish
revenue. It masquerades as revenue from other parts of the UK, most commonly as revenue from London. In
total, the extra revenues which dont currently figure in the GERS stats, but would accrue to an independent
Scottish Treasury, would likely be larger than the entire annual income from the North Sea.

- 8 -



But its not just whisky and oil that contributes to the Scottish economy, this article here points out that
Scotland has a diverse industrial base including:
Oil & Gas - over 300 billion of tax has been collected by Westminster
Whisky - The value of Scottish whisky exports was over 4 billion last year alone.
Renewable energy - Scotland has vast wind, wave and tidal potential in the renewable energy sector.
University sector and research and development - Scotland has five of the worlds top 200
universities. Scotlands higher education sector is also incredibly successful at attracting research
investment. This is due to a mixture of high quality staff and research institutes
Tourism - Scotland is one of the worlds top tourist locations with over 14.4 million domestic and
international tourists over the last year. Independent reports by both Barclays and Delottie found
that Scotland is set for a tourism boom with the potential for the sector to double in size from
11.6 billion to 23.1 billion.
Shipyards - Scotlands shipyards at Govan, Scotstoun and Rosyth produce world class ships. Despite
Westminsters poor record on shipping, high quality engineering and construction continue in
Scotland.
Financial services - Scotland has many institutions which handle large scale financial projects,
expansions and investments. This is important for the opportunities and challenges for an
independent country including borrowing on the international credit markets, negotiating and
managing shares of national assets and liabilities, and constructing plans for investment, growth and
innovation.





This article here explains very well why Scottish industry was and still is dying under the union, even during
the so-called boom years of Blair and Brown:
- 9 -

There, the debate has transcended 19th century nationalism. It is neither pro-English or anti-
English. It simply revolves around what is the best way to govern Scotland. That perhaps
explains why so many English people who have moved North of the Border are also minded to
put their cross in the Yes box. [...]

Over the past 30 years we have charted the relentless decline of the Scottish marketing
industry. Hell, it even declined during the boom years when Gordon Brown was proclaiming
the end of bust. One after another large agency closed Rex Steward, Riley, The Bridge, Faulds,
Ogilvy & Mather, 1576, Barkers, Morgan Associates, Elmwood, Blue Peach, Navy Blue,
Newhaven, McIlroy Coatesthe list goes on and on. In fact, Scotland has the dubious
distinction of being the very first market in the world where McCann-Erickson closed an office.
Clients too have vanished from the scene for one reason or another Bells, Royal Bank, Bank of
Scotland, TSB, Clydesdale, John Lewis, Standard Life, Wm Low, Kwik-Fit, British Midland and
John Menzies Retail.

Today, a mere rump of an industry is left. Okay there are some good players around but
there are account groups in single London agencies which are bigger than the entire Scottish
industry. So enfeebled is the market that even those behind the No campaign could not find
an agency North of the Border to run their campaign selling the benefits of the Union with
England. The account is handled by M&C Saatchi London.Why is this important? Well in my
view the marketing business remains a canary in the coal mine for the economy as a whole. If it
coughs and splutters then the business sector itself is in peril. Perhaps that is why the best part
of one million Scots have migrated to England there simply is not the opportunities North of
the Border.

I have listened to the No campaign arguments. I have read their websites and literature. But I
can find no cohesive argument as to why a No vote would arrest this relentless decline. So I
have become convinced that Scotlands business community is in cardiac arrest. it needs a
radical shock to the system if it stand any chance of revival. And in my view a Yes vote has
more chance of delivering that. The very transfer of the primary economic levers to Edinburgh
will help. [...]

believe that a dynamic, growing Scotland, would at last provide a counterbalance to the
London powerhouse in these islands. Simply having the Scottish border would add spark to the
economies of the Northern regions. A streamlined Westminster legislature that has at last
managed to deal with the West Lothian Question, would also be able to focus on the specific
challenges the rest of the UK faces. And, reeling from the shock of an independent Scotland, I
believe the political elite would at last start seriously addressing the challenges faced by the
English regions; and a good start would be to give them more power over their own affairs.

Alleged Economic Uncertainty
The unionists have tried to claim that the referendum is bad for business and that uncertainty is deterring
investment due to the potential outcome of independence. Yet according to this BBC article, Inward
investment to Scotland 'highest in 16 years' while this RBS Business Sense article states According to PwC's
Economic Outlook for March, the Scottish economy will grow by 2.4 per cent in 2014. This is below the UK
average of 2.6 per cent, although as London and the South East influence this figure heavily, it still means
Scotland's economy will grow more than some other English regions, and will also fare better than Wales or
Northern Ireland. Business leaders in Scotland remain confident about their immediate future. Data from
Grant Thornton UK Business Confidence Monitor, found that the nation's business leaders expressed greater
confidence than the previous quarter by 9.5 points, taking the score for Scotland to 38, which is slightly ahead
of England's overall measure of 37.3 points.

Even the Scotsman reported that Scotlands economic growth at new record level Scotlands resurgent
economy has bounced back to eclipse its pre-recession peak and reach a new record high, official statistics
- 10 -

have shown. And there was more good news as the numbers of Scots in work reached a record high of 2.587
million, other figures revealed.

While this Forbes article claims Two sectors anticipating gains from independence are manufacturing and
exports. The latter rose by 1.4 billion ($2.35 billion) to 26 billion ($43 billion) in 2012, reflecting a 7.9%
increase in manufacturing exports, with the strongest performances from food and beverage and petroleum
and chemicals.

The Deloittes recent survey on business uncertainty showed that The quarterly Deloitte survey of 112 chief
financial officers rated the 2015 Westminster election the riskiest event at 55 out of 100, followed by a
possible EU referendum at 50. The Scottish referendum was rated at 38. see Financial Times




Corporation Tax and the Scare About a Race to the Bottom
What about the unionist claims that the proposal from the SNP to reduce corporation tax was wrong and
would lead to a race to the bottom? (see Sunday Post). This was discussed at length in the last document,
highlighting that Gordon Brown reduced UK corporation tax twice while in government and that the SNPs
proposed cut is only 60% of the cuts Gordon Brown implemented. And what exactly did Brown say in May
2008?
The Prime Minister, making his first speech to the Institute of Directors annual convention
since 2004, said he understood that Britains tax regime must remain competitive. We have
cut corporation tax twice and I want to go further, he said. We will reduce the tax again
when we are able. see the Telegraph

However, that doesnt stop Gordon Brown criticising the SNPs proposed corporation tax cut as reported in
the Guardian:
In his address Brown said the biggest winners from the SNPs plans for a 3% corporation tax
cut and its refusal to back Labours fuel prices freeze were the energy companies built out of
the UKs privatised utilities.

- 11 -

Weve talked about fat cats. Now weve got a new phenomenon fat Nats. Thats what
were going to see. The biggest beneficiaries of an SNP government are the privatised
utilities in Scotland, he said.

Even as recently as late August Brown was still criticising the SNPs corporation tax proposals (see here),
including statements published in the Daily Record on 27
th
August and the Observer on the 31
st
August.

But its not just Gordon brown who is guilty of hypocrisy. As reported here, it seems Ed Balls would like to get
in on the act with Balls seeks to reassure business by pledging to maintain low rate of corporation tax.
Shadow chancellor commits Labour to retaining the most competitive corporation tax rate in the G7 (see
New Statesman)

And its funny how Labour are attacking the SNPs proposals to cut corporation tax but have said absolutely
nothing about the current Tory governments cuts t corporation tax from 26% in 2011 to 21% this year (see
HMRC).

Nevertheless, as this article shows, the idea of a race to the bottom is absurd, with neighbouring countries
in Europe having differing corporation tax rates, some as much as 14.4%. It doesnt, however, include the
only country with a land border with the UK, Ireland, whose corporation tax rate is 12.5%, 8.5% lower than
the UKs current rate.





- 12 -






UK Economic Recovery
But what about the improving UK economy? Surely that is a good thing for Scotland? As already discussed in
my last document, this recovery is mainly based on rising property prices in the south-east of England, which
is based upon increased borrowing, the same borrowing that resulted in the financial meltdown in
2007/2008. My last document also cited various news sources as claiming that interest rates would increase
in the next couple of years and this article in BBC News reports how Interest rate rise 'could hit Scottish
economic recovery'

But exactly how great is that UK recovery? Well, it's only catching up to 2008 levels, 3 years after France,
Germany and the US reached that point:



- 13 -

One of the many dubious comments made by Alasdair Darling in the STV debate with Alex Salmond was a
reference to Ireland and Iceland being bust.

Now, I dont know how you can describe any country as bust given the term in business means a company
that is so in debt its no longer trading or active. That clearly cant apply to a country that still has citizens
living and working in it, contributing to the economy, etc. Nevertheless, is there any truth to the denigration
of Ireland and Iceland?



Well, it seems that Ireland and Iceland haven't being doing so badly compared with the UK. And those figures
for Ireland are now out of date this article in The Journal writes Stockbrokers Davy has revised its forecast
for Irish economic growth upwards to 3.5% this year.

Incidentally, while the UK has 1.4 trillion debt and NO sovereign wealth fund, even Ireland has a sovereign
wealth fund, called the National Pension Reserve Fund and currently stands at $20.1 billion (see here and
here). And in case you're wondering about Norway's? Here's a link to the current market value (5394 billion
NOK, which is 526.6 billion).

And why dont we hear anything about Iceland in the news, that little country of 300,000 people? Perhaps
its because they dealt with their banking crisis in a way that those in the UK could only dream of. As this
article here explains:
the belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must
be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and
their political institutions and eventually driving Icelands leaders to the side of their constituents. The
Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Icelands
citizens responsible for its bankers debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.

Of course the international community only increased the pressure on Iceland. Great Britain and
Holland threatened dire reprisals that would isolate the country. As Icelanders went to vote, foreign
bankers threatened to block any aid from the IMF. The British government threatened to freeze
Icelander savings and checking accounts. As Grimsson said: We were told that if we refused the
international communitys conditions, we would become the Cuba of the North. But if we had
accepted, we would have become the Haiti of the North. (How many times have I written that when
Cubans see the dire state of their neighbor, Haiti, they count themselves lucky.)

In the March 2010 referendum, 93% voted against repayment of the debt. The IMF immediately froze
its loan. But the revolution (though not televised in the United States), would not be intimidated. With
the support of a furious citizenry, the government launched civil and penal investigations into those
responsible for the financial crisis. Interpol put out an international arrest warrant for the ex-president
of Kaupthing, Sigurdur Einarsson, as the other bankers implicated in the crash fled the country.

But Icelanders didnt stop there: they decided to draft a new constitution that would free the country
from the exaggerated power of international finance and virtual money. (The one in use had been
- 14 -

written when Iceland gained its independence from Denmark, in 1918, the only difference with the
Danish constitution being that the word president replaced the word king.)

This Forbes article "Iceland's Stabilized Economy Is A Surprising Success Story" reinforces this view above of
Iceland.




But back to the UK economy. This Huffington Post article lists 11 Problems Osborne Would Prefer You
Ignored in relation to the much hyped UK economic recovery. In summary these are:
1. GDP per capita was 5.5% down in the first quarter of 2014 from the same point in 2008.
2. Britain is lagging behind France, Germany, Japan and the US in GDP per capita and is nowhere near
where it was back in 2008.
3. Britain's recovery - even on Osborne's preferred measure of gross domestic product - is still
astonishingly slow.
4. Inflation is still eating at your pay packet, which means you're getting poorer in real terms, and it will
take a while before it not just starts to improve, but returns to pre-recession levels. Your pay packet
is still continuing to fall by more than in any prior recovery and is down 8% since May 2010
5. London's property prices are continuing to soar higher and higher as the government fails to get
enough new homes built to keep up with demand. In an analysis of house prices compared to
incomes by Fitch Ratings agency, London's property market sticks out at the very top in its
unaffordability.
6. Despite Osborne warning in his Budget that he wants businesses to export more, the OBR predicts
that the UK's exports will still fail to make a net contribution to the country's growth. It said: "Net
trade is expected to make little contribution to growth over the remainder of the forecast period,
reflecting the weakness of export market growth and a gradual decline in export market share."
7. George Osborne's hopes of eliminating Britain's deficit by 2018 look to be increasingly hard as the
decline in the country's rate of borrowing appears to have stalled.
8. Despite Osborne promising that "were getting on top of our debts", the OBR predicts that
household debt is set to be even bigger than expected as compared to workers' pay packets.
9. Osborne pledged to ensure that debt was falling by 2015-2016 in his first budget, but now is set to
see debt only start to fall by 2016-2017 as it soars further and further past 1 trillion
10. Osborne's austerity message was brutally undermined last November when the Office for National
Statistics found that the coalition had borrowed 430.072 billion since it took over, whereas the last
Labour government managed to borrow just 429.975 billion.
11. The UKs current account, which summarises the transactions between Britain and the rest of the
world, has been getting worse, leading the ONS to conclude that the country was "becoming
increasingly dependent on inflows of foreign capital".

Even figures from the UK government's own discredited Office for National Statistics show that wages have
failed to keep pace with inflation:
- 15 -



Another article, this time from the Independent, regarding why You wont hear the Chancellor boasting
about the biggest drop in living standards since the war. The young have been hurt the most by the recession.
They dont vote Tory and cant buy a house, so who cares?

This article mentions that Mark Carney, the Bank of England Governor,
professed himself mystified [...] over the phenomenon of an improving economy that confers no
benefit on workers doing the work. In the face of ONS figures showing a 0.2% drop in wages (bonuses
included) - the worst fall since 2009, when Alistair Darling was fixing your world - Carney didn't have
lots to say. He did say this: "Pay growth has been remarkably weak, even as unemployment has
fallen rapidly." Amid the murmuring of 20-odd million people saying, "Really? You think?", the
governor did not pursue the conundrum. Why would he? [...]

This United Kingdom is a place in which a junior Foreign Office minister can chuck the job because an
89,000 wage and 173,000 in expenses don't cover family life, in an acceptable way, in central
London. It turns out that Mark Simmonds, the victim of that benefits regime, has no sense of irony, or
taste. But his brief, irrelevant career offers a little allegory for being together in his UK. [...]

A society constructed on the basis of social obligations terrifies these people. "A fair day's pay for a fair
day's work" is the nuisance they thought they escaped half-a-century ago. For them, an astounding
record of collapsing earnings is no longer cause for apologies. It gets no more than a mystified shrug.
This, today, is "just the way things are".



While this article here illustrated how this Times article distorted the reporting of an independent Scotlands
finances, what is worth noting is that they report an independent Scotlands deficit would be 6 per cent,
- 16 -

almost half the UK deficit of 11 per cent. As the article points out, Scotland could almost halve its annual
deficit by voting Yes, even assuming it was to take on a large share of UK debt.

And just in case you forgot about or were growing indifferent to the damage the bankers caused the UK, this
Irish Times article (about the global banking system) reports No sympathy for Britains banks as scale of
their misdeeds unfolds and discusses the various scandals surfacing since the recession hit over 5 years ago.

Are there any other small, successful countries? Well, apart from Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark,
Netherlands, etc? Well, this article is from someone now living in New Zealand, a country which has many
similarities with Scotland and is "inexplicably" independent. A country that doesn't even want to enter a
political or economic union with its larger neighbour Australia. This article goes on to say:

"Scotland within the union will forever be unable to make key decisions about its own future,
and will forever remain uncertain of its true potential. [...]The relationship between New
Zealand and its nearest large neighbour, Australia, is in many ways similar to that between
Scotland and England. Most New Zealanders have family and friends living in both countries.
Indeed, tens of thousands of New Zealanders make the move across to Australia every year.

Australia is New Zealands leading trade partner. They enjoy an intense sporting rivalry and
take pride in winding each other up, usually over a few beers. They share a common travel
area, allowing citizens from each country to live and work freely in the country of their choice.
In other words, the two countries share a close bond.

If you were to try to convince New Zealand to abolish its own government and instead hold a
minority share in Australias, youd rightly be met with a swift proclamation of your insanity.
Such an arrangement would undoubtedly fuel a sense of grievance against Australia and
ultimately lead to a deterioration in the relationship.

And yet this is the political arrangement that was created in Scotland. An independent Scotland
can aspire to having a more positive relationship with England, unburdened by blame, much
like New Zealand currently has with Australia. Treating each other as equals can only break
down barriers, not build them."

- 17 -

10 reasons why an independent Scotlands economy will be stronger without Westminster see here for
full explanations of the points below:
1) Scotland pays in more than its fair share
2) Scotland is charged for services outside of Scotland
3) Westminster investment is focused in the South
4) Westminster abandoned manufacturing and industry
5) Westminsters fixation with financial services
6) Westminster squandered 300 billion in offshore revenue
7) Westminster has distorted the energy market
8) Westminsters dysfunctional housing market
9) Westminsters debt mountain
10) Westminster misses opportunities for Scotland

How true is number 10 above, in particular? Well, the Scotsman reported that Scotlands SMEs
shortchanged by Westminster New figures have revealed small and medium sized companies in Scotland
get less than 40 per cent of their population share of direct contracts from the Ministry of Defence.

This could explain the fact that the UK economy grew by an average of 2.5% a year over those 50 years
(since 1963) yet Scotland grew by an average of only 2% over the same period. While that doesn't sound a
lot, over 50 years the Scottish economy would now be 25% bigger if it had grown at the same rate as the UK.
25% more jobs. 25% more money on people's pockets. But maybe smaller countries don't do as well as
bigger ones. Maybe Scotland would have been worse off on its own?

When you look at all the countries in Europe which are a similar size to Scotland, including Norway but also
many countries with no oil, it turns out that if Scotland had behaved like an average small European country
between 1963 and 2013, our economy would now be 33% bigger, not even 25% bigger. If we had been
independent since 1963, we could have had a third more jobs, a third more wealth, a third more successful
businesses. So the question remains, how exactly is Scotland better together?



- 18 -

It's a similar situation regarding Scotland's population - as mentioned in my last document, Scotland's
population has suffered in the UK, with it barely increasing at all in the past 100 years due to mass migration
to England and other countries. As this graph here shows very well, the populations of other countries of a
similar size to Scotland have all increased while Scotland's has actually slightly fallen:



But what about the Scottish Governments plans for the governmental structures of an independent
Scotland? You see, Scotland would be creating many structures from scratch and while that might seem
daunting, it allows Scotland to discard the archaic, tradition-ridden structures of Westminster and create
new streamlined and modern governmental structures. In fact, as reported here

LSE Professor applauds streamlined government structure for independent Scotland In the
executive summary to his report Professor Dunleavy writes "Every transition to a new state
has some uncertainty and a degree of risk. But there are no bases for extreme anxiety about an
independence transition in Scotland. "The Scottish governments record in public management
is a good one, its published plans for transition are relatively specific and reasonable, and the
long-run viability of a Scottish state looks strong. "The main current uncertainties arise from
the London governments apparent reluctance to do any planning for, or to make clear to
Scottish voters, how a transition to independence would be handled at their end."

- 19 -

And in a similar manner to the previous list above, here are 10 key economic facts that prove Scotland will be
a wealthy independent nation (see here for full explanations):
1) Scotland has a rich and diverse economy
2) Scotland is a net contributor to the UK
3) Scotland generates far more tax than the UK average
4) Westminster has cost Scotland 64 billion in the past 30 years
5) Scotland has a lower deficit and lower public spending than the UK
6) Scotland has strong exports
7) Scotlands oil fields remain a massive financial asset
8) Scotland has huge potential in renewable energy
9) Scotland is one of the top UK locations for inward investment
10) An independent Scotland can support Scottish business in tax, regulation, the labour market,
innovation and global exports

Perhaps this is why, despite claims earlier in the campaign from statements that were exaggerated by the
unionist campaign, it was recently reported in the Herald that "Standard Life not seeking London
headquarters move"

And what IF Scotland had already been independent since 1979? Would the country be destitute and in even
more debt than it is within the UK? Well, this article here is discusses this and is actually rather quite
disturbing and should be read in full it argues logically what Scotland could have been like if it had been
given its independence in 1979 when the majority voted for it:

The credit balance reaches 207bn in 2013. Scotland would in fact have been in profit every
year since 1982/3, with the single exception of 2009/10. Just as McCrone predicted, it would
have become a country with a substantial and chronic surplus.

Therefore, using only figures provided by the UK government and some very reasonable and
modest assumptions, we can answer the question What has it cost Scotland to be part of the
UK since 1980?
The answer is the difference between the red line (a cumulative debt of 99.2bn) and the blue
line (a credit of 207.8bn, very close to the 222bn calculated by the independent body Full
Fact last year). That is to say, Scotland has lost a massive 307bn since 1980 through pooling
and sharing its resources with the UK.

While the numbers sound astonishing, theyre entirely consistent with what Professor
McCrone predicted way back in the 1970s. Unlike almost every other UK government body
across that period, up to and including the current OBR, he got his sums right.

The Norwegians have made their wealth work for them. They retained their wealth in their
economy rather than giving away over 300bn to someone else, and made the money work for
them, generating more wealth. They avoided the ravages of wholesale deindustrialisation and
high unemployment in the 1980s, and the credit crisis of 2008. Theyve spent their money
looking after their citizens, both in the present and by investing for when the oil runs out.

Although the biggest of the boom times in oil are now past, an independent Scotland would
still, according to some extremely learned experts, have the opportunity to produce surpluses.
There are decades of healthy oil receipts left, and a renewables potential that could come to
dwarf them.

Scotland might never catch up with Norway, but will shortly face the opportunity to at least
start travelling in the same direction, and free itself from a UK thats currently got its foot
jammed on the throttle and its wheels pointing straight at a brick wall.

- 20 -

And to rub salt in the wounds, since Scotland had been forced to stay in the union (thanks to a Labour fix)
"Scotland overpays for UK debt" - see the Scotman

Finally, as someone commented elsewhere And look at the ones giving us advice. Why should we listen to
these suits. Its not as if there record of running a country will get them a gold star in their jotters. People that
think that there is nothing wrong when 2,436 UK bankers earned over 1,000,000 euros in 2011 when only 589
from Germany, France, Spain, Italy and The Netherlands all added together earned the same amount in the
same period. (George Osborne was the only EU finance minister to vote against a cap on bankers bonuses)




Budget Cut for Scotland Remaining in UK
As has been mentioned many times now, a vote for the union is not a vote for the status quo - budgets will
continue to be cut under the Tory governments austerity plans (more on this further on).

And with George Osborne unable to predict tax revenues accurately (Deficit-reduction target in doubt as tax
revenues come up short The Independent), even more cuts than already planned AND tax rises (no doubt
hidden ones) must be expected for the UK:

The Governments deficit-reduction programme is looking shaky after public finance figures for
July, released yesterday, showed a disappointing boost to tax revenues in what is normally a
bumper month for the Exchequer.

The Office for National Statistics said that total revenues rose by just 3.2 per cent on the same
month a year earlier. July is one of the months when corporation tax is paid by companies, but
the ONS reported that takings from this source were just 6.56bn, down 4.8 per cent on July
2013.

Spending in the month was up 1.9 per cent year on year. Total borrowing came in at 239m.
That disappointed analysts, who had expected the public finances to register a modest surplus in
the month.

- 21 -

Farming & Fishing
A lot has been made about Scotlands supposed benefits of being in the UK and the EU subsidies it receives
from the position the mighty UK negotiated with the EU. But how does the argument that farming in
Scotland is better together with the UK hold up?

Well, firstly there are the two Common Agricultural Policy payments, shown below per hectare:




Within the UK, Scottish farmers receive just over half of the UK average and a HUNDREDTH of the highest.

Furthermore, as reported here and here, 223 million was earmarked for Scottish farmers this year (known
as convergence uplift) but has been withheld by the UK government, which in fact stated that the cash would
NOT be passed onto Scotland.

And as this article here explains:
"The UK government wants the entire first pillar of the CAP production support to be
phased out (para. 51). As this mechanism delivers funding to large parts of Scottish agriculture,
it would have a severely adverse result on the industry. In fact, an independent Scotland could
call upon 1 billion Euros more in CAP pillar-1 payments until 2020 than its due to receive within
the UK.

Within the EU, Westminster negotiations have meant that Scotland is placed 4th from the
bottom on the list for single-farm payments in Europe (at just 48% of the average paid out,
compared to the 85% of the average for English farmers). And it gets worse the UK
government has actively campaigned for a reduction in the CAP budget, which if implemented
would reduce the funding available to Scottish farmers even further.

- 22 -

CAP rural development funding is not prioritised by Westminster disadvantaging Scotland,
which is disproportionately rural, further. (At present, Scotland receives the lowest rural
development funding levels of any EU member state, receiving only 22.5% as much as is given
to Ireland.) "

This article also refers to a scare story where:
"during a visit north of the border, Owen Paterson (the UK Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs), claimed that Scottish exporters gained massive advantages from the
UK governments clout in markets such as China and Russia. He said an independent Scotland
would struggle in comparison."

Aside from many other relevant points this article makes, it stated that "By far the biggest
market for Scottish produce is the European Community. Scotland sends over 70% of our
exports to this market, largely because were in a free trade zone (the European Economic
Area) with these countries, making it easy to do business." and that "on the other side of the
coin, the UK Government has been charging 3,000 a time to the Scottish Whisky industry to
use UK embassies to promote their product, while UK Trade and Investment get use of the
embassies for free when they hold receptions despite the fact that these embassies have been
jointly funded by Scottish tax receipts and are intended to promote trade and relations abroad
essentially meaning that Scottish industry is paying twice for the same service."

Even with access to British embassies (that Scottish businesses are charged for), this businessman reported
here has found them to be worse than useless when doing business abroad.

So Im still not seeing any evidence of Scottish farmers benefiting from being part of the mighty UK within
the EU.

The last word on this section will go to the farmers themselves, with a
Letter from 50 Scottish Farmers on why Yes is best
With the independence referendum fast approaching, the question for Scotlands 65,000
farmers, crofters and growers as well as the 250,000 other who depend on agriculture for
their livelihood is, who is most likely to provide that support and incentive? Is it a remote, out-
of-touch and increasingly indifferent Westminster, or a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh that
has, since its re-establishment in 1999, shown far more interest in and devoted more priority to
the farming and food sectors? We are in no doubt that the safety, security and future well-
being of our industry is better served under an independent Scottish Parliament. A No vote
would mean years of uncertainty about a UK governments commitment to the European
Union, with very serious consequences for the future of the agricultural sector. Europe provides
us with vital markets and is a source of grants and support. If, as seems increasingly likely, the
UK leaves the EU, the funding that comes from Brussels will be left with HM Treasury and
Scotland will be much more dependent on its decisions. We know from bitter experience that
this will mean cutting expenditure on food, farming and rural development rather than
encouraging investment. Westminster has failed Scottish agriculture time and time again."
see here

- 23 -



And my only little bit about fishing, last but certainly not least:




Subsidy Myth

The myth that Scotland is subsidised continues with the claim that receives more in public spending than the
UK per head. For example, "Scots get 1,600 more per head than English" - Daily Mail

However, what this completely fails to take into account (were you expecting anything else) is that Scotland
contributes per head MORE than what it receives. That is, what Scotland contributes is that much higher
than the rest of the UK that it still pays in more than what it gets out. It is in fact over 4000 per person per
year more according to this BBC article.

And if you're still in doubt, ask yourself this... If Westminster subsidises Scotland the way they say they do,
then why the hell are they fighting to keep us? Who have you ever known that has fought to keep a debt?

- 24 -





In fact, as a percentage of GDP, the average public spending over the past 5 years in Scotland is 44.2% which
is in fact slightly lower than the UK average over the past 5 years at 45.4% (see here), and that is with an
estimated GDP that doesn't take into account export revenue, corporation tax, etc generated in Scotland but
attributed to England because of where the revenue is recorded (as explained previously). Furthermore, as
you can see from the table below, public spending as a share of GDP has consistently been lower in Scotland
than the UK average for the past 5 years.


See here for table source

Also, if you minus Scotlands total tax receipts generated per person since 1980 from the average for the UK,
theyve contributed a surplus of 222 billion in todays prices (again, counting Scotlands geographical share
of North Sea oil and gas). see here

- 25 -




And speaking of subsidies, the Better
Together campaign and in particular
Alasdair Darling, like to talk about the UKs
broad shoulders and Scotland benefitting
from them. This can only be regarded as a
euphemism for subsidising after all, how
else can you interpret that phrase other
than to mean the UK will carry a weak and
poor Scotland by subsidising it?



- 26 -


The View of the Scotland from England
I'm sure you all have a pretty good idea what those in England thinks of those in Scotland. While many are
perfectly civil and appreciate what Scotland has to offer (even if they think it's just rolling glens, whisky,
haggis and tartan), we've also seen a darker side on TV and in the printed media.

This very, very small selection includes this video is a compilation of many mainly English peoples comments
about how English tax payers are subsidising Scotland and the following, while this article here has many and
frankly shocking comments about Scotland and the Scots published in the English press:





- 27 -



- 28 -

And all this anti-Scottish feelings in the media seem
to be stoking even stronger feelings in the general
population.

These are just a tiny sample of comments that can be
seen on many articles on English newspaper
websites, mostly in response to articles on the
Scottish referendum (feel free to visit them).

Gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling, happy to be
part of the union and "better together", eh?





Shipbuilding

With the recent launch of the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier, there was plenty of rallying from Better
Together about how the shipbuilding industry would be at risk from independence. Now this has been
addressed in detail in the last document, for example:


- 29 -

But a few more stories have appeared reinforcing the view that the union is not benefitting the shipbuilding
industry and instead can be seen to be very detrimental to it. For example, a very recent one related to
Clyde shipyard Ferguson goes into receivership with 80 job losses (See STV News and Daily Record) its
apparent those workers were not protected under the union.

And as Andrew Nicoll wrote in the Scottish Sun:

Take shipbuilding, for example. There are endless dire warnings that shipbuilding will be killed
off by independence. All I can say is that, reading this report, the UK has already had a damned
good try. In 1970 Scotlands shipbuilding industry employed 34,000 people, with 10,000 jobs in
Glasgow alone. When the Games returned to Edinburgh in 1986, we had 25,000 shipbuilders
and now there are just 6,000, half of them in Glasgow. That doesnt sound to me like a recipe
for success.

What about the cost of building these ships? Is it a cost-effective way to support jobs in Scotland or
anywhere else? Well, according to this article, the cost of the first carrier so far has been approximately
3.1bn (see BBC News). Its not known what will happen to the workforce at Rosyth when the work is
finished, but it seems unlikely that the 800 jobs at the dockyard dependent on military contracts will all be
retained (see Daily Record).

(The ships home base will be Portsmouth and any maintenance carried out at Rosyth in future would require
only a fraction of those, with the Fife base already having been downgraded last year (see Scotsman) and
rumours persisting that planning permission has already been granted to demolish some of its facilities and
rebuild them as industrial units.)

Nevertheless, lets generously assume that half could be saved. Added to the 600 crew onboard that gives us
a neat total of 1000 jobs. Which means that each and every job supported by the carrier has cost the nation
3.1 million. Thats enough to pay someone the average UK wage for just under 117 years.

The other big political news of relevance to Scotland at the time was the UK governments pledge (see
Scotsman) announced at a poorly-attended rally in Perth yesterday and conditional on a No vote. This pledge
was apparently to spend 500m on infrastructure projects in Glasgow. It was also claimed that the sum
which is roughly twice Scotlands share of the cost of HMS Queen Elizabeth will generate 28,000 jobs.
Thats a bargain at just 17,857 per job, or roughly 0.6% of the cost of each one supported by the aircraftless
carrier.

However, the headline 500m figure is somewhat misleading, as the money is to be spread over 20 years
(and in any event subject to a review after five years), and nobody appears to have identified where this
substantial new cash injection is coming from.

(Interestingly, the Scottish Government have now pledged to fund this entire amount in the event of
independence see the Herald)

Or at least, not explicitly. Figures released this April suggested that the current UK governments planned
cuts to the welfare budget (which Labour has promised to slash even further if elected in 2015), will cost
Glasgow approximately 270 million a year (see Evening Times) - or roughly ten times the annual spending
pledged by David Cameron yesterday.

So lets just recap:
Cost of one job on HMS Queen Elizabeth: 3.1 million
Cost of one job in Glasgow from infrastructure spending: 17,857
Number of jobs that could be created for the cost of one job on HMS QE: 174
Money being taken out of Glasgow per year: 270m
Money being put back in per year: 25m
Net loss to Glasgow: 245m
- 30 -


Naturally, the No campaign is aglow with this avalanche of feel-good stories.

But what seems to have actually happened is that the Westminster government has just announced plans to
rob Glasgow of 270 million a year (plus another 1.4bn from the rest of Scotland) and give less than 10%
of it back while expecting everyone to be grateful, and meanwhile wasting vast sums on creating a small
handful of the worlds most expensive jobs when spending the money on something other than pointless
grandstanding with military hardware would produce close to 200 times as many.

(The carrier, even in half a decades time when it may or may not actually have some military capability other
than as a gigantic battering ram, serves no practical purpose in terms of the nations defence. It exists, as
Admiral Zambellas noted, solely to project the UKs force elsewhere in the world, i.e. meddle in the affairs of
other countries where we have no legitimate business.)

Also, as Craig Murray wrote in agreement here:

We could have built 120,000 new homes, desperately needed. Instead we spent the money on
a bloody big ship. To what purpose? An aircraft carrier is of no use to defend the British Isles
land based planes can do that much better. It is to enable our armed forces to operate
elsewhere, far from here. In other words, it is not for defence, it is for attack. It was ordered in
the Blairite era of enthusiastic invasion of other countries.

Look what that left us. The Middle East in turmoil, half the world hates us, a wrecked economy.
Oh and a bloody great ship. Thanks for that.

Not only could 6.2 billion pounds have built 120,000 social housing units around the country,
but doing that would have created 200,000 more jobs, and helped cool the housing bubble, as
well as giving families nice places to live.

Next time a disabled person has their benefits cut, we can say Aah, but look, weve got a really
good boat!

But what about the threats that the rUK would not build ships in an independent Scotland, obviously outside
the rUK? Well, apart from the ships already being built in South Korea (mentioned in the previous
document), the then defence secretary Phillip Hammond admitted in July that the second Queen Elizabeth-
class aircraft carrier will be built at Rosyth whether Scotland is independent or not:

The first modules of the Prince of Wales are due to arrive from the Clyde at Rosyth in August
or September and wont leave again until late 2018. Contracts are already placed, the seal is
set on that whatever happens and the Prince of Wales will be assembled here, Hammond
said. (The Guardian)

And also:
- 31 -



Yet, as this article reports, the Scottish media subsequently tried to portray shipbuilding contracts were
conditional on a No vote. For example, the Scotsman blared Promise of 348m shipyard contract for No
vote while the Scottish Suns front page went with 3 ships deal if No vote. (The English edition was the
rather more loquacious Scots will land 348m Royal Navy contract if they stay in the UK.)

And disappointingly although not surprisingly, this contract, which is apparently so dependent on the
referendum vote, was already awarded months ago according to the UK governments own website, which
announced the contract in November 2013:

MOD plans to commission 3 new ocean-going offshore patrol vessels for the Royal Navy.

The new ships will be built by BAE Systems at their shipyards on the Clyde in a deal that will
sustain jobs in the UKs warship-building industry, and will play a key role in counter-terrorism,
counter-piracy and anti-smuggling operations.

The agreement with BAE Systems provides work for the company between the completion of
the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers and the Type 26 Global Combat Ship, securing the
vital skills needed to build the UKs future warships.

Further articles on the shipbuilding industry in Scotland include:

The open letter signed by seven of the famous Upper Clyde Shipbuilders work-in dispute in full VETERANS
of the famous Upper Clyde Shipbuilders work-in have backed a Yes vote in the referendum. Seven of the
central figures in the 1971 UCS industrial dispute have signed an open letter claiming independence would be
a boost for Scotlands declining shipbuilding industry. see Daily Record

"Shipbuilding expert: Scotland can thrive without Westminster military orders" "A leading expert has backed
the idea that Scotland's shipbuilding industry would be better served by constructing small defence vessels
and ferries rather than relying on Westminster for military orders." - the Herald



- 32 -

Oil

Oil, as already explained, is the icing or the cherry on the cake. An
independent Scotland would manage perfectly fine without it as
Scotland's GDP (well, what we know as opposed to what we don't
know) is very similar to the UK average (better if you take into account
different spending priorities and not having to subsidise rUK). Throw in
a few tens of billions of barrels of oil and you have the makings of a
very wealthy country.


Top stock market analysts have backed Alex Salmonds claim that North Sea oil is a bonus rather than the
backbone of an independent Scotlands economy see Aberdeen Press and Journal

As the last document pointed out, there is plenty of evidence of new oil fields being developed in the North
Atlantic, many of which are expected to bring in hundreds of billions of pounds into an independent
Scotlands treasury.

For example, it was reported in the Institute of
Engineering & Technology Magazine here:

Oil and gas explorer Hurricane Energy
has successfully produced oil from its
Lancaster well west of Shetland, a
remote area between Scotland and the
Faroe islands which holds a fifth of
Britain's untapped oil and gas
resources. Hurricane, which listed on
London's Alternative Investment
Market (AIM) in February, said on
Thursday production tests using a
pump achieved a flow rate of 9,800
barrels of oil per day, well above
expectations.



Hurricane oil flow tests from Shetland well exceed expectations "I am delighted to report the successful
completion of our testing operations which have achieved hydrocarbon flow rates in the upper range of our
pre-drill estimates," said chief executive Robert Trice in a statement. see Reuters

Whats more surprising is the manner in which David Cameron visited Shetland it wasnt reported
anywhere other than on pro-independence Facebook pages (thanks to Yes Shetland taking their own photos
of David Cameron visiting Shetland). As this article here states:
Just before the Commonwealth games, David Cameron visited Shetland, he is the first serving
British Prime Minister to do so since Margaret Thatcher back in of all months September of
1980. Camerons visit was completely unannounced, it caught everyone off guard not least his
own ministers who were expecting him for a meeting of the cabinet. He spent a whole six
minutes taking questions from the local press, none of which were answered. The visit was
covered in the media that evening as Dave, who was still not interfering in the referendum,
made an announcement about a 46 a year saving on energy bills.

Just before the visit a vessel carrying out some routine surveying of the Clair field on behalf of
British Petroleum (BP), so far so normal. The field has been known about since 1977, estimates
to date suggest around five thousand million barrels of oil and has been producing for around
- 33 -

nine years. BP are committed to exploiting the field but based on what has been coming out
and the estimated total amount of oil a life of another twenty or so years would seem the best
to expect; but this is where we start reaching for the tinfoil hats

In the last 24 hours it has emerged on Facebook and Twitter (I got it from Traquir) that the
vessels survey results were to put it mildly impressive. The results are alleged (get used to that
word, Im about to use it a lot) to show that Clair has at a heck of a lot more oil than was
previously thought. Not only that but the results allegedly show that not only is there more oil
there but that its the sweet stuff, the oil that is best for petroleum spirit and makes the likes
of Saudi Arabia a very wealthy and very influential nation and not only that the find is in the
shallower waters of the field but also could be huge.

This second article here then goes on to explain, A full week before the visit US website
Offshore published an article about the field in question (Clair) revealing that a second stage
development was due to come online in 2015 and have a forty-year life span. It should be
remembered that this was published before the survey vessel went to sea again to carry out
more surveys. Indeed the survey vessel was still out there at the time of posting.

There has been more corroboration of highly paid and highly skilled workers being sent home
on full pay and confirming nothing beyond them being onshore until after the referendum. BP
when asked to comment simply said they do not comment on individual results and re-iterated
an earlier press releases about ongoing investment, no mention was made of information
already revealed to an US trade website.

As our government is so fond of telling us, those with nothing to fear have nothing to hide, so
why has there been no big fanfare for the new rig in Clair?

More articles on the deafening silence about the supposed campaign visit to a handful of people in Shetland
include Downing Street silent on Camerons secret Shetland visit (see here)

The news about the Clair field was reported last year in BBC News (Jan 2013) Dana Petroleum reports first
oil from North Sea field and a more recent article reveals that the development would produce about 640m
barrels of oil over the next 40 years (see BBC News). Its curious that they quoted 640m barrels early on
since they go on to report that Oil industry experts have described it as a "monster" field containing an
estimated eight billion barrels of oil and some analysts believe oil produced there could see the Atlantic
overtake the North Sea as the UK's biggest oil-producing region.

There are rumours that this could turn out to be the largest oil field in the world, of a very high quality. Could
this be another McCrone report incident where the wealth of Scotlands North Sea oil was deliberately
repressed by the Labour government of the time to discourage home rule? Certainly this article thinks so.

Further articles on the Clair field are:
Clair Ridge and Scotlands new oil boom see here
Worlds Largest Oil Field NOT Found - The Mystery Surrounding the Prime Ministers Shetland Visit
(the word "not" is used tongue-in-cheek here) see Oil and Gas People
BP is reported as saying "We are working hard on Clair phase three,"said Mr Garlick. "We are very
excited about Clair." see Oil and Gas People and The Herald
Synectics adds Clair Ridge project to North Sea portfolio Synectics has designed and delivered an
end-to-end surveillance solution for Clair Ridge the 4.5bn second phase development project
taking place in the North Seas Clair field. see Synthetics website

And what about other Atlantic fields? The Culzean gas field is described as one of the largest UK discoveries
in recent years that it could meet around 5% of the UKs energy needs in 2020. see Maersk Oil website

- 34 -

Turns out the North Sea fields arent doing too badly either, despite the rhetoric from the unionists about it
dwindling. This article in the Telegraph reports Shares in Premier Oil climbed more than 5pc after a well in
which the company has a 30pc stake was found to have good quality crude. Investors also snapped up
shares in Xcite Energy after the explorer said that its Bentley field in the North Sea contained more oil than
they had previously forecast. [...] After increasing its estimate for reserves in the Bentley field to 900m barrels
from 555m barrels, Xcite is now seeking a partner to help it start commercially developing the four wells it
has. note that the increase is from 555m to 900m barrels, a 61% increase on previous estimates.

Another article on the Bentley field "Bentley Field biggest discovery in decades" (The North Sea Tigers) "The
Bentley field located East of Shetland is due to start production in the second half of 2015, with an estimated
57,000 barrels of oil per day output, and expected to produce oil until 2050."

BP 'has turned a corner in North Sea output' Trevor Garlick, regional president BP North Sea, told an event
in Edinburgh the oil and gas giant should start increasing output in the area this year after a long period in
which production has been falling as a result of asset sales. see Oil and Gas People

North Sea oil overhaul would deliver 200bn see The Scotsman

'North Sea oil will last for 100 years' Dr Richard Pike, a former oil industry consultant and now the chief
executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, said: "Rather than only getting 20 to 30 billion barrels [from the
North Sea] we are probably looking at more than twice that amount." His analysis is supported by petroleum
experts who believe there are some 300 fields off the coast of Britain still to be explored and tapped properly.
If energy prices continue to soar, companies will become increasingly willing to tap previously uneconomic oil
fields. The Telegraph

And from the Enquest website:
Kraken represents one of the cornerstones of EnQuests long term production portfolio. One of
the largest current development projects in the UK North Sea, Kraken has an anticipated
production life of up to 25 years and first oil is targeted in 2017.

Key features:
Kraken is a large heavy oil accumulation in the UK North Sea, located in the East Shetland
basin, to the west of the North Viking Graben; approximately 125 km east of the Shetland
Islands
The field is estimated to contain approximately 140million barrels of gross oil reserves
4 billion of capital and operational investment, 80% of which will be spent in the UK,
estimated to generate future revenue of 9 billion
Using Oil & Gas UKs reporting metrics, the Kraken development will support more than
20,000 UK jobs during the construction period of the project and an average of
approximately 1,000 operational jobs in the UK for each year of Krakens 25 year life.

And then there are the fields off the west coast of Scotland, none of which were allowed by the MoD to be
developed since they were regarded as a possible problem for submarines (those carrying the nukes no-one
in Scotland wants) navigating the Firth of Clyde. This was mentioned in my last document and further articles
include these:
"Scotland oil boom hopes raised as SNP order west coast reserves review" (Sunday Post)
"Despite its huge potential, just 20 exploration wells have been drilled to the west of the
Scottish mainland, compared with more than 3,000 in the North Sea and west of Shetland.
Other areas which will now be examined include the Solway Firth, North Channel, the Sea of
the Hebrides and, in the longer term, Rockall. The news comes only days after it emerged one
of the North Seas biggest untapped resources Bently, east of Shetland may produce oil for
more than three decades."

Scottish West Coast untapped oil and gas reserves worth trillions (Oil and Gas People)
- 35 -

Scotland could be sitting on more than double the amount of oil and gas reserves currently
predicted, a new independent industry investigation has found. The investigation reveals that
the scale of Scotlands untapped frontier West Coast or Atlantic Margin has been
underestimated.

The investigation was undertaken by oilandgaspeople.com, the worlds largest oil and gas
industry jobs board, and independent North Sea oil and gas industry experts. The investigation
included interviews with industry experts and collated seismic and expert evidence from a
range of independent sources such as the British Geological Survey, DECC, oil and gas
companies, the Institute of Petroleum Engineering and the Energy Institute.

The findings show that the current predictions of extensive untapped reserves of oil and gas
could be underestimated by 100%. The West Coast alone could provide oil and gas for at least
100 years with an estimated value of more than 1 trillion.


Scotland set for oil bonanza that heralds a new golden age for the North Sea lasting for
another century N-56
Key findings
To date 42 billion barrels of oil and gas have been produced from the North Sea using
conventional production techniques and there is a consensus that there are remaining
conventional reserves of around 24 billion barrels.
Oil and gas recovered from the Upper Jurassic Kimmeridge Clay formation through new
techniques could add an estimated 21 billion barrels, almost equivalent to the estimated
24 billion barrels of oil and gas reserves remaining.
Up to an additional 300 billion in tax revenues though this 21 billion barrels to either the
UK Treasury or a Scottish Government either independent or with full control of oil and gas
revenues.
On top of the up to 365 billion estimated to be currently obtainable in tax revenues
through conventional means between now and 2040, combined with this up to 300
billion from these new sources of oil and gas production would see North Sea oil and gas
revenues of up to a staggering 665 billion, more than double the total taxation from oil
and gas received to date (313 billion).
The UKs economic watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), has put this tax
revenue figure at 57 billion between 2014 and 2040.
Senior official within DECC (UK Department of Energy and Climate Change) backs this
enormous potential.
Danish state-owned oil company, Nordsofonden, have described the Danish offshore
unconventional shale oil and gas resource as a potential game changer.

- 36 -



- 37 -



But how well has the UK managed the oil resource? Well, according to this article, not too well, with a quote
from the FT Oil Sector Watcher that said of George Osbornes new tax regime in 2011

This seems a fairly punitive tax and appears very short-sighted. Weve spoken to a number of
North Sea producers today, none of whom were consulted about the tax, and all of whom are
deeply unhappy. It doesnt take much imagination to predict industrys reaction that the global
exploration/development dollar is a lot less likely to make its way to the North Sea tomorrow
than it was yesterday. Hence for a government that is supposedly committed to encouraging
investment in the North Sea and prolonging its existence, this feels like an incredibly short-
sighted view. The additional tax will change the economics for many projects, many of which are
already marginal. Oil companies are an easy target for politicians, especially when oil prices are
at $115/barrel, but in one single stroke Osborne has probably accelerated the end of the North
Sea by years

Meanwhile Washington blames UK tax rises for collapsing North Sea oil hopes. Increase in revenue tax,
penalties and a cap on relief for winding down old fields have choked North Sea exploration, claims EIA see
The Telegraph

Not only has the oil been mismanaged, the UK government's own Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has
been heavily criticised for its oil and gas revenue forecasts, with independent experts claiming the "revenues
- 38 -

could be up to six times higher [365bn] than those forecast by the OBR [57bn]" (see The Sunday Times).
The apolitical think-tank quoted in the Sunday Times article is supported by the Investors Chronicle that is
quoted here and reported in the Herald "We think that Westminster has been deliberately downplaying the
potential of the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) ahead of Septembers referendum on Scottish independence. [...]
Many analysts believe that the potential is much greater." (original article) And the Investors Chronicle isnt
exactly a renowned fount of Scottish-nationalist propaganda for 150 years its been making its living out of
telling the City of London how to get richer. If you want to find out what the UKs wealthy elite REALLY think
about the North Seas prospects, you wont find a much better indicator.



- 39 -

While the unionists claims that the oil is running oil (Alasdair Darling himself claimed that there were only 2
billion barrels of oil left and with the current extraction rate would mean it would last three and a half years -
see here), oil companies continue to invest hundreds of millions and even billions into oil exploration and
extraction. With oil taxes as high as 81% in the UK (see The Telegraph) you have to wonder how much they
plan to extract to cover the multibillion costs of doing so (remember that very roughly for every 1 the oil
companies make, the UK government makes 81/19 = 4.2)
Aberdeen company Dolphin Drilling wins 155m contract BBC News
Platforms installed as 4.5bn Clair oil project proceeds BBC News
In 2013, Maersk Oil invested $1.5 billion to double its UK production by 2020 Maersk Oil website
"Shell vows to invest billions in North Sea" - see The Herald
BP is investing up to $1.7 billion with its partners into the Sullom Voe terminal" - See Rigzone
BP and Shell extend life of Schiehallion see Shetland News
Major BP Shetland pipeline contract awarded to Subsea 7A $100m (63.2m) pipeline contract for
BP's new 4.5bn oil project west of the Shetland Islands has been awarded to Subsea 7. BBC News
Buyout groups Blackstone and Blue Water Energy are providing $500m to Siccar Point Energy, a new
UK-focused oil company, in one of the largest ever private equity investments in North Sea oil.
Investment in the UK North Sea reached a record level of 14.4bn last year, raising hopes that oil and
gas production could start to pick up again after years of decline. This is one of the most opportune
times to buy assets in the North Sea, said Jonathan Roger, chief executive of Siccar Point. The
market is very buoyant. see Financial Times
Bank of Scotland: 39,000 jobs to be created in the oil & gas sector during the next two years
The oil & gas sector is booming with opportunities to create up to 39,000 new jobs over the
next two years, according to new research from Bank of Scotland. see Offshore
Technology International and here
Blackstone in $500m North Sea investment in Siccar Point Energy see City AM
UK oil explorers find fresh cheer in North Sea. Two British oil explorers have cheered investors with
fresh discoveries of crude in the North Sea see the Telegraph

And as this article summarises (don't bother about the subject of the article, note that despite denials, they
don't actually explain why David Cameron made the first Prime Ministerial visit to Shetland in decades)
Total is investing well above 3 billion into the Laggan-Tormore project to tap into the huge gas
reserves out west. Part of the project is the construction of the Shetland Gas Plant, which currently
employs 3,000 workers.
Laggan-Tormore is now due to come on stream in 2015, and there are plans in place to also develop
the nearby Edradour and Glenlivit gas fields.
BP is also redeveloping the Schiehallion oil field at a cost of around 3 billion by upgrading sub-sea
infrastructure and replacing the floating, production, storage and offloading vessel with a new
270metre FSPO. The field is due to come back on stream in 2016.
American oil company Chevron is meanwhile said to make an investment decision to develop the
Rosebank reservoir in 2015. This could be in the region of 6 billion.
The company plans to link into existing pipeline infrastructure, but there is also talk about Chevron
looking at building its own infrastructure in Shetland.
Meanwhile, BP received planning permission to build a 500 million gas sweetening plant at the
Sullom Voe Terminal. This investment is in addition to a 250 million refurbishment of the 35 year
old terminal to serve the West of Shetland oil and gas developments.
Hurricane Energy is looking to develop its light oil Lancaster and Whirlwind reservoirs, discovered in
2009 and 2011 near the established Schiehallion and Foinaven fields.
Premier Oil is currently investing 830 million to bring its Solan field on stream before the end of the
year. Daily production is expected to be in the region of 20,000 barrels.

- 40 -




Would iScotland have sufficient oil? Scotsman and BBC News In summary, the oil game focused in
Scottish waters is still very much alive and is a current asset to the UK and to Scotland. The recent Scottish
government report North Sea two Futures report that compares how Norway exploited its oil reserves
compared to the approach of the UK to its reserves gives real food for thought with its observations such as:

Norway has established an oil fund that now worth over 500 billion, equivalent to 100,000 for
every Norwegian citizen. The UK has not established an oil fund

UK general net debt now stands at around 81 per cent of GDP. In contrast, Norway has accumulated
public sector net assets equal to 172 per cent of GDP

There is no question that had Scotland been an independent country in 1975, say, that Scotland would be
extremely wealthy now and there would be no national debt. That aside, the weight of evidence is that the
UK government has failed to invest the harvest from the North Sea oil for future generations. Clearly, it had
other spending priorities and a propensity to act as if we are a smaller version of the U.S. and arbiter of right
and wrong in other countries affairs. Would an independent Scotland look after the remaining resources
better than the current UK government? That is for voters to decide. But the weight of evidence supports the
case that future oil revenues from the North Sea will be sufficient to support the SNPs spending plans.

Not only are they scaremongering with claims of dwindling oil, the Treasurys own forecasts have been
heavily criticised by one of Scotlands most respected economists, who said in EnergyVoice OBR as being
- 41 -

hopelessly at sea in its predictions of future oil prices, which he says are based on a flawed system that is
not used by oil companies themselves. In February 2014, the Wood Review concluded that production hit a
new low last year, but a number of larger new fields are about to come onstream in the next two or three
years, and that could take production back to the level of two to three years ago where it could be sustained
for the remainder of this decade. He adds that would yield Scottish Government tax revenues from 2014-15
to 2018-19, close to twice those of the OBR. Prof Mackay states: I would suggest that this scenario is likely to
pass the Keynesian test of being roughly right, while the OBRs forecasts are likely to be precisely wrong.
Now why would the UK government use the discredited OBR (discredited by UK Labour no less and here) to
downplay oil revenue just before a referendum on a vote for Scottish independence?

Professor Mackay (as reported here) also wrote in the Sunday Times rubbishing the UK governments
pessimistic projections for an independent Scotlands oil revenues, and suggesting that in fact a more
realistic figure was more than TWICE the one being claimed by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The
difference is 8bn a year - enough to completely wipe out even the No campaigns inflated claim of a 7.6bn
budget deficit for an independent Scotland. Professor Mackay is pretty scathing about the UK governments
figures, and in particular the comments of Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander (who, he notes,
also recently exaggerated the setup costs of independence by 1,200%). But despite the article referenced
above claiming that his full assessment was written for this weekends Sunday Times online, its nowhere to
be found on the papers website so the only link to the article has been provided here. There is another
article here presenting the letter that Prof Mackay himself wrote to the First Minster on the same subject.

What about the oil companies? Are they concerned about Scottish independence? Well, Shell doesn't appear
to be as reported in this Herald article "Royal Dutch Shell's chief executive Ben van Beurden has noted the oil
and gas giant plans to invest billions of dollars off Shetland in coming years, signalling the company has no
major concerns about the prospect of Scottish independence."



The UK government even tries to claim that oil would be a liability to an independent Scotland (see here) and
yet for some reason they still want to hold onto this volatile and dwindling resource? Perhaps because its
not as bad as they claim? Certainly former Labour MP and former Chancellor of the Exchequer Denis Healey
thinks that Westminster politicians are "worried stiff" about losing revenues from offshore production (STV
News). He also claims that we [rUK] would suffer enormously if the income from Scottish oil stopped and
- 42 -

that Scotland would prosper under independence thanks to North Sea oil. See what truth comes out when
someone no longer have a vested personal interest in keeping Scotland in the union?


And what about the sovereign wealth fund that independence supporters keep going on about? In particular
Norways 500 BILLION fund? In the last document it was argued that the UK was only one of 2 oil producing
countries in the world not to have one, along with Iraq. It now appears even Iraq have sorted themselves out
and started one (see here), leaving the UK the ONLY oil-rich country in the world not to have a fund.

Incidentally, even Ireland has a non-oil based sovereign wealth fund, called the National Pension Reserve
Fund and currently stands at $20.1 billion (see here and here).

And the final word on oil, it is the icing on the cake. Better Together have focussed on this resource implying
that Scotland would not survive without it and therefore sowing the seeds of doubt on a resource that
everyone agrees will eventually run out (when is the argument, not if).

However, oil is simply a distraction - Scotland can easily survive without oil. It has a similar GDP per head to
the UK average when oil is excluded from both Scotlands calculations and the UKs calculations. So if it
suddenly dried up, the worst that would happen is that Scotland would have a similar GDP per head to the
UK. However, on top of that, Scotlands spending priorities would be very different to the UKs and would
enjoy more spending in e.g. social, education, childcare areas and less spending in military, and none in
massive infrastructure projects in England or on nuclear weapons.





- 43 -

Pensions

Better Together continue to issue groundless scares and pensions in an independent Scotland, despite the
Department for Work and Pensions themselves stating that Scots pensioners will continue to receive their
pensions in an independent Scotland.

There are some, like John Swinburne the former Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party (SSCUP) MSP, who
believe that in independent Scotland would actually help protect pensions and deliver a better and fairer
pensions system (see Motherwell Times)

And there is more hypocrisy from Better Together, claiming that pensions are better under the union when
recent pension changes have made 50,000 Scots pensioners worse off:
"Research by the House of Commons Library, obtained by the SNP, shows 50,740 Scottish pensioners
have lost benefits worth a total of 90 million since 2010 under changes to Savings Credit. " - see the
Herald and here

And thats on top of the pension being the worst in the EU and 2
nd
worst in the developed world (Daily Mail).






- 44 -

As published on Better Togethers website (see here) and as debunked here, and reproduced below:



So how many falsehoods did you spot, readers?

60 million people pay into the same pension pot
60 million of the UKs 64 million people pay tax?
Seems a bit dubious, but we suppose that six-year-
old girls buying Fruit Pastilles are technically paying
VAT, so well let that one slide pending a bit of stat-
checking.

We all receive the same state pension
Well, no we dont. Thats an easy one:
You need 30 qualifying years of National Insurance
contributions or credits to get the full basic State
Pension. This means for 30 years at least 1 of the
following applied to you:
you were working and paid National Insurance
you were getting National Insurance Credits, eg
for unemployment, sickness or as a parent or
carer
you were paying voluntary National Insurance
contributions

If you have fewer than 30 years, your basic State
Pension will be less than 113.10 per week but you
might be able to top up by paying voluntary National
Insurance contributions. (UK Gov website)



But lets look at the words in the biggest print. Pension pot?
The state pension, unlike private pensions, is not there isnt a fund there, its paid for by todays taxpayers.
So the ability to get your pension, and how much the pension is or how much any increase is, depends on the
ability of the government of the day and if it was independent, the independent Scotland to pay that.

Who said that? Alasdair Darling, no less. Can you run that past us again, Alistair, just to be sure?

It does come as a surprise to a lot of people to realise, although they pay their National Insurance
contributions, there has never, since National Insurance was set up, ever been a fund like a pension
companys fund out of which you get your pension. (see here)

Well, itll certainly come as a surprise if theyve been reading your website, yes.

So of the three core statements about pensions made by Better Together, one of them is at best stretching
the truth to breaking point (and more likely just plain wrong) and the other two are unequivocally,
unambiguously, flat-out lies. There is NO pension pot, and we are NOT all guaranteed the same state
pension.

- 45 -

Those arent our partisan assertions, but those of the UK government and of Alistair Darling himself, standing
up live on TV before the entire nation and telling everyone that his own campaigns claims are a load of
nonsense. A reasonable viewer might find themselves wondering what else their campaign isnt telling the
truth about.

Furthermore, independence could throw up a very pleasant surprise for Scotland and a nasty one for the rUK
regarding pensions. As discussed in this article, by the DWPs own admission, the UK government is obliged
to keep paying the state pension to anyone whos qualified for it, no matter where they live. If you emigrate
to Spain you still get your UK pension, because you paid for it during your working life and youre entitled to
it, like any other pension.

That applies to pensioners who live in Scotland the same as it does to anyone else. Theyve paid their
contributions to the UK government and its the UK government that owes them their pension even if they
go and live in a foreign country.

The ramifications of that are that if Scotland becomes independent, every pensioner in Scotland will
effectively emigrate overnight. Theyll be living in a foreign country as Labour in particular never tires
of reminding us but will still be entitled to their UK pension just like anyone who emigrates to Marbella is.

And what that means is that on day 1 of independence, Scotland will, to all intents and purposes, have no
pensioners at all. Everyone of pension age (and, indeed, those whove already made sufficient contributions
to qualify but havent reached retirement age yet) will be the responsibility, pension-wise, of the UK
government.

Scotland's share of the pension budget is very roughly 6bn per year. That would appear to be an extra 6bn
straight into the Holyrood coffers. Theres no corresponding liability people who reach pension age AFTER
independence day will have to have their pensions paid by the Scottish Government rather than the UK one,
but state pensions are paid out of general taxation anyway, so thats normal. We know about that already,
its not an extra cost.

The bonus will decrease steadily over time as the pensioners not to put too fine a point on it die off,
replaced by new ones for whom the Scottish Government IS liable.

But itll last for roughly 20-odd years (based on average life expectancies), and if we assume just for a
ballpark illustrative figure a straight-line graph going down evenly to zero over 20 years, and if we
remember our geometry correctly, itd lift a total of 60bn of pension burden off the Scottish Treasury over
the whole period.

An extra 6bn a year (or more precisely a 6bn reduction in the welfare budget, for free, without having to
make a single cut) for the first few years of independence will certainly take the edge off any startup costs. It
would pay off a huge chunk of any debt Scotland inherited, or all manner of other things.

And for those campaigners in Better Together who try to claim the SNP's plans to attract a few more
immigrants to offset the pension time bomb in the future is terrible because, well, they're foreigners? This
Independent article reports that Sustained immigration has not harmed Britons' employment, say
government advisers Sustained immigration over the last 20 years has not harmed British workers chances
of finding a job and has only had a minimal impact on wage levels, according to government advisers. They
also concluded that immigration had made little difference to crime, housing, hospitals, schools or welfare
payments.






- 46 -

Currency

With the recent (first) debate between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling, the currency issue has once again
came to the fore, perhaps more so than it really should be but then its almost certainly because Better
Together are using it to sow uncertainty and fear, which are the only arguments they have given they have
still failed to provide a single positive argument for the union.

The debate itself was disappointing, particularly from the way that Alex Salmond handled the currency
question while he did try and answer it, he gave the impression of evading the original question which
didnt leave a good impression (although he did far better in the second debate and handled in the way he
should have in the first).

However, it is a fact, beyond any doubt that an independent Scotland CAN use the pound regardless of
whether Westminster agrees to a currency union (Alasdair Darling himself admitted this in the second TV
debate). This creates 2 scenarios, both with their pros and cons for both Scotland and rUK.

1. Scotland and rUK enter a formal currency union and Scotland continues to use Sterling.
2. Westminster refuses to enter into a formal currency union and Scotland continues to use Sterling as
its a fully tradable currency there is NOTHING Westminster can do to stop Scotland using it despite
what the unionist campaign may try to claim.

However, whats more interesting is who benefits most from each scenario. In a formal currency union
Scotland agrees to take on its fair share of UK debt in return for some (minority) representation on the board
of the Bank of England ironically this is more than what Scotland currently enjoys with zero representation
(its all done through the UK government).

In the absence of a formal currency union, Scotland has no legal obligation whatsoever to take on a fair share
of UK debt the UK debt is just that, the UKs and if Westminster insist on being the continuator state then
all the debt belongs to that continuator state (see Scottish Independence Myths - The National Debt for an
explanation why the BoE is a UK asset and the debt belongs to the UK, not Scotland). Not one single penny of
UK debt belongs to Scotland after all Scotland didnt agree to any of it or take any out in its own name (the
Scottish government cannot borrow, its currently not allowed to). Numerous individuals have already
admitted this including Treasury Minister Danny Alexander (see BBC News) and the Bank of England
Governor Mark Carney ("U.K. would assume debt if Scotland votes to break away" - see CBC News, UK
responsible for all of the debt confirms Treasury Chief see here).

Scotland should not take on UK debt unless it can keep the pound Britain inherits the debt, said Sir
James Mirrlees, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and a prestigious figure on Scotlands Council of Economic
Advisers. It is hard to see how Scotland can take on the debt unless there is a full currency union, he told
The Telegraph. This is implied by the hard-line taken by Westminster. It is Scotlands bargaining position.
see The Telegraph

Nobel economist: Scots would be right to refuse to share UK debt if London won't share poundA Nobel
Prize-winning economist has backed the Scottish Government's threat to renege on its proportion of the UK
national debt if Westminster refuses to share the pound with an independent Scotland. see The Herald

Therefore in the absence of a formal currency union, Scotland can start independence with absolutely no
debts AND continue to use Sterling with a Scots pound pegged 1:1 with Sterling. As this article points out,
"Scotland would be walking away from a crushing per-capita-share millstone of 126 billion, and around
4bn a year in repayments. Thats the sort of windfall which would revolutionise the budget of the new
nation. It would secure universal benefits for decades to come, AND provide enough flexibility to cover
fluctuations in the price of oil, while allowing the building of a Norwegian-style sovereign wealth fund in good
years. As a debt-free nation with a huge resource backing it up, Scotlands credit rating would be
stratospheric."
- 47 -


You might think this is a huge change with regards to currency but this is exactly what happens right now,
even within the union. Scottish banks print their own notes and each note is interchangeable with Bank of
England notes on a one-for-one basis. Furthermore, Scottish bank notes are NOT legal tender in the rest of
the UK and are often not accepted by businesses in England (as many frustrated Scottish traveller can attest
to - see here).

But what about the rest of the UK? Surely they would benefit from no currency union? On the contrary, after
independence the rUK would lose roughly 10% of its income from Scottish taxpayers, etc, meaning it would
have 10% less to pay towards servicing the debt (1.4 trillion and rising). Ed Miliband tried to dismiss this by
claiming it was 5 billion out of 700 billion (annual value of the UK economy) but this comment shows
either how incompetent Ed is or how much he is willing to lie to deceive voters in Scotland (see the
Telegraph).

You see its not 5 billion out of 700 billion but 5 billion of Scottish interest repayments towards the UKs
interest repayments of 50 billion (i.e. 10%) or 70 billion or so of the Scottish economy out of 700 billion of
the UK economy (10% again). 5 billion out of 700 billion is 0.71% so Ed has miscalculated the contribution
from Scotland by a massive 14 times (not something unusual for the unionist campaign admittedly). Would
you trust the economy of your country to someone who either hasnt a clue about basic economics or is
willing to lie so much to deceive and persuade?

But back to the subject in hand Sterling is also a fiat currency. Its underpinned not by gold reserves
(Gordon Brown sold them off at rock bottom prices) but by the economy, especially North Sea oil, and the
UKs ability to repay its debts. If the UK was to suddenly lose 10% of its income (including 90% of North Sea
oil and any North Atlantic oil) it is very likely to precipitate a run on Sterling with investors dumping it for a
more stable currency.

Interestingly, the recent economic crisis resulted in the UK economy losing less than 10% of its income
(around 7.5%) through the recession so imagine what losing another 10% will result in? Certainly another
recession which no leader of the rUK will want to cause.

You see, under a formal currency union, Scotlands output would count towards the output of the entire
Sterling zone, not just Scotland, whereas with no currency union not only would it not count, Scotland would
also not be paying towards any UK debt. This article here explains the currency union and the gamble by the
unionists better than I can The Labour Party and the Currency Union Deceit which includes the points:
Westminster refusing to negotiate on a currency union with iScotland would not be viewed
favourably by the markets. A currency war would weakening the rUK's credit rating and
subsequently increase borrowing costs.
It would be viewed as anti-business as it would increase transactions and administration costs for
companies that are based in Scotland and rUK.
But more significantly, the rUK's balance of payments would be damaged by the loss of Scottish
exports. This would have wide-ranging negative effects for the rUK's economy.

Other comments supporting a currency union:
Davidson may back currency union Ruth Davidson has said she will back a currency union in the
event of a Yes vote if that is what is best for Scotland. see Sunday Post
And in this YouTube video here, even Alasdair Darling himself claims a currency union is best for
Scotland the rest of the UK

As someone else explained on a Facebook discussion:
The truth is that Sterling hasn't crashed because it still, presently very substantially, benefits
from Scottish exports contributing to the UK's overall balance of payments. Upon Scottish indy
and if iScotland withdrew from the Sterling Zone then Scotland's exports will no longer
contribute to the rUK's balance of payments, resulting in the rUK BoP deficit doubling from
- 48 -

around 5% to around 10% of GDP. It is for this reason and to protect against capital flight from
the Sterling Zone the the BoE will be a Lender of Last Resort to iScotland.

Here, rUK would continue to benefit from the Sterling Zone with Scottish Exports, as she
presently does.

However, without Scottish Sterling Zone exports, an overnight doubling, after 25th March
2016, of the rUK's BoP deficit would be catastrophic for sterling's value and, in all likelihood
there would be a run on the pound as the money markets attempt to dump Sterling. The run
would only exacerbate international downward pressure on the pound, too much Sterling sold
floating around the international and domestic money markets, upsetting the pounds exchange
rate.The value would suffer and with it the BofP of which the value of the pound is the
exchange mechanism in imports/exports.

That's why, and one of the reasons of, the sensible 18 month time gap between YES and actual
Indy. This is so rUK adjusts to losing 10% of its economy, its new debt ratio of 115% of GDP, at
the sametime keeping Scottish exports in the Sterling Zone with a CU as part of the pounds'
BoP with other countries. In short, Scottish exports are required by the pound and crucial to its
value pounds' "balance" of payments.

However if it continued to reject a currency union (which Westminster won't) beyond 03 2016,
and did not sort a deal rUK will attempt to mitigate the dumping of the Pound by the
international market in a crisis. This would be catastrophic for economic growth in across the
Sterling Zone.

To mitigate, rUK Treasury will hike interest rates ACROSS THE ZONE but only taking pounds
from the domestic financial markets in an attempt to stabilise the , but it will fail just as it
failed during the infamous Black Wednesday. It would not stop international investors selling
the pound, known as "shorting" the market. In short, the pound desperately needs Scottish
exports to help keep down the BoP deficit.

This is why BoE, said LoLR to iScotland.

This was to reassure investors and the money markets, so to prevent capital flight. Also, after
YES she will negotiate its fair share of the UK debt (minus assets). This debt will be repaid to the
UK Treasury, NOT to the money markets. It is inconceivable that the rUK would wish that debt
to be paid back in anything other than the pound Sterling thereby, ipso facto, bringing about a
currency union. Practically the rUK cant of course, reject a Sterling Zone. If it does that then it
will be blowing HUGE holes in its feet. I suspect, however, upon a YES result in the indy
referendum common sense, will prevail and a pragmatic solution will be sought.

Just as described by Nic Watt who interviewed the a government minister:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS774LSewgk&feature=youtu.be
The solution is a Sterling Zone. It's every bit beneficial to the rUK as it is to iScotland.

- 49 -



Some other views on the currency union:





The now infamous Plan B is to use Sterling but no formal currency union, just pegging Scots pounds to
Sterling, and is in some ways is more attractive to Scotland than a currency union (in my view anyway). But
- 50 -

the problem with that is that Scotlands largest trading partner, the rUK would enter another recession
risking Scotlands economy too.

On top of that there would be transaction costs outside the currency union that Ed Miliband himself admits
would cost English businesses hundreds of millions (see here). If you're a Labour voter, are you sure this is
your best hope for a new, left-wing party in the UK when this man is willing (along with the other unionist
leaders) to cost English businesses hundreds of millions in transaction costs just to petulantly deny a
currency union with Scotland, one that is to the benefit of BOTH countries?

This is what Alex Salmond should have said in the first debate (and did in the second one) but perhaps the
limitations of the public debate would have made it impossible for him to do so clearly and calmly.
Furthermore, as this article here discusses, perhaps to avoid a political trap deliberately set by Darling and
half of the TV audience (which may not have been as impartial as youd think see further on).

The Bank of England Governor has again came out and said that The Bank of England has contingency plans
whatever the outcome of the Scottish referendum. (see BBC News). Its worth noting that he also said
Uncertainty over the currency arrangements could raise financial stability issues. We will - as you would
expect us to have - contingency plans for various possibilities. Bear in mind that the SNP have stated very
clearly what their plans are for a currency union and that it is the unionists who are rejecting the currency
union and are therefore creating the uncertainty that Mark Carney refers to.

Ironically, while the unionists were screaming for Alex Salmond to reveal his plan B (which he has already
done anyway) Mark Carney refused to reveal his plan A, B or C because, in his own words, It's never good to
talk about contingency plans in public other than to assure that we have contingency plans.

Other articles supporting the fact that Scotland can use Sterling regardless what the unionists claim are:
Sterling in Scotland is up to us Sterling is a fully convertible reserve currency, just like the
US dollar and the euro. A closer parallel would be the link between the Hong Kong and US
dollars, this year celebrating its 30th anniversary. In 1983, when Hong Kong was still a colony,
it did have the choice of linking its currency to sterling, but wisely decided not to. It chose the
dollar instead and has never looked back. The arrangement is informal, initiated and
monitored from Hong Kong, with no involvement from Washington. Under it, the former
colony has become one of the worlds great financial centres and does not so badly in
manufacturing either, we might remind ourselves in a Scotland of extinct industries. see the
Scotsman

Sir Donald Mackay, who was an economic adviser to the secretary of state for Scotland, told
BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme that Scotland should continue to use sterling
if voters backed independence in the referendum next month. I would prefer that within a
formal currency union because I think that would be in the interests of all of the UK, not
simply Scotland," he said. If you couldn't do that, you'd follow the Irish model, that is, you'd
simply shadow the pound. You would keep parity - you would use sterling. Sterling is an
internationally traded currency. There's nothing to stop you using it if you want to." see
BBC News

The debate, so far, operates on the assumption that the UK Government is so powerful that
its interests and priorities will prevail, with the Scottish Government forced to accept anything
that comes its way and rely on the UKs benevolence for help with the EU. I just dont see it
working like that, for two main reasons:
1. The Scottish Government does have some cards, and the Yes campaign has chosen to
accentuate some of them, including its share of the UK debt (and assets) and its influence on
the future of Trident in Scotland. Whatever we think of the likelihood of a Scottish
Government refusing to share the UKs debt or insisting that Trident is removed from
Scotland, we know that the issues are important enough to make the UK Government jumpy
- 51 -

particularly since it has not secured an agreement from the Scottish Government, on either
point, before the vote.
2. As we have seen in the discussion of the Scottish currency, they key issue is a general sense
of public and economic uncertainty: the markets dont like it and, crucially, governments
dont like to contribute to it (consider, for example, how jumpy people were during the very
brief coalition government negotiations). So, it may be in their interests to secure a
compromise deal quickly than a long-drawn out victory. We assume that governments want
to look strong and uncompromising, to satisfy their potential electorates, but they also want
to appear to be competent. see here

An excellent article here regarding the currency union between Ireland and the UK, with this
excerpt Of all the currency arrangements cited in the debate over the future of Scotlands
currency, the ones conspicuously missing are those closest to home. While supporters and
opponents of Scottish independence take turns to press Ecuador or Montenegro into service,
or reflect on Germanys or Greeces fortunes in the eurozone, or even look to Norway as a
possible currency partner for Scotland, there has been precious little discussion of the long
and rich history of the web of currency relationships in the British isles. Apart from a few glib
references to the Anglo-Scottish union of 1707, there is silence on the monetary histories
between the nations that have at various times formed part of the land mass.

In 1926 the government of the new Irish Free State established its own separate currency,
the Irish pound, which was anchored to sterling. Apart from a fairly small portion of currency
issued on trust, every pound in circulation was backed ultimately by a deposit in the Bank of
England of sterling banknotes or of British government bonds (which were the basis on which
Bank of England notes themselves were issued).

This was neither monetary union nor complete monetary independence, but it was an
arrangement that both sides agreed best served their interests: Ireland got a strong and
stable currency; the UK suffered no loss to the international reach and prestige of sterling,
and both sides avoided an increase in the cost of doing business with an important trading
partner (something like 98% of Irish exports went to Great Britain or Northern Ireland far
higher than the circa 60% of current Scottish exports that go there).

This arrangement lasted until Ireland chose to join the European monetary system in 1978. In
the meantime it gave the Irish government the freedom to make its own choices. At each of
sterlings numerous shocks, including going off the gold standard in 1931, devaluation in
1949 and 1967, and the IMF crisis in 1976, the Irish government decided, on balance, that
Irelands interests would be served best by maintaining the sterling link. The British
government also preferred to preserve it, even after Ireland became a republic in 1949.

The most striking thing about the arrangement was that it was implemented with the full
agreement of the UK government and the active cooperation of the Bank of England, whose
senior managers worked with the Irish currency commission to solve the many technical
problems it raised; problems that were complicated enormously by the fact that many private
Irish banks continued to issue notes on both sides of the new border. Despite the fact that the
border itself remained a continuing source of tension and violence, and despite fresh
memories of a bitterly fought guerrilla war, all parties set to work with reasonable goodwill
to do what needed to be done.

If the churlish tone of the current debate is any guide, such practical problem-solving may,
regrettably, prove to be beyond the current crop of political and monetary leaders on either
side of the border. But people should be in no doubt that this is pure politics: there is no
economic reason why something similar to the Irish arrangement could not be repeated for
an independent Scotland.

- 52 -

The Bank of England cannot even deny sterling liquidity to any Scottish-focused bank
prepared to put up the necessary collateral, without jeopardising sterlings international
liquidity and external value. Moreover, assuming Scotland continues to run a healthy external
balance of payments, courtesy of 90 per cent of the UKs oil and gas being in Scottish waters
and other foreign currency earners like whisky and tourism, sterling liquidity will likely flow
from the rest of the UK to Scotland. Scotland will be a net lender to England. [...] The big
independence lie: Why Scotland could keep the pound there is nothing stopping an
independent Scotland from declaring sterling sole legal tender and borrowing it on the
financial markets to hold in reserve. However much it may appear to be like having your cake
and eating it, neither action requires the permission of the rest of the UK. - an article by
Avinash Persaud, emeritus professor of Gresham College, chairman of Intelligence Capital,
and a former global head of currency research at J P Morgan (see City AM)

A letter from Eamonn Butler, director of the Adam Smith Institute, London, to the editor of The
Herald (republished here).
"I HAVE no wish to argue for or against independence, but as an economist I would like to
separate the economic realities of the currency issue from the political bluster that obscures
them.

The Chancellor has ruled out a formal currency union, though some say this is just negotiating
bluff. Either way, there is nothing to stop Scots continuing to use the pound if they choose.
A Westminster government with no jurisdiction over an independent Scotland has no power
to stop them.

Several independent countries, including Panama, use the US dollar, without seeking the
permission of Americas central bank, the Federal Reserve. In the absence of a formal
currency union agreement, Panama has no say in the Federal Reserves monetary policy,
which is conducted solely for the benefit of America. Some argue, by analogy, that if an
independent Scotland continued using the pound without a formal currency union, Scotland
would have no say in Bank of England policy, which could be potentially damaging for
Scotlands economy.

Nevertheless, as a result of using the dollar, Panama a country comparable in population to
Scotland has one of the worlds most stable banking sectors. And the economic
interdependence between Scotland and the other countries of the present United Kingdom is
so deep that the Bank of England would, in reality, have to take Scotlands welfare into
account when setting monetary policy do so would risk damaging the other UK countries just
as much as Scotland.

Another suggestion, from Jim Sillars, is that Scotland should print its own currency and tie it
to the pound. There is no substantive difference between this idea and using the pound. As
the two are pegged, the only difference is the design on the currency. And why (apart from
national pride) go to the expense of printing Scottish notes, exactly equivalent to the pound
but which people south of the Border might be reluctant to accept?

The other option, switching to some other currency such as the euro, would be even more
costly and difficult, and would raise huge, business-damaging uncertainties. It would also
leave Scotland subject to the monetary policy of a country or agency with a very distant
interest, if any, in Scotlands welfare.

The easiest solution, therefore, would be for Scotland to continue using the pound, with or
without a currency union, safe in the knowledge that, as an important part of the sterling
economy, the Bank of England would have to take Scotlands interests into full account when
setting policy. The currency problem just isnt a problem."

- 53 -

And yet another publication from the Adam Smith Institute, this time a press release:
An independent Scotland could flourish either by using the pound sterling without the
permission of the rUK (or by setting up a ScotPound pegged to sterling through a currency
board, which would achieve a similar end). This sterlingization would emulate a number of
Latin American countries that use the US Dollar without an official agreement with the US
government. Because Scottish banks would not have access to a currency-printing lender of
last resort, they would have to make their own provisions for illiquidity, and would necessarily
act more prudently.

Scotland actually had this system of free banking during the 18th and 19th centuries,
during which time its economy boomed relative to Englands and its banks were remarkably
secure. And Panama, which uses the US Dollar in this way, has the seventh most stable
financial system in the world.

Everyone says Mr Salmond needs a Plan B if the rUK does not agree to a currency union with
Scotland. But unilateral adoption should be Plan A, making Scotlands economy more stable
and secure. The UKs obstinacy would be Scotlands opportunity.

The Adam Smith Institute is an independent libertarian think tank based in London. It
advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

This article "Currency Options for an Independent Scotland" also outlines all the options (plan A, B,
etc), pros and cons of each (much of it already stated here and in my last document)

"Alex Salmond Is Right; Of Course Scotland Would Be Able To Keep The Pound " - Forbes Magazine

"Osborne's case against currency union ripped apart by top economist" "The Treasury case
against a post-independence currency union between Scotland and the rest of the UK has
been dismantled as "misleading", "unsubstantiated" and "the reverse of the truth" by one of
the world's leading economists. Professor Leslie Young, of the Cheung Kong Graduate School
of Business in Beijing, accused the UK Government of relying on a "lurid collage of fact,
conjecture and fantasy" in making its argument." - The Herald

The flaw in Osbornes pre-emptive strike against a currency union By laying down the
gauntlet of rejecting any currency union with Scotland even before any referendum vote has
taken place, and promising to punish the Scottish people if they vote for independence,
Osborne overlooked an inconvenient truth. His entire argument rests on the presumption
that no workable currency union is plausibly negotiable between Scotland and the rUK in the
aftermath of a vote for independence. He simply assumes nothing can or would be negotiated
in terms of the character or functioning of a currency union that would work to the benefit of
both the rUK and Scotland. see New Statesman

"Salmond: there is literally nothing anyone can do to stop an independent Scotland using the
pound" "As such, the language of the No campaign on the issue of what currency an
independent Scotland should use is perhaps more revealing than they had ever intended.
Their obsession with a "Plan B" says it all. Implicit in that formulation is settling for what is
second-best, and in this case what would be second-best for Scotland." - the Herald

Miliband admits currency threat will cost English businesses 'hundreds of millions' see here

No Deal on currency union ... No deal on debt see here

Getting to Maybe: Currency, Debt and the Pre-negotiation of Independence There is a
great prize for the No campaign in the pre-negotiation currency tactic: its nuclear nature may
- 54 -

indeed blast the yes campaigns apparent green shoots. But this is not the same as getting
what you want, if what you want is a happy Scotland within your borders, or, in the event
that that is not possible, a negotiation in which you best protect your interests.

There is also a spectacular danger of the tactic backfiring. The lasting message to voters
could be that a yes vote merely opens up negotiations such as we are getting a glimpse of this
week. People are not stupid. Ordinary people might realise that if there are complex
negotiations still to come, they will still have on-going political capacity to influence any
Scottish negotiation position (and the Scottish government has committed to an all-party
team), as to what degree of independence from the UK they want and what terms they are
prepared to accept. Against that they may weigh up how their political and economic
aspirations will be met by a UK government, which after all is supposed to be their
government at the minute, which is prepared to lay Scotland to waste on the very narrowly
defined self-interest of the rest of the country, because they have no legal obligation not to.
see here

Stiglitz Says U.K. Would Drop Denial of Pound to Scotland The Nobel-prize winning
economist, speaking in a Bloomberg Television interview today in Lindau, Germany, said that
its in the interests of all parts of the U.K. to reach a stable transition on monetary
arrangements post-independence. Stiglitz is a member of a panel advising Scotlands
nationalist government on the finances of independence which recommended Scotland seek
to retain the pound as its currency. The position of England today is obviously bargaining,
trying to change the politics of the electoral process, Stiglitz said. Once they get
independence, if that happens, then I think there would be a very different position. see
Bloomberg

"Scottish Currency Debate Akin to Red Herring - Financial Expert" "The heated debate
between pro and anti-Scottish independence campaigns over what currency an independent
Scotland would use is a massive red herring, a financial expert in the City of London told
RIA Novosti.

"Currency threat 'dangerous game' that could harm pound warns expert" "Dr Jim Walker has
said the stance adopted by Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems could result in
Sterling's reputation being damaged." - see here

Battle to save the union was based on false claim On Monday night at the big TV debate
the First Minister demolished the central plank of the No campaigns argument. An argument
that was based on a coldly calculated and deliberate misrepresentation. Alistair Darling, the
earnest leader of the No campaign, admitted live to the nation that Scotland can use the
pound if we vote yes. see The Courier

That WEF report could boost Salmond's plans to keep the pound The WEF report shows
that Panama has the twelfth-soundest banks in the world, way ahead of the UK, which
languishes in 89th place. Why is this is relevant to the Scottish independence debate?
Research director of the Adam Smith Institute (ASI), Sam Bowman, explains This is good
news for Alex Salmond: Panama uses the US dollar without a currency union, and the
Panama option may be his best bet for an independent Scotland. Todays results suggest
that emulating Panama by Sterlingising without a currency union could give an independent
Scotland a remarkably robust financial system because Scotlands banks could not depend on
an unlimited central bank lender of last resort. see City AM

Scottish independence, UK dependency Tucked away in the Financial Times report earlier
in the week was the giveaway. Currency investors would apparently be particularly
- 55 -

concerned by the UKs persistent current account deficit if this were no longer offset by North
Sea oil revenues.

This is something of an understatement. The UK has run a deficit on its trade in goods every
single year since 1983. We have imported more goods than we have exported every year for
three decades. Including services and overseas earnings (the current account), the UK has
run a deficit since the mid-1990s. Today, that deficit is close to record levels, at 4.4% of GDP.

A country running a large current account deficit with a freely-traded currency should see the
value of its currency fall. Fewer people abroad will be buying that countrys products, and so
demand for that countrys currency will drop, bringing its exchange rate down. That fall in the
exchange rate should, in turn, lead to rising exports (since they become cheaper for the rest
of the world) and falling imports (since they have become more expensive), so closing the
trade gap.[...]

The City clearly believes Scotland is necessary to prop up the economic status quo. But this
isnt just a question of yes or no the Scottish referendum is an opportunity for the whole UK
to force open a debate about our hideously imbalanced economy: its failure to create decent
jobs, its hopeless dependency on debt, and above all the damaging impact of the City of
London. See New Economics Foundation

Even former First Minister Henry McLeish has lambasted Labours threats on refusing a currency union see
the Scotsman

This article here explains very clearly what the contingency plans are in the absence of a political union and
why Alex Salmond has already stated what plan B is (Sterling without a union)

This website here lists questions and answers on the currency issue (along with questions in other areas).

And what about that country Alasdair Darling likes to hold up as an example of a currency union gone wrong,
Panama? Well, Panama pegs its own currency against the US dollar unofficially, in a similar method proposes
for plan B (Alasdair Darling himself criticised it while claiming it didn't exist), yet according to this article in
the International Business Times "Panama's Economy Will Grow Over 5 Percent In 2014". Given inflation
there "will go down again to 1.5 percent in 2015", it seems that their informal currency union with the USA
isn't harming the Panamanian economy in any way.

Furthermore, as this article in City AM highlights
WEF report shows that Panama has the twelfth-soundest banks in the world, way ahead of
the UK, which languishes in 89th place. Why is this relevant to the Scottish independence
debate? Research director of the Adam Smith Institute (ASI), Sam Bowman, explains This is
good news for Alex Salmond: Panama uses the US dollar without a currency union, and the
Panama option may be his best bet for an independent Scotland. Todays results suggest that
emulating Panama by Sterlingising without a currency union could give an independent
Scotland a remarkably robust financial system because Scotlands banks could not depend on
an unlimited central bank lender of last resort.

Even the right-wing, neo-liberal think tank, the Adam Smith Institute, thinks that Using the pound without
the support of a central bank in an independent Scotland is a better option than remaining in the UK as
reported in the Scotsman, STV News. The paper argues that such an approach would cut risk-taking and
increase competition in banking, significantly reducing the prospect of large-scale bank panics and financial
crises.

But with all this negative talk about currency unions, lets see Sterlings history:
1947-1971 - The pound was in a formal currency union with the US dollar in a fixed exchange rate known as
the Bretton Woods system. In effect, the UK used the dollar and did not have an independent monetary
- 56 -

system. This period is remembered for a long trend of economic growth, albeit not directly related to
currency management.

1971 - After Nixon ended Bretton Woods so that he could pay for Vietnam, the GBP moved to a floating
exchange rate with the USD similar to the way that Denmark is pegged to the euro today. In the same year,
Decimalisation was introduced. This re-denomination remains the most drastic and noticable change in
money handling that the British public has seen in living memory. Only limited control of the pound is
possible.

1976 - Economic turmoil results in the UK asking the IMF for a bailout loan. One of the conditions of the loan
is tighter management of the currency peg.

1979 - 1986 - Thatcher's government adopts monetarist policies involving loosening but not abandoning the
informal peg with the USD.

1986 - The Louvre Accord. Thatcher's government agrees to change the benchmark of the currency peg from
the USD to the German Deutsche Mark. The UK still does not have an "independent currency".

1990 - John Major's government signs a formal currency union taking the pound into the Exchange Rate
Mechanism, the forerunner to the euro.

1992 - Black Wednesday. The pound is taken out of the ERM, not because of any failure of the Mechanism
itself but because currency speculators, encouraged under Thatcher's policies of the '80's, realised that they
could make a quick buck by crashing the system. George Soros infamously made himself 1 billion by this
move. The pound is now "independent" of any other currency though still partially pegged to gold and
silver. The Treasury estimates that the move cost British taxpayers around 3.3 billion.

1999 - Gordon Brown announces in advance that he'll sell the UK's remaining gold reserves and buy euros.
Traders short the value of gold and drive it to a near historical low price. By 2002 the move is completed and
the UK, for the first time ever, has a fully, freely traded and independent currency.

You'll notice all of the options on this list: Formal Currency Union, Informal currency union, fixed peg, floating
peg, mixed basket peg and freely floating. Also youll notice that only from 1992 onwards was the pound
partially pegged and it wasnt until 1999 that it became completely unpegged and was a fully, freely traded
and independent currency.

All of these options are currently on the table for Scotland's currency choice post independence. The UK has
actively used all of them in the last 60 years. I don't recall at any time the UK declaring that it was no longer
an independent country.

If you're particularly keen and wish to learn more about currency and currency unions, perhaps even more
than is known by George Osborne, you may consider this book on the subject A History of Monetary
Unions by John F Chown (available as a PDF for downloading).


And as this open letter to David Cameron points out under Westminsters stewardship, the pound has
steadily devalued to the point where its not really worth much at all, not any more. It was $5 to the pound
back in 1930. Mind you, the dollars devalued too, but the pounds gone downhill at twice that rate, which
isnt very good testimony to Westminsters handling of the currency in my pocket.

It is very tiring though to see the argument that Scotland entering a currency union would be a very odd
form of independence (Douglas Flint, Independent). No-one is denying that there will be some limitations
on the Scottish economy when entering a formal currency union with the rUK. But how can these few
limitations, with complete control over the rest of economic, social and defence policy, be ANY worse than
- 57 -

full blown dependence within the union? Its a vacuous, infantile and deliberately moronic statement to say
that almost full independence is somehow more restrictive than being in the union.

But remember that, as explained above, Sterling has been pegged to various currencies through its history
and no-one has ever argued that the UKs independence was a very odd form of independence. Nor does
anyone argue that any of the Euro member states have a very odd form of independence. Why should this
argument apply only to Scotland, as do so many of the unionist arguments?

There is of course another third option Scotlands own, independent currency and the argument for this is
laid out here.


This article by Ian Bell in The Herald (We are not dimwits, so stop scolding us about currency) sums up the
unionist campaign very well with regards to the currency union (bear in mind that if you vote No this is the
class of politician who will be ruling your country and your life):
There is a serious debate to be had about what currency Scotland should use if it becomes
independent. There are arguments on both sides. But the way Unionists such as George
Osborne and Ed Ballstalk about it is as a schoolteacher to a rather dim child.

Ed Miliband has a particularly egregious way of talking. Very slowly. And seriously. About the
risk. "If Alex Salmond gets his way." And how it would be the very poorest. In society. Who
would suffer. When interest rates and mortgages rise and so on, ignoring the fact that it would
be the rUK's monetary diktat that would cause the economic dislocation.

Scottish Labour Unionists are even worse. There is a kind of demented glee on social media
every time a Westminster politician announces that Scotland will not be "allowed" (nyah, nyah,
nyah) to use the pound, even though sterling is as much Scotland's creation as it is England's.
The pound was, after all, the product of a partnership between two nations - Scotland and
England - in 1707. The idea that one side could claim exclusive use violates the spirit of the very
Union these critics claim to uphold.

Scotland is supposed to be a partner in the UK, not a colonial possession. When a partnership is
wound up, the adult thing is for both sides to share assets and liabilities. When marriages
dissolve, for whatever reason, both parties are supposed to seek the most reasonable and
equitable division of common property. I don't particularly like marital metaphors, but when a
wife decides it is time to separate she doesn't "walk away" from her right to the family home.

The idea of monetary exclusion is objectionable on every level. At its simplest, why would the
half-million English-born people living in Scotland want to have to change currency every time
they crossed the Border? And vice versa. Why would business want to pay the cost of changing
currency for every export? A currency union is simply the most practical arrangement for two
trading partners to manage their economic affairs when they occupy one small island. The rUK
threatening to destroy the Scottish economy by undermining cross-border trade after
independence is, as Professor Anton Muscatelli said in the Financial Times, "tantamount to
economic vandalism".

Yet, we are forced to look to the infamous Plan B because we are told England would behave
irrationally after a Yes vote, and throw its monetary toys out of the pram. I don't believe
English people are like that. But even if they were, there is an erroneous assumption that an
acrimonious and chaotic break-up of the UK common currency zone would exclusively damage
Scotland. Not so.

If the rUK were to lose one-third of its land mass, 90% of it hydrocarbon resources and most of
its renewable energy, it would be in a difficult enough situation. However, if it were to
compound this by ejecting Scotland from currency union it would also lose Scotland's per capita
- 58 -

share of the UK debt pile, around 110 billion. The Scottish exchequer would save around 5bn
a year in interest payments.

At this point Unionists turn the scold-ometer up to 11. What a way to start independent life,
they cry, with Scotland defaulting on her debts. An independent Scotland would become a
pariah of the financial markets, shunned by the money lenders and forced to pay usurious
interest rates in order to avoid a Greek-style default.

But this makes even less financial sense than the claim that Scotland would be exclusively liable
for the debts of banks like RBS, which are already effectively London banks because 90% of
their business is there. The markets aren't sentimental. They look at the bottom line when it
comes to financing sovereign debt. They would understand that it had been the unilateral
action of the UK Government that relieved Scotland of its share of rUK debt. As Alex Salmond
has repeatedly insisted, the Scottish Government is more than happy to pay every penny of the
joint debt, so long as it remains in a currency union.

Anyway, the UK Treasury has already accepted 100% liability for the debts of the rUK. The
Chancellor, George Osborne, reassured the markets of this before his Declaration on the pound
in February. He knew perfectly well the implications of his monetary gamble. Relieved of this
debt burden, the Scottish exchequer would arguably be in better fiscal shape than the rUK,
which has one of the highest deficits in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.

At this stage in the game, the Unionists start to throw around words like "sterlingisation",
"Panamisation" and "banana republic". They insist that Scotland would still become a basket
case even though it had been relieved of UK debt, because it would be alone in a hostile planet
with no currency to hold on to. This is the most offensive and ignorant argument of all. Lots of
countries effectively use other nations' currencies - such as Hong Kong, which shadows the
dollar; or Denmark, which shadows the euro. Sterling is an internationally convertible currency
which Scotland is entitled to use. The Scottish Government would set up a currency board and
issue Scottish pounds based on a one-to-one parity with sterling. Job done.

Ireland did this for 50 years after independence, and UK pounds continued to circulate as legal
tender in the Republic. It only ended the arrangement when it joined the European Monetary
System - something an independent Scotland might do in the long term. The eurozone isn't
going away. The rUK may even have to join it.

But no-one wants economic war. It's just not rational. The sensible thing would be for Scotland
and England to have a common currency. But if England refused, there are plenty of
alternatives. Switzerland doesn't feel like a banana republic, and nor does Norway. The two rich
countries are not in a currency union with anyone.

Scotland is not Greece. It does not have a sovereign debt crisis caused by fiscal irresponsibility,
low productivity and corrupt economic management. Scotland has a versatile economy, one of
the most educated workforces in the world and GDP per head which is already on a par with
the south-east of England. If it was forced by rUK intransigence into having its own currency,
there is no reason on earth why it shouldn't work. True, the Bank of England would effectively
set Scottish interest rates, but it would do that under any non-euro arrangement.

The oddest argument of all is that, if there were a currency union with England, this would "not
be real independence". Alistair Darling is fond of this line, perversely suggesting that the SNP
aren't really nationalist enough. He says that a country cannot be truly independent when
another jurisdiction is setting its interest rates. But that is exactly what happens in the
eurozone, where interest rates are set by the European Central Bank. You don't hear France or
- 59 -

Germany claiming that they are not independent countries because they have a common
currency - the euro.

When the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, spoke to Scottish business groups in
January, he said that in many ways Scotland and England represented an optimal currency
zone, because of similar productivity, business cycle, exports, GDP and so on. However, he said
there would have to be a "ceding of sovereignty" to prevent one side having exclusive
responsibility for bailing out the other. A central authority - the Bank of England - would have a
degree of oversight over borrowing and bank regulation in an independent Scotland. Shock
horror.

Except that after the governor's speech, the Scottish Finance Secretary, John Swinney, said in
effect: "OK with us." Why was he so willing to give up Scotland's economic autonomy? Because
he knows that, in the modern global economy, national monetary sovereignty is largely an
illusion. Scotland, as a small country bolted on to a much larger one, will have to accept it
cannot set its own economic parameters. The alternative to the Bank of England is to join the
euro - which is tougher.

Any way you look at it, for both England and Scotland, a currency union is the most sensible
short-term option. But if rUK wants to play hardball, Scotland could throw as hard as anyone.
Personally, I just hope it doesn't come to that.

But perhaps we should give Irvine Welsh the last word on what currency an independent Scotland would
use:




Euro

The reasons that Scotland cannot enter the Euro and cannot be forced to enter the Euro were explained in
detail in my last document. However, it appears that the man trying to be the next chancellor, Ed Balls,
someone who should know about the financial system, hasnt read up on it given hes trying to claim that
Scotland would be forced to join the Euro.

Ed Balls is talking balls about Scotlands currency options see here

Ed Balls says Scotland would have to join the euro as 'least bad' option see Guardian

So either hes too incompetent to be chancellor (although George Osbornes qualification of towel folder to
be seems sufficient for the job) or hes deliberately lying to try and spread fear amongst the voters in
- 60 -

Scotland. Ill let you make up your own mind which it is. This article here also explains very clearly why Ed
Balls is an idiot


UK DEBT

And what of that UK debt? It is currently at 1.4 TRILLION and rising with borrowing and income targets
consistently failing to be met. This translates currently to 1 billion PER WEEK in interest alone, and thats
not even reducing that outstanding 1.4 trillion debt. In fact the projected debt for 2016/17 is estimated to
be a minimum 1.6 TRILLION (see here).

Remember, this is debt that the Scottish government never took out nor agreed to yet according to this
Scotsman article Scotland overpays for UK debt and in fact Scotland has paid 64.1bn servicing debts it did
need since if Scotland had already been independent it would not have needed to borrow a single penny
given the revenue raised from North Sea oil over the past 30-odd years. Further, if Scotland inherits a
population percentage share of UK debt, that would be 8.4 per cent, but if we stay in the UK and continue to
generate 9.9 per cent of UK revenues then we effectively overpay for the debt.

And this article illustrates that With debt divided on a per capita basis, Scotlands share would equal 74% of
GDP by 2016/17 against 89% of GDP for rUK. This means that Scotland is subsidising the UKs debt i.e. its
helping to bail out the UK.

This article here explains that interest rate on the UKs massive borrowing are actually increasing and in fact
is the only country in the entire EU where the cost of government borrowing is going up, not down.
Furthermore,
Two of the nine members of the Bank of Englands Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) this
month voted to increase domestic interest rates, ending three years of unanimous 9-0 votes to
keep the Banks base rate at the historic record low of 0.5%.

A hike in interest rates is coming sooner rather than later. The MPC set a target in 2013 of
unemployment falling below 7% before it would increase the base rate, but in January was said
to have lowered that target to 6.5%, because falling unemployment was having a less
beneficial impact on the economy than previously thought.

This is largely because the unemployment figures have been distorted (less tactful readers
might say fiddled) by welfare reforms intimidating people off benefits and Job Seekers
Allowance, forcing many to become self-employed on extremely low levels of income. But
nevertheless, unemployment now stands at 6.6%, and the pressure on the Bank to raise the
base rate is growing.

An independent Scotland in a currency union with the rest of the UK would of course suffer
from any increase along with everyone else. The upward trajectory of UK borrowing costs
actually serves mainly to increase the attractiveness of the various alternative currency options.
But the notion that the safety and security of the Union provides a safe haven from mortgage
and loan cost increases was a lie to start with, and is becoming more untrue with every passing
month.









- 61 -

Banking Bailout

Contrary to Alasdair Darling claims on national TV in his first debate with Alex Salmond, the UKs bank
bailouts were not the largest in the world. In fact, the US bailed out UK banks to a far greater sum than the
UK did, thus dispelling another lie that an independent Scotland would have had to bail out banks in England.
The amounts listed here dwarf the amounts that the UK government had to spend to bailout UK banks:

Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion

But what use are cold hard facts when you can use lies to support your campaign.




- 62 -

Defence

Trident
There has been a lot of talk about the UK's nuclear deterrent, Trident, but what is its importance to Scotland
and what exactly is it?

Well, as this article writes we know that it costs Scotland 163 million in running costs each and every year.
We also know that only 520 civilian jobs at Faslane and Coulport (see Herald) (formally and collectively
called Her Majestys Naval Base Clyde) near Helensburgh are directly dependent on Trident, despite claims
by various Labour politicians that the system supports up to 22,000 jobs.

Of those 520 jobs, 159 are employed by the MoD and 361 by contractors Babcock Marine and Lockheed
Martin. The remaining jobs cited by the No campaign are based on the military and security personnel
present on the base for standard duties, but even here its estimated that 85% of base personnel do not live
locally but travel south when not on duty, thereby contributing little to the local economy.

However, Faslane is intended as the home base of the Scottish Navy and as such the base, its personnel and
associated economic benefits would remain active post-independence; with the main difference being the
switch to a conventional defence role rather than nuclear deterrence.

But what is Trident and how useless it is as a deterrent? Read about it here.

With the risk of Trident having to be removed from Scotland, there have been recent scare stories that this
could force the UK into unilateral disarmament given the alleged huge costs (20-25 billion, see here) in
fitting out a suitable alternative base. However, as this Guardian article shows it could cost as little as 3.5
billion to relocate them to Davenport, which given the overall cost of trident will be 80 billion, is not as high
as expected (also see the Herald). So it's difficult to believe anyting the UK government says, although the
cost to the rUK for relocating Trident should NOT be a factor in whether or not you choose independence for
Scotland.

Furthermore, as a result of this refitting Devonport could
also be used as a base for Tridents replacement, which is
expected to cost over 100 billion, so the 3.5 billion
relocation costs are starting to look like spare change
compared to the 180 billion for the UKs existing and next
generation nuclear deterrent. But why should the UK
government exaggerate the relocation figure as 25
billion? Perhaps it has nothing to do with cost and
everything to do with risk as discussed in the last
document where the UK government and local population
objected to placing them in Davenport because there were
11,000 people within 30 miles of the base that would be
subject to a risk of accidental explosion or radioactive
release (health and safety issue apparently). However,
they clearly have no concern for the 2.5 million people
within 30 miles of Faslane and Coulport in Scotland. In
fact, risk evaluation determined that the lives of everyone
in Glasgow alone (592,820) would be at similar risk as
those 11,000 people in Davenport in a similar nuclear
accident. Thats a ratio of roughly 54:1 at a minimum,
which seems to indicate how little Scottish lives are valued
in terms of English lives by the MoD. See Scottish lives
considered cheap by UK defence bosses Daily Record


- 63 -


And note this quote from this BBC article on where Trident could go after independence - "you can't have
trident missile bodies laden with rocket fuel and nuclear warheads near a city of a quarter of a million people
(Plymouth) - the UK regulatory authorities would be very uncomfortable with that" claimed Dr Nick Ritchie,
lecturer in international security at the University of York. But it seems its perfectly acceptable to house
them within 60km of 2.5MILLION Scots, half our entire population. Scotland is considered so unimportant by
the union that its an acceptable risk that in the event of an accident half of its population is considered
expendable.

Are there any reasons, other than accidental or deliberate nuclear explosion, that youd want Trident to be
removed from an independent Scotland? As the base that services nuclear submarines (not even the
weapons themselves but the reactors powering the subs) the MoD has discharged radioactive water into the
Clyde for decades now. Furthermore, issues were discovered with the model of reactor used in the Trident
subs when internal radiation leak had taken place on a nuclear submarine test reactor in Caithness (see The
Scotsman). What is most telling about this incident is not so much the risk to the population living along the
Clyde but how the MoD handled the leak that occurred in the test reactor they delayed informing the
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (who were subsequently bound by confidentiality) by 9 months and
delayed informing the Scottish Government by 2 years after the incident. This episode displays the complete
disregard the MoD has both for the Scottish population and the disrespect it has for the Scottish
Government.

Or how about the fact that the "MoD wants to dump radioactive waste into Clyde" "The Ministry of Defence
(MoD) has submitted plans for the Faslane naval dockyard to pour more liquid waste into the Gareloch as
the number of UK nuclear subs based there rises from five to 14 by 2019. The waste comes from the subs'
reactors and includes radioactive cobalt-60 and tritium." - The Herald



Or that the nuclear weapons have been driven through the streets of Scotland many times, including through
the centre of Glasgow as recently as July this year (and will continue to be while Trident and its successor is
based in Scotland) see here. I think whats equally as disturbing as nuclear weapons being driven through
the centre of Glasgow is that 4 people were arrested protesting while the nuclear convoy was being driven
through Glasgow, which means that these people knew in advance where and when this convoy would be.

Meanwhile, Cornwall seem to be well aware of the risk and ecological damage that Trident causes. As
reported in the West Briton Falmouths tourism industry could be affected and the town could become a
potential terrorist target if Britains nuclear missiles are moved to the Fal estuary in six years, according to
local politicians. A conservationist has also described the suggestion by a think-tank that the Trident
warheads could be relocated to Cornwall in 2020 if Scotland votes for independence as an utterly
horrendous possibility which would involve vast and lasting environmental damage. Now just think about
that Cornwall doesnt want trident relocated there but the UK government is happy to base them in
Scotland?

- 64 -




Does the UK really need nuclear weapons? There are only 9 countries in the world (out of over 200) that
have nuclear weapons, and only 3 in Europe (UK, France and Russia). For all the claims that they are needed
to protect the UK from invasion (by who?), almost every other European country seems to have survived
without invasion from this unknown enemy. After all, despite the rhetoric from NATO and Russia over
Ukraine, Russia is effectively a Western ally now and has too much to lose by starting any kind of formal
direct conflict between itself and the West.

Even the editorial in the Daily Record argued against Trident in this article. Given their usual ultra-unionist
stance, its worth reproducing their full editorial here as it is unusually eloquent and powerful for the Daily
Record:
WHAT do you do with a problem like Trident?
The case put by MPs yesterday to keep Trident in case the UK is left open to nuclear blackmail is
a very slim one indeed.
There is no moral case for keeping nuclear weapons, their use would spell the end of the world
and we would best be rid of them.
There is no practical case for them, they are the result of a 20th century game of brinkmanship
that saw the USSR and the USA face each other off until one was broken.
And there is no economic case for nuclear weapons, for the cost of renewing this so-called
deterrent is 130billion.
That is an obscene amount of money to spend on a weapons system which many in the military
doubt will serve much purpose.
Trident is a relic of the cold war, an era which has long passed. Todays threats to peace come
from terrorism.
Will spending 130billion on Trident make us any safer from al-Qaeda or from the zealots of
ISIS in Iraq? Its hard to see how.
- 65 -

Did Trident deter the Glasgow Airport bombers? No, it didnt.
The SNP say Septembers referendum is a chance to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons which is
a very attractive prospect to those who were first politicised by the anti-nuclear movement in
the 1960s and in the 1980s.
In the stroke of a pen the nuclear subs could be sent sailing from their Clyde base.
So far, so good, for those of us who never wanted them here in the first place.
Would it be that simple? Possibly not. But the fact remains that for many, getting rid of Trident
is one good reason to vote Yes.

Revealed: Scotland could employ 2700 more teachers or 3300 nurses if Trident nuclear weapons was
scrapped It is Scotlands share of the 13billion the UK Government have earmarked for maintaining the
Trident strategic weapons system over the period. see Daily Record

"Revealed: 1bn bill to keep Trident" "Scottish taxpayers will have to fork out a massive 1 billion to maintain
Trident nuclear weapons on the Clyde over the next 10 years, according to new figures from the Ministry of
Defence (MoD)." - see the Herald (at 163 million per year, 1 billion in 10 years seems a little short)

One of Britains most celebrated peace campaigners backs Scottish independence - as a way of getting rid of
nuclear weapons see Daily Record

And what about this article from the Sunday Times, where it states Sir Michael Quinlan, a former senior civil
servant at the Ministry of Defence, told the BBC:

I recall an occasion after the Falklands War when [Thatcher] suggested to me she would have
been prepared to consider nuclear weapons had the Falklands gone sour on her.

In 2005 Ali Magoudi, a former medical adviser to Franois Mitterrand, claimed Thatcher had
threatened to launch a nuclear strike on Buenos Aires if the French president had not handed
over codes to disable Argentinas French-made Exocet missiles.

Magoudi quoted his former employer as stating: Its a good job I gave way. Otherwise, I assure
you, that the ladys finger would have been on the button.

Think about that for a minute Thatcher was contemplating using nuclear weapons on a civilian city because
the unelected military junta government of the country the city is in had invaded a tiny group of islands
thousands of miles away from Britain. It is horrendous to think what would have happened had she did. And
so perhaps, its not so good an idea for the UK to have nuclear weapons, if only to save hundreds of
thousands of innocent civilians from the stupidity of UK leaders (so much for punching above our weight).
Ah, but then again, as Tony Blair demonstrated, you dont need nuclear weapons to kill hundreds of
thousands of innocent civilians (in Iraq) because of your own stupidity or immorality.

Following on from George Robertsons Forces of Darkness speech (discussed in the previous document),
there have been a rash of articles claiming that Scotland, the country thats too wee, too poor and too
stupid, holds the key to the UKs defence and without Scotland the UK would collapse under a Russian
invasion. For example, as reported in the Scotsman, The new threat emerging from Russia should act as a
warning against Scottish independence, the chairman of the Commons defence select committee has said..
Its obvious that irony isnt his strong point as he missed the fact that Russia annexed part a smaller country
that was previously in a union with Russia and the UK is now calling for the protection of that smaller,
independent country.

- 66 -

Or perhaps the unionists are concerned that the Russian
military is now very formidable, what with all the modern,
efficient arms that the UK has been selling to them, even
after the Malaysia Airlines flight was shot down over
eastern Ukraine Massive Rise In Sale Of British Arms To
Russia see Huffington Post. Embarrassingly, the
disclosure comes after Prime Minister David Cameron
yesterday strongly criticised European countries such as
France, which continue to pursue defence sales to Russia
despite Moscow's backing for the separatists.

Meanwhile the Telegraph reported A company run by
the one of the Tory Partys biggest donors is in
negotiations to finance a Russian oil company targeted by
US sanctions against President Putin. Vitol, the worlds
largest oil trader, is looking to lend Rosneft $2bn in
exchange for supplies of refined products over the next
five years.



This Daily Mail article gives an insight into why Alasdair Darling thinks Scotland and the UK are Better
Together :
Britain would face the triple humiliation of being stripped of its status as a global, economic and
European power. The EU without a doubt, would say, Right, theres a lot of things up for grabs
now in particular, our voting power in meetings.
People would also say, What about your automatic seat on the UN Security Council? Similarly the
UKs seat at the IMF. They would all be up for grabs. Britain would even lose its proud, centuries-old
claim to be an island nation.
Island nation would be a difficult one because a large chunk of the island would have gone, he says
wryly.
Ignoring the stupidity of claiming a large chuck of the island would be gone, as if Scotland could up anchor
and float away, note there is nothing of benefit to Scotland in his statements, it is all about the power that
he perceives the UK, and in reality, Westminster, could lose if Scotland becomes independent.

Or what about Azeem Ibrahim of the "Scotland Institute", a right-wing think tank which recently came up
with a report on an independent Scotlands debt, who claimed just a few thousand Scottish votes in either
direction may cause a tornado on the other side of the world (see here).As reported here, this time its the
unlucky Middle East thatll apparently be cast into chaos if Scotland votes Yes, tipped from its current state
of harmonious stability into a catastrophic Armageddon because Britain was no longer able to go and bomb
it.

A Yes vote will distance us from bloody foreign policy according to this article in the Scotsman, which
essentially argues that the lack of an arms industry would allow and independent Scotland to support the
oppressed instead of the oppressors with arms sales.

And just to reinforce the completely skewed priorities of the UK government, while millions are in poverty
and thousands are forced to use foodbanks every day, the UK government has placed a 3.5 billion order for
almost 600 new armoured vehicles. As this article here explains:

Heres the BBC News website quoting defence secretary Michael Fallon today, on the
announcement of a 3.5 billion order for almost 600 new armoured vehicles:

Nato was formed on the basis that Europe would pay her way. Like any insurance
policy, defence only pays out when you pay in.

- 67 -

US taxpayers wont go on picking up the cheque if we choose to prioritise social welfare
spending when the threats are on our doorstep.

BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said the comment on threats was a reference
to Russian military intervention in Ukraine.

Lets study that for a moment, shall we?

Firstly, Ukraine is not even remotely on Britains doorstep. The distance from London to Kiev
is about 1,500 miles. Nobody has suggested for a moment that either Ukraine or Russia poses
a military threat to the UK.

Secondly, 600 is a hell of a LOT of armoured vehicles. Indeed, the article notes that its the
Armys biggest such order in 30 years. What possible pressing need does the UK have for SIX
HUNDRED state-of-the-art armoured vehicles at almost 6m a pop when the country is knee-
deep in foodbanks?

Perhaps the Prime Minister can shed some light.

Mr Cameron said the Scout deal would be the Armys largest single order for armoured
vehicles for more than 30 years.

These new vehicles are testament to the world-class engineering skills in south Wales
and across the UK, helping to create the Armys first fully digitalised armoured vehicles,
he said.

Not only will they be crucial in helping to keep Britain safe, they will also underpin nearly
1,300 jobs across the UK and showcase the strength of the UKs highly skilled defence
sector.

Wait, what? Keeping Britain safe? What imminent danger do we face to which this is the
solution? Are we going to put them on the streets to deter terrorists? Terrorists dont engage
in armed combat, they either covertly leave bombs in concealed locations or they blow
themselves up. Neither of those acts is affected in any way by the presence of an armoured
vehicle.

And nearly 1300 jobs is plainly a gigantically terrible reason to spend 3.5bn. Thats 2.7
million per job. Were reasonably sure that there are far more efficient means of generating
work with 3.5bn. Its enough to pay 1300 unemployed people roughly the national average
salary each a very respectable 26,000 for 104 years.

You only need 600 armoured vehicles if youre anticipating, or actually in, a full-scale war. Is
there something Mr Fallon and Mr Cameron arent telling us?


NATO
Membership in NATO is another area where the unionists have attempted to scare Scotland into submission.
Frankly, NATO is an organisation without much purpose now that the Warsaw Pact has gone. There is
posturing over Ukraine but it's telling that the EU and US are the main players in that show and not NATO.
Scotland doesn't need to be a member of NATO - like Ireland it can survive very well without it. To try and
claim that an independent Scotland (or rUK) would be vulnerable to invasion is ludicrous. Firstly, who would
or could invade Scotland? And do you think the remainder of the UK or NATO would stand idly by if this
fictitious country invaded Scotland, thereby achieving a land base to invade the rUK? Or course not, and just
like Ireland, Scotland would be protected by the NATO umbrella whether or not it is a member. Finland, the
country that bordered the USSR and still borders Russia today (and was invaded by Russia in 1944) is not and
- 68 -

has never been a member of NATO - if there was a country most at risk of invasion by Russia or the USSR, it
would surely have been non-NATO Finland?

So Scotland has nothing really to gain by being a member of NATO as there would be less control over
military budget and it could be forced to become involved in foreign wars under NATO. But are there any
advantages for NATO if Scotland is a member? Well, it turns out that NATO has a lot more to lose from
Scotland not becoming a member.

The Iceland-Greenland-United Kingdom (IGUK) gap in the North Atlantic is a very strategic gateway for NATO
- Russian ships departing from Western Russia have to pass through this gap. Therefore, to have a country
bordering this gap and not participating in monitoring measures or even actively refusing NATO ships access
to territorial waters would be a severe hindrance to NATO's monitoring capabilities.

If you would like to read more about NATO and Scotland's involvement, this article has an interview with
Professor Michael E. Smith, the Chair of International Relations at the University of Aberdeen, is a man who
is well-versed in the politics of transatlantic defence. A native of the USA who describes himself as
increasingly intrigued about independence, hes written extensively on EU military and security policy, and
also understands the internal machinations of NATO very well.

And in response to the recent announcement that Scotland would have to join [the] NATO queue (see The
Times), this article points out that:
that an independent Scotland would have to first apply for NATO membership before that
application could be accepted. Thats not news, thats anti-news. Its also an already-known
fact that the existing members of the alliance would all have to approve the application, and
nobody with the slightest grasp of reality believes that any of them would veto it, leaving
NATOs strategically-crucial GIUK Gap undefended. But none of that is what were talking
about here.

Any country in Europe seeking to join the military alliance, formed in 1949, has to be
invited to do so by all member states. This process can happen smoothly but each Nato
member is allowed to create a condition that could block accession.

Some aspiring countries have waited for many years, Mr Rasmussen said. Others enjoy
a very short procedure depending on how close they are to fulfilling the necessary
criteria.

Thats not how queues work, is it, readers? The fundamental principle of a queue is that the
first person to join it is the first person to be served, and so on down the line. The people in a
queue dont wait varying amounts of time depending on how close they are to fulfilling any
criteria. They get dealt with by who got into the queue first.

[] Yet under a headline warning that Scotland will have to join a queue, the planets most
British newspaper then proceeds to outline a scenario which is the exact diametric opposite of
a queue.

We mock satirically for fun. But as with the Scottish Suns idiocy this morning, theres a serious
point. The thought of an independent Scotland as a international outcast, shut out of the
Wests defence alliance, is a scare story of the crudest order. Its designed to frighten the
electorate into voting No by deliberately misrepresenting the reality, cloaking a falsehood in
plausible-sounding quotes that dont fall to pieces until the reader applies their own scrutiny.

Its perhaps worth tuning in to the rest of the Times piece.
The Union Jack flies prominently outside the front of Natos headquarters alongside the
flag of the United States. The flags of the other 26 member states are also displayed.
There is no Scottish flag flying.
- 69 -

Er, duh. Scotland isnt a member. Why would its flag be flown?

Military chiefs in Britain are already incredibly concerned about the impact on British
defence of a yes vote. They have warned that this would hit the size and capabilities of
the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, with the rest of the UK forced to carve up its
armed forces to give Scotland a share.

Such a move is seen as so devastating that the Ministry of Defence has not seriously
drawn up plans as to how to respond, relying instead on a hope that the No campaign
will win.

Um, right. The MoD is so terrified that its just closing its eyes and hoping the danger goes
away. And this is the proud, mighty United Kingdom that were supposed to be relying on for
our defence? We dont know about you, readers, but this news doesnt fill us with confidence.

(Also, didnt the then-defence secretary Phillip Hammond strenuously insist that the UK
wouldnt allow its armed forces to be broken up like a chocolate bar, and that the very notion
was laughable? Didnt he say that Scotland would have to build its own from scratch, rather
than taking bits of the UKs? Cant anyone keep their story straight for five minutes?)

An independant [sic] Scotlands loss of Nato membership would further weaken the rest
of Britain, said Admiral Lord West of Spithead, a former Labour security minister and
former head of the Royal Navy. This was because being part of the alliance meant that
countries shared the responsibility and expense of their collective defence. An isolated
Scotland would still need protection.

Against whom?

The reality is that they will be relying on us and Nato for their defence and they are not
willing to pay their share, Lord West said.

Wait, what? Who said Scotland wouldnt pay its share? Did we turn over two pages at once?
Scotland WANTS to join and contribute like everone else. The allegation being made here is
that its application for membership would be refused. In which case, how would it be Scotlands
fault that it wasnt paying its share?

For this reason, he felt that Britain would not try to derail any future attempt by an
independent Scotland to join Nato. However, he said that other countries, such as Spain,
with worries about struggles for independence within their own borders, could refuse a
Scottish application as a warning to others.

(Our emphasis.) And the total collapse of the story is now complete. The Times having hinted
that the UK might be the one to veto Scottish membership, Lord West promptly blows that idea
out of the water. And we already know that Spain has pledged not to interfere in Scottish
affairs so long as independence is achieved constitutionally and legally, which the Edinburgh
Agreement ensures it will be. We doubt Spain wants the GIUK Gap left unpatrolled any more
than any other NATO member does.

And what has being part of Britain made Scotland? A terrorist target in retaliation for the UKs invasion of
Iraq, in particular. And now it seems the UK cant even guard its own airports now that FBI agents are to
guard UK airports against jihadi fanatics (Daily Express). Not content with monitoring all our
communications, the US are now guarding the UKs airports?

The UK cant even protect its own territorial waters (as explained in the last document) and is actively closing
coastguard stations.
- 70 -




- 71 -

Political

Voices, mainly celebrities cajoled by unionist politicians, continue to plead for Scotland to stay with us. This
was discussed in the last document, arguing why should Scotland suffer Tory governments more often than
not just to save England from their voting sins and the supposed eternal Tory governments that would occur
in the absence of Scotlands Labour MPs. After all should Scotland deny the government England votes for?
Besides as already demonstrated, the results of previous UK general elections have only been influenced by
Scottish votes twice since WW2 (and which changed the government for a total of 2 years, not even a
single full term) and NEVER since Thatcher came to power in 1979.

Another article arguing against this view was published in this Scotsman where the author argued that If we
want things to improve, why wait? The overarching theme being broadcast appears to be that progressive
politics in the UK was about waiting, opposing, suffering together and grabbing the crumbs under the
masters table.

And remember the choice of UK Prime Minister youll have at the next UK general election:



- 72 -

More Devolved Powers
It is amusing that the closer we get to the day of the referendum, the louder the unionist parties try to shout
about more powers. In fact they recently made this declaration:



However, note that there is absolutely nothing mentioned about WHAT powers they intend to grant and
given their extreme reluctance to do so in the past (or point-blank refusal when Thatcher came to power
despite her promises) you have to be very naive to believe a UK politician will promise something they have
made no explanation as to what theyre promising. After all, Nick Clegg signing a pledge means absolutely
nothing given he signed a pledge before forming a coalition government with the Tories "to vote against any
increase in tuition fees". Well, we all know how that turned out.


- 73 -


Perhaps the following pledge is a better representation of what is actually being promised by the UK parties:


Even Alasdair Darling, just over a month before the date of the referendum, could not explain what those
extra powers were in the debate with Alex Salmond see here (note this clip is not available on STV player,
funny that)

But as this article points out, the pledge is meaningless. For example, lets check out some highlights.
Power lies with the Scottish people and we believe it is for the Scottish people to decide how
Scotland is governed.
For some reason theyve forgotten to include except in any of the really important areas, like
foreign policy, welfare policy and control of its own revenues in that sentence.

We support a strong Scottish Parliament in a strong United Kingdom and we support the
further strengthening of the Parliaments powers. The three parties delivered more powers
for Holyrood through the Calman Commission which resulted in the Scotland Act 2012.

Again, a typesetting error appears to have accidentally omitted the words but barely two
years on were telling you that the Calman Commission got it wrong and actually didnt give
Scotland all the powers it needed. Well totally get it right THIS time, though, honest.

We now pledge to strengthen further the powers of the Scottish Parliament, in particular in
the areas of fiscal responsibility and social security.

Fiscal responsibility isnt a power. Deciding policy is a power. And no actual social-security
powers will be devolved, because nobody has the faintest idea how housing benefit (the only
one anyones actually suggested) could possibly be disentangled from Universal Credit in
Scotland, when welfare is still controlled by Westminster and the entire point of Universal
Credit is to roll all benefits into one system. Its like saying that youre going to have people
with blue eyes drive on the right-hand side of the road while everyone else still drives on the
left, but that youll work out the details later and itll all be fine.

We believe that Scotland should have a stronger Scottish Parliament while retaining full
representation for Scotland in the UK Parliament.

Where full representation means a 12% reduction in representation, of course.
- 74 -


The Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish
Liberal Democrats have each produced our own visions of the new powers which the Scottish
Parliament needs. We shall put those visions before the Scottish people at the next general
election

But much more to the point, theyll put those visions before the English people, who are the
ones wholl actually decide who forms the next UK government.

and all three parties guarantee to start delivering more powers for the Scottish Parliament
as swiftly as possible in 2015.

You know, just like when Labour guaranteed to introduce electoral reform, the Tories
guaranteed not to raise VAT or embark on top-down restructuring of the NHS and the Lib
Dems guaranteed to vote against tuition fee increases.

Its also telling that while all UK parties have ruled out devolving corporation tax, the current UK government
seems to be willing to devolve this tax to Northern Ireland (Corporation tax: Rate cut likely as Prime
Minister David Cameron set to let Northern Ireland go it alone Belfast Telegraph). Now I wonder why?
Could it be that Scotland raises more corporation tax per head than the UK average or even Northern
Ireland? That if they devolved it to Scotland the UK government would lose income but not by devolving it to
Northern Ireland? Certainly its not because the UK should have the same rate and should not be
encouraging a race to the bottom.



And remember that while it was Labour who introduced the devolved parliament (after the people of
Scotland had been demanding it for almost 20 years), it was also Labour who gave it next to no powers
compared to what the Scottish office had (except for the very weak income tax variation which has never
been used for obvious reasons). Devolution primarily gave Scotland another layer of politicians and
government (which many voted for in the hope of getting to a referendum on independence). Labour didn't
even want to call the government in Scotland as such but instead called it an executive to keep it in its
place, subordinate to the UK government. It was the SNP that changed the title to government in order to
aspire to something greater and give it respectability.

Also remember that for all Labour's new found promises to legislate to prevent Westminster removing any
further power from the Scottish government (which has already happened), it was Labour who legislated for
- 75 -

devolution in 1997, not the Tories. Therefore, you have to ask why they didn't they ensure back then that no
powers could be removed from Scotland?

And what about the chosen electoral system for the Scottish parliament? A system deliberately designed by
Labour and the LibDems to prevent an outright SNP majority, although that failed quite spectacularly in
2011. Labour have been far from generous with devolution and in retrospect, it's only been the absolute
minimum they could get away with giving while plotting behind the scenes (e.g. sea bed grab off the Scottish
east coast).

Despite a complete lack of details of devolved powers, its quite interesting to see how many parties will
actually place commitments in their manifesto that are designed to inflict damage on an independent
Scotland, as well as the remaining UK for example, Ed Miliband pledged that Labours party manifesto
would include blocking a currency union even though it would cost rUK businesses hundreds of millions of
pounds a year (see Scottish Express)

And if you still believe the unionists promises of more jam tomorrow, you might want to consider Boris
Johnsons recent comments (STV News as well as The Scotsman, here and here):

Ever more things we are giving Scotland... but for no reason we are promising the Scots more
tax-raising powers. Theres no need to do it.

What has England ever got out of this devolution process? If you want to have growth in the
English cities then you should do what Manchester wants, what Liverpool, Leeds, all of us want
and thats give us more tax-raising powers."

But why should comments from the Mayor of London concern you? Perhaps because not only is he running
as an MP in 2015, a poll found more than 50% of Conservative voters backed him as the party's next leader
(The Guardian, and STV News).

And the Daily Express reported:
Boris Johnson WILL lead the Tories to victory at next year's election, shock poll reveals. BORIS
Johnson could take the Tories to outright victory in next year's general election if he were
leader, a poll showed today. Voter support for the party surged six points to 39 per cent when
people were asked how they would vote with the London Mayor in charge rather than David
Cameron. That would put a Commons majority within reach for the Tories.

The LibDems are no longer looking to be the party of 3
rd
place with them being pushed into 4
th
, 5
th
or even
6
th
place in recent elections, always with UKIP coming ahead. Not only that UKIP were recently reported by
the BBC News here as having collected more party donations that the LibDems. And in the UK, the party with
the biggest electoral fund usually wins.

But with Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander confirming that the policy of the UK Government
was to prevent parts of the UK from setting independent tax rates in each band to prevent one part of the
UK benefitting "at the expense of the UK as a whole" (see here), and Willie Rennies comments (Scottish
LibDem leader in case you havent heard of him, most havent) that The Scottish Parliament Is A Temporary
Institution (see here in his own words) it apparently doesnt matter now that the devolution-hostile UKIP
have overtaken the, well devolution-hostile LibDems.

Canon Kenyon Wright, regarded as one of the master architects of devolution (he chaired the Scottish
Constitutional Convention which laid the groundwork to set up the Scottish Parliament in 1999), is now
warning that Westminster will take revenge in the event of a No vote and stated:
I believe the suggestions of revenge against the Scots emanating from Westminster are very
real if there was a No vote on September 18.

- 76 -

There will undoubtedly be cuts to the Barnett Formula, affecting the NHS in Scotland, social
security, and that benefits will suffer - we've already had (Chancellor) George Osborne and his
'bedroom tax' - and I envisage devolution being undermined despite promises of more powers.
Not that I believe that the devolved parliament will be abolished, but its powers will be
diminished.

Like many, I argued for a second question offering a middle way - which I saw not as devolution
but as 'constitutionally secure autonomy within a reformed UK'. That door was slammed shut -
but not by Scotland.

Devolution is no longer enough; it's incomplete and even 'max' leaves key areas unguaranteed.
So Messrs Cameron, Miliband and Clegg cannot be surprised if I now see independence as the
only way left open, to give Scotland power over her own affairs that is both complete and
secure. Their way offers neither." (STV News and here)

Even the Labour ex-First Minister Henry McLeish is warning that Scots need to think very carefully before
voting 'No' (ITV News). As reported in the article:
A former Labour First Minister is warning that the Westminster parties may not deliver the
extra devolution powers they're promising. Henry McLeish says Scots need to think very
carefully before voting 'No'.

He told ITV Border's Kathryn Samson there's a danger further devolution may slip down the UK
political agenda if voters reject independence.



Tam Dalyell, that famous poser of the West Lothian question, recently announced that the only solution to
the problem of Scottish elected MPs voting on English only matters in the House of Commons is to abolish the
devolved Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. (see RIA.com, ).

"Tory Scottish chairman wrecks devo consensus. Labour's plan for more powers for Holyrood, which was
supposed to lead to a cross-party deal on greater devolution in the event of a No vote, has been dismissed as
"incoherent, unworkable and confused" by the chairman of the Scottish Conservatives." - the Herald

So lets look at this again firstly, as explained in my first independence document, David Cameron is an
almost certainty to win the next UK election, either outright or more likely in a coalition with UKIP now (who
are more than willing to enter a coalition according to this Telegraph article while according to this Mail
article Tory MPs are demanding Farage is made deputy Prime Minister). Heck, David Cameron may even find
- 77 -

himself in coalition with former Labour MPs who have defected to UKIP (see The Herald Labour MPs
'among those considering Ukip defection')

David Blunkett himself argued that Labour could find itself in the political wilderness for another 15 years if
it does not win the upcoming general election, former cabinet minister David Blunkett has warned. see the
Guardian. With Boris Johnson as the next prime ministerial candidate in 2020, this doesnt seem as far-
fetched as it sounds given his popularity with Tory voters and no doubt SE England voters. Nevertheless, the
London Mayor does have the ear of the Prime Minister and his comments about not giving Scotland any
more power should be taken seriously after all if Scotland votes No, what can Scotland do if no powers are
granted? Vote the Tories out of government? And what benefit will it be to the 90%+ of English MPs to give
Scotland (less than 10% of the population) more powers and risk aggravating their own electorate?

As Derek Bateman wrote here:
dont tell me its a decision forever that can never be changed. What do think voting No
means? Do you believe after a No Scots will ever have any clout again with the UK? I know
many of you Unionists will cheer if it means a win in the short term but I doubt history will be
kind to those who rejected the chance to empower themselves the first people in history to
vote away their own independence.

Ok, that was everyone else other than the Prime Minister showing they dont believe in more powers for
Scotland. But what about David Cameron? He would need to go against not only the reason he didnt want
Devo Max on the ballot paper in the first place (he doesnt want to hand more powers to the Scottish
Parliament and expected to win the referendum on that basis) but also his own statement made in January
this year that an increase in powers such as devo-max is inconsistent with staying in the UK and that
they must back independence if they want full financial separation from Westminster. The sources said a
unified tax and benefits system across the UK, was at the heart of a single country, and could not be
devolved to Scotland. see the Scotsman

Like most politicians, Cameron also has a history of not delivering what he promised:



- 78 -



But let's assume the Tories (or even labour, if they win the next UK GE by some miracle) go against every
statement David Cameron has made until July AND their very essence of being a British Unionist party. What
extra powers have been promised? Absolutely none, there is no definition of what those powers will be.
There has been talk about it being mostly or fully devolved income tax i.e. Scotland raises all income tax and
sends most of it down to London while keeping a little for itself (an amount that Westminster decides, not
the Scottish Government). Surely this is good?

Well, no because as already explained there will be
increased costs for the Scottish government to collect this
tax while it would be unable to raise taxes to even
compensate for the increased administrative cost (there is
no plan to make changes to the amount most people pay
in income tax after independence and certainly none while
Scotland remains in the UK). Even if it raises tax to provide
for increased public spending in Scotland within the union,
it's already been stated that the Barnett Formula would be
adjusted to compensate for that i.e. it would be reduced
so the amount that Scotland receives/raises would be the
same regardless of the levels of tax in Scotland, with the
end result that people in Scotland would be paying more
tax for no additional benefit (see here for a clear
explanation of the Barnett formula and how reduced
public spending in England will affect Scotlands budget).


And this article here further argues that devolving income tax further could result in the Barnett formula
being abolished completely (as has already been suggested by various ministers and MPs, for example see
Daily Record and here). This abolition would result in an immediate loss of 7 billion. But why would the
Tories do this? And why would Labour be happy to see it happen?

As discussed in this article, Labour has already conceded that if Scotland stays in the union then they will
NOT win the 2016 Scottish election. Therefore, by siding with the Tories (who have nothing to lose in
Scotland anyway after a No vote) in abolishing the Barnett formula and imposing a massive 28% reduction in
Scottish funding, it will force the post-2016 SNP government to implement savage cuts across the board,
which will almost certainly bear the brunt of the anger of people in Scotland.

Furthermore, another advantage for the Tories, though not so much for Labour, is that they can use the
devolution of taxation to further reduce the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster because Scottish MPs
will have fewer responsibilities and also to reduce their influence by finally excluding them from votes on
matters that dont affect Scotland. So the Tories win, because theyve reduced Labours numbers and
influence at the Commons. And while Labour will grumble a bit at that, theyll mostly be delighted because of
the body blow dealt to the SNP, and because in reality they know that their Scottish MPs almost never make
a difference to whether they win Westminster elections or not anyway.

For the Unionist parties, theres no downside to this plan. They save billions of pounds that they can redirect
to bribe crucial English swing voters, but they get to do so in the guise of giving the Scottish electorate what
it wants, while keeping all of Scotlands oil revenues safely in the Treasury and Trident in the Clyde.

- 79 -






- 80 -


More evidence of the Barnett formula being scrapped can be found here:
DAVID CAMERON, UK PRIME MINISTER (Con)
Asked if it was time to get rid of the formula, Mr Cameron says: This cannot last forever, the
time is approaching If we replace the Barnett Formula with a needs-based formula, Scotland
has very great needs and Scotland will get very great resources.

Asked if, therefore, the formula is coming to the end of the road, he replies: Yes, thats
right.

ALISTAIR CARMICHAEL, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (Lib Dem)
We do want to see Barnett scrapped. We want to see that replaced by what we call a needs
based formula.

MARGARET CURRAN, SHADOW SCOTTISH SECRETARY (Lab MP for Glasgow East, one of the
most deprived areas in Europe with an average life, 56, expectancy lower than in many parts
of Africa)
Margaret Curran, the Shadow Scottish Secretary, said there are a lot of question marks
about whether devolution has led to the improvements that its supporters claim.

She also indicated her support for abolishing the Barnett formula, which gives Scots almost
1,200 per head more public spending than the UK average, and replacing it with a system
based on need.
She said: I do believe that we should allocate public funding on the basis of need and it should
not be around just a regional or a national demarcation around that.

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS JUSTICE SELECT COMMITTEE
The Barnett Formula is overdue for reform and lacks any basis in equity or logic. It creates
controversy in all of the constituent parts of the UK. There is controversy in England that the
Barnett Formula allows for higher levels of public spending in Scotland from the UK Exchequer
and does not deal with different needs in different parts of England.

We urge the Government to publish its position as a matter of some urgency and to proceed to
devise a new formula which is needs based, takes into account regional disparities in England
as well as in Scotland and Wales, is transparent and is sufficiently robust to enable long-term
planning.

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION, ENGLAND
Council leaders in England are to campaign for Scotlands block grant to be cut. Local
government chiefs south of the Border say they are envious of the powers and funding given to
a devolved Scotland and have revealed they will push for the UK Treasury to scrap the Barnett
formula, the system that gives Scotland more per head of UK funds than it does to England and
Wales.

Sir Merrick Cockell, head of the Local Government Association (LGA) in England, has claimed
that his counterparts in Scotland are in wide-eyed disbelief at the cuts English councils are
having to accept, compared to those they are having to implement.

CONSERVATIVE MPS, VARIOUS
The renewed debate over Scotlands place in the Union should trigger a review of its share of
taxpayers money, Conservative MPs have said.

Gordon Henderson, the MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, said uneven public spending was
fuelling English resentment at Scotland and undermining the Union the Conservatives are
committed to preserving.
- 81 -


There is increasing resentment within England about this there is a feeling that we are
treated less favourably, he added.

The Barnett Formula is well out of date and needs to be scrapped entirely. If we are a United
Kingdom and I hope we remain so then we should all receive the same level of support from
the Government.

David Mowat, the MP for Warrington South, said: We should be looking at the Barnett
Formula now, thinking about moving towards a more needs-based formula. he added.

Andrew Selous, the MP for South West Bedfordshire and an aide to Iain Duncan Smith, the
Work and Pensions Secretary, highlighted comments from other senior ministers that he said
raised doubts about the formulas future.

Cheryl Gillan, the Welsh Secretary, said last year that the formula was coming to the end of its
useful life. As a junior Treasury minister, Justine Greening, now the Transport Secretary, also
responded sympathetically to calls for reform.

Mr Selous said: I am very encouraged that two Cabinet ministers have gone on the record to
say that the Barnett Formula will not be here for ever. This is something that people in
England are concerned about.

MORE TORY MPS (VARIOUS)
Almost three-quarters of Tory MPs say that the way public money is distributed around
Britain should be reformed. And most believe that the current devolution settlement giving
Scotland its own parliament is unfair to England and must change.

THE ALL-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY TAXATION GROUP
The APPTG echoes the findings of the House of Lords Committee on the Barnett Formula in
recommending that a shift is required towards a needs-based formula, whereby a dynamic
and simple, clear, and comprehensible system is used to allocate resources to the devolved
regions based on an explicit assessment of their relative needs, calculated per head of
population.

RUTH DAVIDSON, LEADER, SCOTTISH CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Barnett was only supposed to be temporary I do think that there will be a review of Barnett
after 2014. The ground has shifted since devolution.

STRUAN STEVENSON, SCOTTISH CONSERVATIVE MEP
The Scottish Conservatives will never have any fertile ground to plough in Scotland as long as
we live on a block grant from Westminster. We are the party that can offer efficiency and low
tax and a competent government but you cant do that when you are funded through the
Barnett block grant.

CARWYN JONES, FIRST MINISTER OF WALES (Lab)
Asked if he could see Barnett reformed without touching the current generous allocation of
funds to Scotland, Jones said: It would be difficult to envisage a situation where there would be
widespread Barnett reform with an independence referendum pending in Scotland.

The problem has been in years gone by that you cant address the Barnett Formula unless you
address the whole of it. I certainly cant see it happening before 2014 and the Scottish
referendum.

THE SCOTTISH LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
- 82 -

Recommendation 26: The UK should move to an independent, transparent, needs based
formula to serve all parts of the UK well and allow fiscal federalism to be sustained in the long
term, recognising that the Barnett Formula was only ever intended to be a temporary
measure at the end of the 1970s.

LORD LANG OF MONKTON (Con)
On the Barnett surplus, everyone knows that the basis of the present distribution of funds is
out of date. We know that that, too, created an imbalance that can be put right. A fair-
minded Scotland would agree. We need an up-to-date measurement of relative need in
Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. (col. 1365)

THE TAXPAYERS ALLIANCE
The Barnett Formula has a troubled history and has failed to address the extremely unfair
situation of English taxpayers heavily subsiding Scotland. Everyone is struggling to make ends
meet, and it is long overdue for the Government to lift this burden from taxpayers shoulders.
English taxpayers want an end to subsidising Scotland

THE CALMAN COMMISSION
The commission, which officially publishes its report on 15 June, has decided major changes
need to be made. Instead of the Barnett Formula it wants Scotland to have taxes raised in the
country including income tax, VAT, stamp duty and inheritance tax assigned directly to the
Scottish budget.
Significantly, however, experts believe the change will result in a drop in Scotlands budget
which could lead to cuts in services. The proposals will be seen by some as evidence the
commission was a smokescreen to cut Scotlands budget.

THE HOLTHAM COMMISSION
We believe that Barnett must ultimately be superseded by a needs-based formula. No doubt
that will need to be accompanied by an adjustment mechanism since the formula may imply
substantial changes to block grants and it would be both disruptive and politically difficult to
introduce those rapidly. (Section 3.9)

THE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH
The introduction of a new system would provide a convenient opportunity to do so, but would
entail a substantial reduction in the funding allocated to Scotland.

It would be open to the Scottish government to decide whether it wanted to raise more revenue
from the tax bases available to it to continue to pay for higher levels of public services, or to
reduce spending to match that standard, need-related, level of spending. (Section 6.2)

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
The Barnett Formula, under which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland receive more public
spending per head than England, has long rankled south of the border. Even Joel Barnett, who
was chief secretary to the Treasury when the system was introduced in the Seventies as a
temporary measure, subsequently disowned it.

If the Scots vote to remain in the UK, as we hope they do, it cannot be as a result of a bribe
from the English. A few years ago, the Calman Commission recommended scrapping Barnett,
reducing income taxes in Scotland and then allowing Holyrood to levy its own rate on top,
introducing an enhanced element of accountability and fiscal self-governance.

Such reforms should be openly debated ahead of the referendum: for the Scottish people are
entitled to know that even if they vote to stay in the UK, the current method of financing
public spending should not be allowed to continue.

- 83 -

THE UK PUBLIC (via The Sun/YouGov)
60% of UK taxpayers dont think it is worth continuing to give Scotland a higher share of
state spending than other regions just to keep it in the UK.

IAN DAVIDSON MP, CHAIR, SCOTTISH AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE (Lab MP for Glasgow
South West)
Glasgow MP Ian Davidson said the Barnett formula that gives Scotland a bigger share of UK
government spending would be lost if the party go for full tax powers for the Scottish
Parliament.
The Labour chairman of the influential Commons Scottish affairs committee said it would
undoubtedly be to Scotlands detriment.

TIM MONTGOMERIE, CONSERVATIVE HOME
Drawn up more than three decades ago by now Lord Barnett the formula distributes
taxpayers money across the UK. Even Lord Barnett now describes the formula as unfair. On
both the Left (IPPR) and Right (TaxPayers Alliance) there is agreement that the formula is
well past its sell-by date.
Scotland and Northern Ireland receive a much greater share of UK taxpayers money than need
in either country would require. The biggest losers are the poorer English regions and Wales.
There has long been a campaign in Cardiff for Barnetts reform.

This seems one of the great no-brainers of British politics. England is losing up to 4.5 billion
every year because a Conservative-led government is sending that money to parts of the UK
that stubbornly refuse to vote Conservative AND there is widespread agreement that the
system isnt driven by social need.

LORD JOEL BARNETT, DEVISOR OF THE BARNETT FORMULA
The Labour peer who invented the system by which billions of pounds of English taxpayers
money is diverted to Scotland said the system should be scrapped because it is unfair.

In an interview with GMTV, to be broadcast tomorrow, Lord Barnett said the system should be
replaced with a formula reflecting the needs of each region, whether they are in England,
Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

He said: Its quite wrong. It clearly should not be based on per head expenditure but should be
based on needs in particular areas. The amount of money going to Scotland on a needs basis
by comparison, say with my own North West or the North East, is far higher than it should
be, so it should be changed.

He added: Theyd lose quite a bit in my guess, done on a proper needs basis. They paid for
the whole of the enormous cost of that new parliamentary building, they paid for it without
having to raise an extra penny.

Lord Barnetts reverse will cause anger in England, where opinion is mobilising against the
Scots.

In the interests of fairness wed balance these quotes with counterpoints, but its somewhat
more difficult to find a voice prepared to speak out in favour of continuing the Barnett Formula
than it is to find a chorus calling for its abolition. The only vague commitments made to it have
been carefully weasel-worded statements that it will carry on for the rest of the lifetime of the
current government, ie around 15 months.

Indeed, the only person who weve ever managed to pin down making an unequivocal
assertion that Barnett will survive for longer than that (for 30, 40 more years) is the Better
- 84 -

Together campaign director Blair McDougall, which is just about as close to a cast-iron
guarantee that it wont as you can get.


And just as an aside, what about the recent Tory government cabinet reshuffle? Will that have any impact on
Scotland? Perhaps not majorly given the Tories are still in charge and imposing policies few in Scotland voted
for. However, the reshuffle certainly can't be seen in any positive light. As the Herald here writes:

"if there is anyone who doubts that Scotland will be in a hard place after a No vote, they need
only look at the new Cabinet. The Conservatives are more anti-Europe than ever before, more
pro-nuclear than ever before, more hostile to immigrants and welfare claimants than ever
before. This is the Conservatives remade in the image of Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader. The last
vestige of one-nation conservatism was removed from the Tory leadership in the departure of
Ken Clarke, the only pro-European cabinet minister until last week. [...]

And still some people think here that after a No vote, Westminster is going to go to the bother
of introducing a federal constitution, give Scotland fiscal autonomy, let a thousand powers
bloom. This is hopelessly nave. These people don't give a fig. The new Defence Secretary
Michael Fallon was one of the "Anglo-Scot" Tories who used to turn up at Scottish Question
Time in the 1980s to attack "subsidy Scots" and their "begging-bowl" mentality.

The yawning gulf between Scottish and Westminster political culture could not have been
clearer last week. Can you imagine any of these people being installed as ministers in
Holyrood? It is inconceivable. David Cameron has turned the Conservative Party into an
ideological vehicle of the new right. Liz Truss, Matthew Hancock and Priti Patel are arguably to
the right of Margaret Thatcher. Treasury minister Patel wants to bring back the death penalty.
The new Environment Secretary, Liz Truss, and her junior, Matthew Hancock, want renewable
energy subsidies axed.

Yet most of the press coverage, in the Conservative-leaning papers at least, was to the effect
that this reshuffle wasn't ideological enough. That courageous Michael Gove who has presided
over civil war in English education should have been kept where he was and that a ballsier
privatiser than Jeremy Hunt is needed in charge of health. The reshuffle, it is said, was heavily
influenced by the polling conducted by the Tory strategist, Lynton Crosby, which showed that
Michael Gove was too "toxic" to keep in post pre-election."

And also writes here:
"Mr Cameron has not suddenly wrapped himself in the Cross of St George. The arch anti-
European, Owen Paterson, actually lost his job. However, the elevation of Eurosceptic Philip
Hammond from Defence to the Foreign Office is a clear signal to Conservative backbenchers
and to voters swithering between the Tories and Ukip that Mr Cameron intends to play
hardball with the EU. The loss of pro-European Ken Clarke from frontline politics adds to that
impression.

Mr Cameron has said that, if he wins the 2015 General Election, he will seek to renegotiate the
UK's membership of the EU and put the terms to an in-out referendum. That of course is not a
message that plays nearly as well in Scotland, where Euroscepticism is a minority pursuit, as it
does in the Tory heartlands of the south east. Indeed, an ICM poll this week found that backing
for Scottish independence would rise by three per cent if voters thought the UK was "very
likely" to leave the EU. The potential impact of this week's Cabinet changes must be seen
against that backdrop.[...]

The Prime Minister has encouraged the perception that his Government has become more
Eurosceptic. If the outcome of the independence referendum had been uppermost in Mr
Cameron's mind, he would surely have waited until after September 18 to carry out his
- 85 -

reshuffle. As it is, his ministerial shake-up, though unlikely to be critical to the campaign, does
his side no favours, particularly not the Scottish Conservatives."

This article here explains why Scotland will not get a good deal from staying in the union after the cabinet
reshuffle.










- 86 -

Government Policies

NHS Privatisation

Stories about NHS privatisation continue to be published:
Fears raised 'free NHS' will come to an end see BBC News
"NHS ban medicine if you are 'too old' in new attack on Britain's elderly. Fury erupted last night after
it emerged the elderly could be denied vital drugs under new funding rules. " - see Daily Express
The NHS has been offered up to the private sector, says Britain's chief doctor see The
Independent
NHS 'giving private patients priority and those who can't pay get shoved to back of queue'. And
OAPs are being denied surgery until their condition is life-threatening because staff are busy dealing
with those who pay for services, according to a whistleblower - See Daily Mirror
National Health sell-off: Don't believe the Tory lies, they are hellbent on flogging our NHS Clive
Peedell, leader of the National Health Action Party and co-chair of the NHS Consultants Association,
says healthcare privatisation is a recipe for disaster- see Daily Mirror
Privatisation of Health Services: some of the gory details Privatisation of our NHS can only be
avoided with independence since NHS Scotland costs about 40% of our total block grant from
Westminster. A NO vote may lead to abolition of the Barnett Formula, but even if it is retained, our
NHS will lose funds in proportion to whatever is saved by privatising in England & Wales, together
with Scotlands share of the austerity cutbacks that are going to come from Westminster in the next
few years. Chancellor Osborne has already promised cuts beyond 2015 that will exceed those we
have already been subjected to and Miliband has promised to uphold these if Labour is returned to
Westminster. NHS Scotland would thus be forced down the privatisation route. see here
There is even a petition from the Royal College of General Practitioners who are objecting to the
soaring waiting times and plummeting funding for general practices
Royal College of Nursing challenges Government on 2015-16 pay announcement Chief Secretary to
the Treasury Danny Alexander has announced that once again, most nurses will get no cost of living
pay increase next year. The Government said this week that it intends to adopt the same approach to
NHS pay in 2015-16 as it took this year. See RCN website
Royal baby NHS trust to slash NHS beds and boost private income The NHS trust where Prince
George was born is planning to double its income from private patients while slashing the number of
NHS beds. see The Standard
Top health academic: England has abolished its National Health Service see Sunday Post
Doncaster care workers set to intensify strike in fight for living wage. Fifty carers for disabled began
action nearly seven weeks ago after firm took over NHS service and reduced pay by up to 35% see
The Guardian
Labour peer: Charge patients 200 every time they see a GP see the Sun
NHS privatisation: Compilation of financial and vested interests- See here The financial and vested
interests of our MPs and Lords in private healthcare. Over 200 parliamentarians have recent past or
present financial links to companies involved in healthcare and all were allowed to vote on the Health
and Social Care bill, turning it into an Act.
An Open Letter To An Unapproachable Prime Minister In 2012 you passed a law effectively
repealing the 1947 act which Bevin brought forward, guaranteeing universal medical care, free at the
point of service. There wasn't a referendum, there was no vote, it wasn't in a manifesto, but your
coalition just did it anyway. To all intents and purposes, my family and friends in England dont have
the right to be seen by a physician. I know you say they do, but the legal right to receive care has
been removed with much of the privatisation thats going on down there. see here
12 Things You Should Know About The Tories And The NHS see here
Behind the heated referendum rhetoric on NHS 'privatisation' see ITV News
Income from private patients soars at NHS hospital trusts. NHS trusts accused of exploiting raised
limit on numbers of paying patients amid health service's 'creeping privatisation' see The Guardian
NHS patients to be seen by 'doctors on the cheap' Patients will increasingly be seen by physician
associates rather than doctors under Government plans despite fears they are doctors on the
- 87 -

cheap, according to a report. Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, said the new class of medic
described as being somewhere between a doctor and a nurse was necessary to free up busy
doctors to deal with more serious cases. Physician associates are science graduates with two years
of intensive training, rather than the seven years of training given to doctors. see The Independent
Former Scottish Labour chairman says NHS is safe only with a Yes vote see here
The NHS is being taken over by Wall Street. And Cameron wont stop it. The prime ministers refusal
to exempt our health service from a deal that will make it impossible to reverse privatisation really is
a matter of life and death see The Guardian
"Top kids' doctor says Yes vote can take party politics out of health service for all time" - Daily Record
"235m orthopaedic contract awarded to Bupa""ORTHOPAEDIC services in local hospitals are being
shaken up after a 235 contract was awarded to private health company BupaCSH Ltd. Coastal West
Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) has handed the contract for Musculoskeletal (MSK)
services to BupaCSH Ltd." - see Chichester Observer
'Thatcher tried to sell off the NHS but I blocked it': Ken Clarke says he rejected plan to go to
'dreadful' American health system see Daily Mail. While Thatcher is obviously no longer in power,
it is interesting to note that Ken Clarke was in government until the recent cabinet reshuffle,
removing the last of the NHS-friendly Tories.

Heck, theres even a whole website called NHS For Sale (see here) the primary aim of which is to prove
NHS privatisation is happening right now.

- 88 -




- 89 -







- 90 -




Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)
More worryingly is an agreement called Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) as this
article here points out:
TTIP Could Make NHS Privatisation 'Irreversible', Warns Unite Union. US health companies
will even have the right to sue a future UK government in secret courts if politicians try to
reverse privatisation. The most significant effect will be felt in health, enabling US healthcare
multinationals and Wall Street investors to sue the UK government in secret courts if it
attempts to reverse privatisation.

But what is TTIPs relevance to Scotland, where the Scottish Government has resisted privatisation of the
NHS? As this article in the Herald reports:

The Scottish Parliament is responsible for health in Scotland but funding remains with
Westminster through the Barnett Formula, which increases or decreases every year in line with
health spending in England. The intention of the UK health reforms is to get private companies
to take on more and more of the work of the NHS, reducing the contribution made by the
taxpayer.

This will inevitably reduce the funding that comes to Scotland, even assuming the Barnett
Formula is retained. George Osborne has pencilled in a further 35 billion in cuts to health
spending. As consultant surgeon Philippa Whitford has argued, this means the Scottish
Government might be forced to go along the same privatisation route to fill the gap.

But there is a further threat facing the NHS. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP) is the fruit of long-running negotiations between the EU and the US over
trade liberalisation. One of its fundamental principles is that services, including state services,
should be open to private competition from American multinationals.

According to Garcia Bercero, the EU Commission official with responsibility for TTIP, health
services in Europe will be opened to private competition, but only where privatisation is already
established. In other words, where there is an existing state monopoly, foreign companies
cannot sue the government in question for unfair competition.
- 91 -


But the UK Health and Social Care Act opened the UK system to TTIP because it explicitly
introduces a private market in health provision in England. After a No vote, private providers
and insurance companies may argue that, since Scotland is not a sovereign state but a region
of the UK, it cannot be exempted from competition for health provision.

We are a long way from that being tested in law, but what is beyond doubt is that the UK has
made the NHS in England TTIP compliant. It seems highly likely that the Scottish system will be
seen as an unacceptable anachronism in a unitary state.

While this article here, which addresses Gordon Browns comments about health spending in Scotland which
were reported here, which states:
Many Scots would like to think that if we stay in the UK the privatisation agenda could be
halted, and the NHS restored to a fully public service for all people across these islands, but the
truth is that UK political ideology is now so one-sided that such an outcome is all but
impossible, and the main reason is the recent Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP) deal between the EU and the US.
TTIP is the result of long-running negotiations between the EU and the US over trade
liberalisation. One of its fundamental principles is that services, including state services, should
be open to private competition from American multinationals.

Health services in Europe will therefore be opened to private competition, but only where
privatisation is already established within a member state. In other words, where there is an
existing state monopoly, TTIP wont apply foreign companies will NOT be able to sue the
government in question for unfair competition.

Historically, NHS services (being state-funded) have been classed as a social rather than an
economic activity. As a publicly-funded, publicly-provided service offering universal access to
healthcare on the basis of need and not the ability to pay, it was not possible to consider the
NHS as commercial in nature. But the 2012 UK Health and Social Care Act has changed that by
opening up the whole UK system to TTIP.

This is because it explicitly introduces a private market in health provision in England. As such
there no longer exists a state monopoly on health provision, as the largest part of that state
allows commercial interests to compete in an open market.

After a No vote, private providers and insurance companies are almost certain to argue that
since Scotland is not a sovereign state but merely a region of the UK it cannot be exempted
from competition for health provision, regardless of the UKs internal devolutionary
arrangements. Only if Scotland is an independent member state can it show that NHS Scotland
remains a state-run monopoly and exempt from TTIPl.

None of this is news to Labour. Andy Burnham, Labours shadow health secretary, insists the
coalition health reforms make it compulsory for all NHS contracts awards to be opened up to
competition (allowing private firms to pick off the most lucrative contracts), and has explicitly
said that TTIP threatens the NHSs existence as a publicly run, free-at-the-point-of-use NHS.

If this goes through it will mean that any Clinical Commissioning Group anywhere in
England could be [sued] by a US private healthcare company.
Its a question of control the NHS used to be able to plan these things. If it wanted to
run a particular service then it could plan which contracts would go out and which
wouldnt it doesnt hold the cards any more.
Theres no doubt the Health and Social Care Act opens up the NHS to full competition
that was always the hidden agenda in my view and [TTIP] puts the rocket boosters on it.
- 92 -

If it goes through the genie would be out of the bottle and it would be irreversible. The
stakes couldnt be higher.

Mr Burnham also said he has seen no signs that the coalition has even tried to make a case to
the EU for NHS exemption. This is important as TTIP negotiators are using a negative list
approach to determining which sectors are to be included in the treaty. This means that a
member state must explicitly list the services they want excluded from the deal, before the deal
is signed. Any services not listed will automatically be included for liberalisation.

David Cameron recently answered a question in the House of Commons on whether the NHS
would be excluded from TTIP by saying:
[Im] not aware of a specific exemption for any particular area, but I think that the
health service would be treated in the same way in relation to EU-US negotiations as it is
in relation to EU rules (Col. 919)

Linda Kaucher, a leading expert on trade agreements has said of the TTIP deal that:
[It will] permanently fix corporate-driven neo-liberalism, within the EU and
internationally, via trade agreements. Any reassertion of democracy within the EU
structure or member states is prevented by legally binding international trade law.
[It is] driven and effectively controlled by transnational corporations, especially
transnational financial services corporations.
[The Health and Social Care Act] effectively enforces competitive tendering, and thus
privatisation and liberalisation i.e. opening to transnational bidders a shift to US-style
profit-prioritised health provision.
Even if outcomes of the NHS changes are disastrous, ISDS [Investor State Dispute
Settlement] will effectively disallow any attempts by any future UK government to
reverse the changes.

Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) laws the fundamental elements of the agreement
allow corporations legal protection for their profits regardless of patient care performance,
with the power to sue any public sector organisation or government that threatens their
interests.

Once these ISDS tools are in place, lucrative contracts will be underwritten, even where a
private provider is failing patients and the Scottish Government wants a contract cancelled. In
this case, the provider will be able to sue the Scottish Government for future loss of earnings,
resulting in further costs to the taxpayer for legal and administrative costs.

ISDS also gives multinational corporations advantage over local providers because it gives
overseas investors the exclusive right to commercial arbitration as a means of influence. Trade
union Unite have said that TTIP will make privatisation irreversible as:
US health companies will even have the right to sue a future UK government in secret
courts if politicians try to reverse privatisation.

Patients for NHS, an England based pro-NHS lobby group, said:
The treaty will change the whole emphasis of NHS health care: the priority will become the
rights of transnational organisations rather than the care of patients.

For Scotland this is the worst of both possible worlds. Even if the Scottish Government is able to
stave off attacks on the NHS by private healthcare providers in the courts, it will still
nonetheless end up unable to fund it. The whole point of the TTIP system is to force the NHS in
England into an American-style insurance-based system that would see Barnett funding slashed
as government spending was replaced with private.

The real threat to the Scottish NHS is in staying within the Union.
- 93 -


Another article here repeats the risk explained above that TTIP has to the NHS if Scotland remains in the
union.

And if you want to see Scottish Women for Independence representative Jeane Freeman explain very clearly
why TTIP is a risk to the NHS in Scotland (as well as see her wipe the floor with Andrew Neil on his politics
show) then watch this video clip she is brilliant here and I for one hope she has a central role to play in the
new independent Scottish government.

UK Government confirms NHS is not exempt from controversial trade deal see Unite website

So just to make it absolutely clear, even if the Scottish government within the UK keeps the NHS completely
public, as a region of the UK it still falls under the TTIP regulations meaning that it has to be opened up to
private competition. Only in a country where there is no existing private competition (UK prior to Blairs
Labour government or an independent Scotland) is there protection against forcing private competition in
the NHS.

Even if you ignore TTIP (which is very difficult though), the separation of the NHS in Scotland is still under
threat for 2 reasons:
1. The Barnett Formula (how much Scotland gets in its block grant) is calculated on public spending in
England. If public spending falls in England due to privatisation (providing a cheaper and poorer
service, or simply due to the introduction of charges in other areas of the NHS) then Scotlands block
grant will fall accordingly. Eventually the budget will become so tight that the Scottish government,
whether SNP or Labour, will have no choice but to reintroduce prescription charges, abolish free
homecare for the elderly and introduce privatisation in the NHS to lower costs (at the expense of a
lower quality of service).
2. Andy Burnham, Labour Shadow Health Secretary, is on record as saying that he wants the NHS to be
the same across the UK (see here)
I am talking quite passionately about getting English Labour MPs back up the road and
for me, sitting down with Neil [Findlay] and Richard [Simpson] and Rhoda [Grant] and
others and saying, lets get health policies that can be consistent across England,
Scotland and Wales.Wouldnt that be a good thing, pulling in the same direction as
opposed to pulling our separate ways? Devolution, in its early days, was about doing
something different and it needs to enter a different phase where we start talking again
more about a UK-wide policy because in the end, that helps everybody. (see Holyrood).
I guess though given the poor chances of Labour winning the next election this is an empty threat.

But perhaps you believe Labour, the party who started the privatisation process, will change spots and
reverse it all? Well, in 2009 when Labour were in power and Andy Burnham was the Health Secretary, Unite
released the following press release addressing Andy Burnham:

Roll back the privatisation of the NHS, Andy

Unite presented a letter signed by 3,000 NHS members to the Department of Health today
(Wednesday, 26 August), calling on health secretary Andy Burnham to halt the privatisation of
the health service.

The [letter] was part of Unites Health B4 Profit campaign designed to preserve the NHS as a
publicly owned, publicly accountable, universal and comprehensive health service managed
and run for the public good.

Unite said that an estimated 20 billion would be spent on creating the bureaucratic market
infrastructure for privatisation money that could be better spent on frontline services.

- 94 -

Karen Reay said: Today, we are asking Andy Burnham to protect the heart and soul of the NHS
in England and roll back these costly and dangerous plans.

The continuing vicious attacks by vested interests on President Obama over his plans to
provide healthcare for the estimated 47 million Americans currently without this safety net is a
stark warning of what awaits British citizens, if the mercenary forces of privatisation are
allowed to triumph. (see Unite Union)

Hmmm, so it seems unlikely that Andy Burnham will reverse his own changes and perhaps, as argued here,
hes just concerned that its being done TOO fast when he stated:

Commissioners have been ordered to put all services out to the market, NHS spending on
private and other providers has gone through the 10bn barrier for the first time.

When did the British public ever give their consent for this? It is indefensible for the character of
the countrys most valued institution to be changed in this way without the public being given a
say.

Mr Burnham has written to the boss of NHS England, Simon Stevens, to call for a pause in
privatisation unless patient safety or service is at risk. see BBC News

The unionist campaign, with no hint or any irony whatsoever it appears, has accused the Yes campaign of
scaremongering over the privatisation of the NHS in order to attract votes. By claiming this they are
obviously denying there is a risk of privatisation to the NHS (that risk was argued in depth in the previous
document). However, as reported here, these claims of privatisation that the Yes campaign are using were
actually made by Alasdair Darling himself in 2010 where he stated that the UK government would 'slash
funding for schools and hospitals' in Scotland and who now leads a campaign that wants us to believe that
Scotlands funding is safe in Tory hands.

The official No campaign is now arguing that there would be no impact on Scotlands schools and hospitals
from Westminster Tory policies, including the ongoing privatisation of the English NHS. Speaking on BBC
Scotland's current affairs programme Scotland 2014, Labour MSP Neil Findlay called concerns for the Scottish
NHS "the biggest lie of the referendum campaign" and said the Tories had "protected" the NHS budget
south of the border. Read that last sentence again carefully a Labour MSP is on record stating that the
Tories had protected the NHS budget in England. When have you EVER heard of Labour supporting Tory
policy? Especially with respect to the NHS? Only now when they are desperate to hold onto their MP
positions, it seems.

Or perhaps when the leader of Better Together, Alasdair Darling (yes, he who argued previously that the
Tories were putting the NHS at risk), has received over 10,000 for addressing a dinner organised by Cinven
Limited (see here). Who are Cinven Limited? Well, it appears this company is a leading buyout firm, who in
2008 bought 25 private hospitals from Bupa for 1.44bn. Other UK investments include Spire Healthcare,
who run private healthcare hospitals, and whose clinical director Jean-Jacques de Gorter said the use of
private sector would "spiral" as a result of Conservative MP Andrew Lansleys reform proposals. So there you
have it Alasdair Darling was paid over 10,000 by a NHS privatisation company.

Furthermore, it seems Alasdair helped kick start the privatisation process when he was Chancellor (it had
already been shown in the previous document that Labour had started this process when in government). As
reported here:
In a letter to Mr Darling, SNP MSP Dr Aileen McLeod has called on the former Chancellor to
explain why he failed to prevent the huge increase in private sector involvement in the NHS in
England during the last Labour government in which he served as Chancellor for the final
three years. In her letter to Mr Darling, MSP Dr McLeod writes: "For the final three years of
Labour's term in office, you served as Chancellor of the Exchequer while this process of
privatisation was ongoing - essentially in charge of the UK Government's purse strings while
- 95 -

the first blows against the NHS were being dealt. "With this in mind, I would be grateful if you
could confirm whether or not you were, and remain, in support of the privatisation of the
national Health Service in England. If not, why did you fail to speak out against the moves
which it is now clear are destroying the English NHS - and why did you fail to use your position
as Chancellor to veto this disastrous policy."

Labour veteran slams 'hypocrisy' of party on NHS The Labour leadership in Scotland has "lost all
credibility" over the NHS, claimed a former party chairman as the war of words continued on whether the
service's future is better with Scotland in or out of the UK. Bob Thomson, a former office bearer in the party
and prominent trade union official, accused Better Together leader Alistair Darling, Scottish Labour leader
Johann Lamont and the former Labour First Minister Jack McConnell of "sheer hypocrisy" over the different
message of the party north and south of the Border. See the Herald.


As argued in the last document, privatisation of public services rarely if ever results in cost savings or
increased efficiencies. Usually the costs the government was unwilling to pay or unwilling to charge
consumers when nationalised are ultimately charged to the consumer by the privatised company or the level
of service is reduced. For example, recently privatised Royal mail is now cutting half of its later collection
times (see BBC News).

Furthermore, perhaps we should ask what is wrong with involving private companies in healthcare? Well,
firstly once you introduce private companies, the primary focus becomes increasing profits, with service
levels only given attention in order to maintain those profit levels. In healthcare that can mean literally the
difference between life and death. Certainly the US healthcare model is something to be avoided, not
emulated.

On this Facebook page an expat now living in the US gives his experience of the health service in the US:
The United States is a stark and sobering case study of the pitfalls of privatised medicine. We
spend $9000 per capita on healthcare, by far the highest in the world. In 2012, total health care
expenditures were some $3 trillion, fully 17.5% of the total US gross domestic product. Yet we
rank abysmally low globally in terms of life expectancy (50th of 220 countries worldwide and,
more significantly, 27th of the 34 advanced industrial nations). The US leads the developed
countries in incidences of heart and lung disease, infant mortality, and sexually transmitted
diseases. In all, the world's richest nation suffers at least 50,000 unnecessary deaths per year
simply through inadequate healthcare provision.

For upper-income Americans, healthcare is excellent, in terms of available screening, diagnosis
and treatment. The reason for the glaring gap between money spent on research and
treatment and the population's state of health is the lack of affordability of healthcare for
lower-income families (by some measures, 40% of Americans are uninsured or under-insured,
and President Barack Obama had a long, bitter fight to bring in what is mockingly referred to
as "Obamacare" - the Republicans are committed to overturning it). This lack of fairness and
access is inevitable in a system geared to maximising profits over quality of care.

The commitment to a social contract that is under dire stress in England, and to which the
Scottish Government seems committed, is a compelling reason to vote Yes. I say to Scots: be
afraid, be very afraid, of a for-profit health system.

David C Speedie
Senior Fellow
Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs
New York


- 96 -

Once private companies become involved, you start to have a 2 tier service, with those able to pay receiving
quick attention and care and those unable to pay waiting weeks or months for life-critical treatment. You
then have an increase in the difference in life expectancy between rich and poor (which already exists but
would be exacerbated by private healthcare). Once private healthcare companies provide public healthcare
financed by the state, it would be a simple, final step for a future government to claim healthcare is costing
the UK state too much and that final step of charging patients either directly, or through health insurance, is
complete. And who benefits? Well, weve already seen that the rich are likely to benefit with reduced taxes.
That is, the savings in tax will more than offset health insurance costs. Plus, many associates and even family
members of the present UK government own healthcare companies that now have contracts with the NHS to
provide services.

And finally, if you think healthcare in the US is superior to the UK NHS model (see the Independent):



Remember, more than double is spent on healthcare per person in the US ($8,508) than it is in the UK
($3,405) (see here). If the UK government matched the expenditure on healthcare in the US per person,
imagine what kind of NHS the UK could have. Ultimately the cost of healthcare comes out of everyones
pockets, its just a matter of whether it comes out via the tax everyone pays (and so is effectively means-
tested as the lower paid you are the less you pay towards receiving the same level of service who is
wealthier than you) or directly from your pocket through health insurance and direct payments to healthcare
companies (which is NOT means-tested as the poorest paid WILL pay the same as the richest for the same
level of care).

But what protection will the NHS have in Scotland under independence? Could the NHS just be privatised by
the SNP or a future Scottish Labour government anyway? Well, with the SNP committing to keep the NHS
public by enshrining it in the new Scottish constitution (see Daily Record and here), it would be much more
difficult to privatise than the NHS currently is. In fact, assuming changes to the Scottish constitution would
require a referendum as they do in Ireland then any attempts to privatise the NHS in an independent
Scotland would require the majority vote of those living in Scotland, something that the Scottish people
themselves would have to directly vote for. Therefore, it seems reasonable to say that the NHS will NEVER be
privatised in Scotland without the direct and unequivocal consent of the Scottish people. Is that clear
enough?
- 97 -





WELFARE
Well, much was said about Atos assessments, welfare sanctions, etc in the last document and the following is
simply an update as to how the welfare state is fairing in the UK.

And as if you need any further evidence of this, New report warns welfare cuts hitting low paid (see here).
The publication of a new report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that the cost of
living has increased by 28% since 2008 while average earnings have increased by just 9% [...].
The report warns that for every 1 that low income working families have gained from
increased tax allowances, they have lost 4 as a result of cuts to tax credits and child benefit.

- 98 -

DWP blames cancer patient for her illness see here but essentially summed up in the following image:


As reported here, a study by Sheffield Hallam University found that households across Edinburgh would lose
an average of 780 each thanks to the coalitions welfare cuts, with the worst-affected area Craigmillar
likely to take an annual hit of 1,240 per household. The Daily Record has a prominent feature on the same
survey, but chooses to focus on Glasgow rather than Edinburgh, and found that things are even worse.
- 99 -

Households in the poorest part of Glasgow Calton, infamous for its low male life expectancies stand to
see a shocking 1,760 a year ripped out of their budget.

However, the strange thing about this story is that the Daily Record chose to obtain a quote from a Labour
MSP:
Deprived areas of Glasgow dominate the list of worst-hit council wards in the research
presented to MSPs on Holyroods Welfare Reform Committee. Labours Michael McMahon,
who chairs the committee, said the findings backed up the stories of hardship being told across
the country.

He added: Now we have the evidence that proves it, right down to the electoral ward. From
the witnesses that have come before us, we have always known welfare reform is having a
disastrous effect on individuals. Now it looks as if this is true for whole communities in
Glasgow, Dundee, Fife, the lower Clyde and beyond. (see Daily Record)

While the cuts are a result of the Tory/LibDem coalition, Labour has openly and proudly admitted that their
plan for the coalitions welfare reforms isnt to scrap them, but to implement them in full and then make
even more welfare cuts on top.

Voters Believe Welfare State Will Be Gone In A Generation, According To ComRes Poll Most voters believe
the welfare state will have shrunk or be almost wiped out within a generation, polling has found. Some 87%
of adults think the system is "facing severe problems", rising to 94% among the over-55s, research
commissioned by Christian think tank Theos found. see Huffington Post



- 100 -

UK Party Politics
Labour continue their lurch to the right, when Rachel Reeves, that Shadow Secretary of Work and Pensions,
claimed last week that Labour being tougher than the Tories on benefit claimants will increase support for a
NO vote in the independence referendum in Scotland see the Guardian and the video Andrew Neil
interview of her here.

Even the Labour party faithful seem to agree with Labour
sticking with Tory spending plans :
Labour leaders win crucial policy forum vote on
spending plansAn attempt to commit Labour to
abandoning coalition spending plans for 2015-16
was heavily defeated on Sunday at the end of a
policy conference described as a "radical rethink"
of what the party stands for. see the Guardian

Meanwhile the Independent reported:
Miliband: Young jobseekers must train or lose
their benefits Jobless young adults would lose
their automatic right to some state benefits
under a Labour Government to encourage them
to find work, Ed Miliband will announce on
Thursday. The 18-21 age group would no longer
qualify for Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) and
income support if they had skills below Level 3. If
they undertook training to try to reach that level,
they would qualify for a 57-a-week allowance,
the JSA rate for under-25s. It would be means-
tested and paid only if their parents joint income
were less than 42,000 a year. Unemployed
young adults would normally be expected to live
with their parents rather than claim housing
benefit. The tough love plan is aimed at tacking
the problem of almost one million Neets
young people not in education, employment or
training. It would affect about 100,000 people,
seven out of 10 of the 18-21 group claiming JSA.
Current benefit rules prevent them training while
looking for work.


Ed Miliband admits he will stick to Tory welfare cuts if he wins the General Election in 2015 (see Daily
Record)

Labour unveil plan for regional cap on welfare.. but critics hit out at 'disturbing' plan (Daily Record)

As Derek Bateman wrote here:
One by one, Labour men and women with the courage of their convictions appear in the
media stepping over no mans land to join the swelling ranks of the true progressives openly
and proudly campaigning for no more welfare cuts, full employment rights, no redundancies,
universal benefits, re-industrialisation and social justice.

Always the same question what happened to their Labour Party? When the people take to
the streets to demand change why is their side absent, devoid of mass support and instead
shoulder-to-shoulder with the CBI, UKIP and the BNP? Why is their party working hand-in-glove
with Tories and taking the unearned income from Tory donors? Why would the British elite in
their banks and country estates be so passionate about retaining a political system which
- 101 -

punishes the workless, the female, the single parent and the disabled? How does it work out
that the interests of the very people Labour despise are now aligned with those of the Scottish
working class?

And of course, they arent. The reason the titled and the wealthy hold on to power and money
is because the British state makes sure they are looked after first. And Labour has spawned its
own nursery of wannabe Lords and Ladies who ride the golden coach into the ermine club and,
without any democratic mandate, only allegiance to the source of patronage, scoff at the
gullible voters they left behind.

Just as Blair, Mandelson, Brown and Darling are comfortable with the corporate wealth
dispensers and accumulate faster than greedy Tories, so their successors Miliband and Balls
plead with southern voters to trust that they too will protect the middle earners and
professionals first by retaining the Tory austerity budget. After all, who else can suffering
Labour supporters turn to?

"Labour Branded A Disgrace Over Backing Tory Welfare Cuts In Scotland" (Welfare News Service)

Does Labour even have Scotlands best interests at heart? Apart
from the crippling poverty and poor health blighting many
Scottish Labour council areas, there have been other acts that
put this into doubt. For example, on the 23rd of March 1999
Scotland handed over jurisdiction of 6,000 square miles of North
Sea to Westminster. The remarkable thing about this transaction
is the fact that it occurred without the knowledge or consent of
the people of Scotland. In fact it was a Labour government led by
Tony Blair that ordered this bizarre Act of Treachery towards the
people of Scotland and it was a senior Scottish Labour politician,
Henry McLeish that sanctioned it. What is even worse is the fact
that the whole affair was conducted in secret at committee level
denying the House of Commons or the Scottish people an
opportunity to properly debate the issue. To their eternal shame
Tam Dalyell (Labour), John McAllion (Scottish Labour) and Sir
Robert Smith (Scottish Liberal Democrats) sat on this committee
and allowed this to be carried out without authority from the
Scottish electorate.

This was conducted in secret no doubt to avoid such public
scrutiny and outrage. Some people north of the border may not
be too alarmed at this revelation and may not appreciate the
significance of such a move. The logic of transferring 6,000
square miles of North Sea from Scottish jurisdiction to
Westminster jurisdiction makes perfect sense if you are a
Unionist government in Westminster. More so if those 6,000
square miles of North Sea happens to contain several of the Oil
and Gas fields and over 80% of the traditional fishing waters of
the Scottish fishing fleets.


Then there is the huge potential of off shore wind farms and the revenue that will come from them when
Britain begins to look at more sustainable forms of power supply. The revenue from all those resources will
no doubt head to the treasury in Westminster denying any independent Scottish government such lucrative
income.

- 102 -

Are there any alternatives to the crippling austerity that the Tories, LibDems AND Labour claim is necessary
to get the UK supposedly back on its feet? This article here explains why austerity is so damaging and why
the neo-liberalism its based on is damaging to the general population.

Another article here discusses the history and philosophy of neo-liberalism and why it has failed (its well
worth reading in full):
From the railway and energy companies to prison services and the NHS, much that once
belonged to the public has or is beginning to be privatised. We are now facing massive bill
increases every year for energy while the energy companies make ever increasing profits. The
idea of a private company is to make as much profit for the shareholders as possible, so I find it
quite astounding that something such as energy, one of the most basic needs, is left in the
hands of private owners to make huge profit from. The same can be said for the railways,
which are essential, with ticket prices rising higher simply to increase the pocket money of a
millionaire. While, in the past, publicly owned companies may not have been the most efficient,
things have changed since then in terms of regulatory bodies and public scrutiny, and there is
no reason why industries could not have improved in the hands of the public. [...]The East Coast
train service which runs from Inverness, Newcastle then to London is currently in public
ownership and since being put into public ownership has received great praise for the quality of
service it provides and the cost of the train tickets compared to the private train companies.
Last year it made a profit of around 500 million pounds which being a publicly owned, goes
straight back into the public purse. Although it hasnt been, this could be spent, possibly on new
hospitals or schoolsetc. meaning that the people of the country benefit from the profit (or
surplus), not the private owners. If we are to take this example alone, privatisation can never
be better than public ownership.

And if any further evidence is needed of the duplicitousness and lack of morality from the current Tory
government (who will most likely form the next UK government), you only have to read this article in the
Huffington Post that reports The British Government has been accused of double standards over arms sales
to Russia, after it emerged the UK is continuing to export tens of millions of pounds worth of military
equipment to the country, despite concerns Moscow is arming separatist rebels in Ukraine.

This article here argues that:
Wealth has hijacked Britains democracy. A powerful and super rich elite have a much
greater influence over our governance than ordinary people do.

The UK Government recently moved to introduce fees of up to 1200 to take your employer to
a tribunal (something that is reserved to the UK Parliament). In a victory for the boss-class,
politicians have put themselves on the side of bad bosses and against those who wish to take
employers to tribunals for harassment and mistreatment. If youve been unfairly dismissed by
your employer then you better be able to cough-up and prove it.

Tory donor Ian Taylor whose company, Vitol, has been able to legally pay minimum levels of
tax equalling an average of 10.5% on global profits of 15bn over the past nine years have
backed the No campaign. He is part of the system. It should surprise you even less that he has
backed it with a fistful of money 500, 000 to be exact.

This article here describes The Sad and Ugly End of British Socialism, a description of Scottish labours
desperate and sad attempts to tar Alex Salmond and reduce the currency debate even further than theyve
done so far.

This is not a surprise when you consider the remarks by many of their members, including Jim Hood, Labour
MP for Lanark and Hamilton East, when he stated in parliament that:
Even if the SNP was right and there was a grand, great thing at the end of the rainbow for the
SNP and its debate for independence, I would still be against it. If the Scottish people are going
to be better off economically and so on, I would still be against breaking away from the
- 103 -

Union. That is part of my history. I was proud to be born into a mining family in a mining
community, where it was not about self-betterment, and where judgments are not made
about people on the basis of which side of the road or of the bed they were born on. see
Parliamentary Publications

This is a man who would refuse to back independence even if it meant that independent Scotland would be
better off. And he is actually criticising self-betterment. And its obvious now from the output of Better
Together that many Labour MPs and MSPs share this sentiment they dont care about improving the life of
Scots as long as they keep their own jobs.

Nevertheless, if you think Labour has a chance of
winning the next UK general election and will not
stick to all their election pledges regarding
continuing austerity, increasing poverty, etc then you
should read my last document that discussed this in
detail and explained why the Tories will almost
certainly be the largest party after the next election
and thats assuming they dont win outright. Further
evidence for this includes this article that reports:

Labour leader Ed Milibands hopes of
replacing David Cameron at Number
Ten have been severely dented after
the Tories edged ahead in the latest
opinion poll. According to the survey by
ICM, Labour has lost its lead over David
Cameron's party and now trails the
Conservatives by 34% to 33%. The
result is an increase of 3pts for David
Cameron against a 1 point rise for
Miliband. The survey came on the
same day that a senior Labour party
figure said he believed David Cameron
would win the 2015 general election.
Former Labour Home Secretary Charles
Clarke warned that a Tory majority is
the most likely outcome of the 2015
election.



- 104 -



And then there's the always reliable Margaret Curran (Labour MP
for Glasgow East, which contains some of the most deprived areas
in Europe with life expectancy lower than parts of Africa).

Note that she was referring to Nelson Mandela and South Africa,
yet intends to deprive her own constituents and country of the
same capacity [...] to govern themselves.



And regarding being Better Together with the rest of the UK, as if Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and
Wales are just one homogenous unit? Scotland isn't different, it's Britain that's bizarre see here
Britain is in a state of self denial, sitting at the bottom of European league tables, but
convinced it still rules the waves. The aspirations of the SNP may seem ambitious, but all they
are really proposing is to be a normal European country.

There is a trope I hear a lot at the moment: Scotland is different. Left to lie, on its own, with
no explanation, it's a sort of petty nationalism. The idea that any one group of people is
intrinsically unlike any other strikes me as a perverse way to understand humanity.

The context, usually, is political. Scotland has free education because it's different. Scotland
hasn't privatised its NHS, because it's different. It's utter bunkum. The truth is that Scotland
is, basically, a very normal Northern European country.

- 105 -

Across Northern Europe, university education is either free (in Germany and the Nordic
countries) or costs only a few hundred Euros (in the Netherlands and France, for example).
Most of Europe has much lower levels of income inequality than the UK. Apart from the
Benelux countries and Cyprus, all of Europe's countries use more renewable energy than the
UK, despite Britain having more potential than almost any of them.

In most of Europe, in fact, in most of the world, the idea that significant portions of your
economy would be publicly owned is quite standard. In Northern Europe, it's not abnormal to
have decent childcare provision, to work a sensible number of hours a day, and to be more
productive in total as a result.

No, when people say that Scotland is different, that the social democratic aspirations of Scots
are an anomaly, they are missing the point entirely. The social attitudes of Scots, and the
policies of the Scottish Parliament, are pretty much standard for a European country. Scotland
isn't the exception, it's the rule.

The thing that's weird isn't even England. Most English people are against privatisation, and
though there is a small difference in attitudes towards social security, it's nothing that won't
change over the years.

No, the thing that's an outlier is Britain. As the Radical Independence Campaign has pointed
out, it's Britain that is the fourth most unequal developed country on earth, in which pay has in
recent years fallen faster than in all but three EU countries, in which people work the third
longest hours in Europe for the second lowest wages in the OECD despite having Europe's third
highest housing costs, highest train fares and the second worst levels of fuel poverty.

It's Britain which has the least happy children in the developed world, the highest infant
mortality rate in Western Europe and some of the worst child poverty in the industrialised
world. It's British elderly people who are the fourth poorest pensioners in the EU. It's Britain
which has the eighth biggest gender pay gap in Europe and child care costs much higher than
most European countries.

It's Britain which has a wealth gap twice as wide as any other EU country, Europe's greatest
regional inequality, productivity 16% behind the average for advanced economies and the
worst record on industrial production of the rich world. It's Britain whose elite has a radical
ideology: 40% of the total value of all privatisations in the Western world between 1980 and
1996 happened in the UK; and it's Britain's parliament which is uniquely undemocratic, with its
noxious combination of first past the post and an unelected second chamber, yet holds more
centralised power than almost any other legislature in the developed world. With all that, it
should be no surprise that Britain has the lowest level of trust in our politicians.

Most people in the South East of England never seem to understand this. Blinded by the
headlights and headlines of post imperial UK nationalism, the idea that Britain is Great
pervades. We (I live in the South East at the moment) cling with white fisted knuckles to the
notion that Britannia rules, unwilling to let go of our imperial past for fear that we might find
we are just another European country. It's a myth which works much more in England, and
which helps explain differences in the tendancy to believe immigrant scapegoating North and
South of the border "if Britain is uniquely great" people infer "it can't be the system that's to
blame, it must be outsiders".

But the truth is that this is a very sick country indeed. We are investing a net figure of nothing
in our future economy, and instead just about keep our head above water by flogging off our
assets at a rate which would astonish almost any other country and re-inflating speculative
bubbles which suck any wealth we do create into an unproductive black hole London housing
market which eats wealth out of the rest of the country, hoovering any investment away from
- 106 -

anything productive and then complaining when it's asked to redistribute crumbs from its
table.

A metropolis once at the centre of the biggest empire in human history and now at the centre
of a global revolution of money-men over making things, of the wealthy over the rest is
disguised by a blanket of post-imperial false confidence. Post-imperial Britain is a very strange,
very damaged place. And before the people of these islands, the English in particular, can move
on, and find a new place in the world, they need someone to finally point out that not only is
this former emperor naked, not only does he no longer rule the waves, but his failure to grapple
sensibly with either of these facts has led to some pretty unhealthy habits. Telling a difficult
truth is what friends are for. In part, that's what Scotland's referendum will be about.

But for most Scots, it'll be about their families and their communities. And so for them, it's
important to understand this: when people say that Scotland could do better, this isn't about
some nationalist belief that the talents or the solidaristic instincts of the Scots are unique. In
order to be a significantly nicer place to live, all that Scotland needs is to be normal. Compared
to being in broken Britain, living in a bog-standard, average Western country may seem like an
impossible, utopian fairy-land, to which only nave children conned by lying politicians would
aspire. But for most of the Western world, the sort of Scotland that the SNP talk about, that
most yes campaigners say we can expect, isn't exceptional, it's not even better than average. I
am a radical. I hope we can achieve much more. But the cloud cuckoo land aspiration of the
Scottish Government is to be an average, run of the mill, bog-standard European country.
Compared to where we are now, that would be a great start.


Disillusionment with Labour
Given the number of articles now written by ex-Labour supporters, it seemed that this deserved its own
small section. As argued in the previous document, UK Labour have lurched to the right and they will remain
there for the fundamental reason that the swing voters in south-east England that Labour need to attract
have almost certainly irreversibly moved to the political right in their views. A true left-wing Labour party will
not be able to attract those votes and that is one of Margaret Thatchers true legacies she has created a
generation of right-wing voters.

Remember, this is a party where Ed Miliband admits he will stick to Tory welfare cuts if he wins the General
Election in 2015 (see Daily Record) and where Labour unveil plan for regional cap on welfare.. but critics hit
out at 'disturbing' plan (Daily Record)

Voting No and waiting, hoping for Labour to return to the left is a dead-end it wont happen for at least a
generation and so what is left is a Labour party that is competing with the Tories on who will be harder on
the poor and unemployed.

After all, if some of labours front benches were ex-Tories, what hope is there for becoming socialists?
Labour leadership hopeful Ed Balls 'forgets' he was a Tory at university (and once dressed as a
Nazi) In an interview designed to shore up his support, Mr Balls, the standard bearer of the
Labour left, declared his passion for the party was inspired by a hatred of Margaret Thatcher's
policies when he was at university. While he was studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics
at Keble College, Oxford, far from being utterly wedded to the Labour Party he was in fact a
member of the university Conservative Association. see Daily Mail.

Many Labour supporters in Scotland woke up to that fact a few years ago witness the huge majority the
SNP gained in the last parliament. More are continuing to move from voting No to voting Yes, finally realising
that a vote for independence is not a vote for the SNP or Alex Salmond but simply deciding to allow the
people in Scotland to choose on their own government. They have no intention of voting for the SNP in the
next Scottish election after independence and they hope that independence will allow the Scottish Labour
party to break free from the chains of the UK Labour party and to return to the left-wing Labour party that
- 107 -

was created by the Scotsman Kier Hardie, as argued in this Scotsman article "Independence could renew
Labour".

Or what about this Herald article that reports:
"The latest TNS survey suggests that 28 per cent of those who supported the party in the
elections of 2011 have decided to vote Yes in September. Labour lost those elections, you'll
remember, and lost them badly. Seven seats were forfeited as a big chunk of the party's vote
migrated to the SNP. Now TNS says that still more voters - up from 21 per cent on previous
polls - are choosing to reject Labour's advice and its campaign for the Union. [...]

For those who once stuck by what used to be called traditional Labour it has been a long road.
As often as not, their votes have been taken for granted. In government - as now in opposition -
the party has sought to fashion an appeal to an electorate far beyond Scotland.

Miserable wars and banking crashes have tested loyalties to the breaking point. The idea of
solidarity, the key argument against independence, has had plenty of lip service, but Labour's
leadership has had other priorities. That has not gone unnoticed."

This Daily Record article argues that:
It's high time Labour put the people first A MILLION people in Scotland now live in poverty,
according to the latest official figures a big rise. Things will get worse another 70 per cent of
the UK Governments welfare cuts have still to come. Shamefully, yesterdays figures revealed
six out of 10 children living in poverty had a parent in work. Yesterday, I heard Jackie Baillie,
Labours welfare spokeswoman at Holyrood, argue that Scotland benefited from the strength
and security of the UK. That simply makes no sense.

Articles from former Labour supporters include:
John Baillie in the Scotsman Labours continuing support for Trident on the Clyde denies the opportunity
for towns in the west of Scotland, particularly in North Ayrshire, blighted by de-industrialisation and
deprivation, to cash in on the benefits of oil and gas. But there is more. Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has
suggested he will retain the Tory cuts programme if Labour is elected. I was a Labour Party member for
more than 20 years. I was a Labour councillor for more than 15. I was Labour leader of South Ayrshire
Council. I will vote Yes next month. However, there is hope for Labour voters. They have a unique chance to
create a new restructured and proud Labour Party without the Milibands and the Balls and the House of
Lords. They should vote Yes in September and vote Labour in 2016. Simple.

Allan Grogan, Labour for Independence - The UK has one of the lowest levels of social security in Europe. The
fact that people who work 40 hours a week are receiving less than those on social security is not an
indictment of unemployment wealth, rather the low paid, zero hour culture that is prevalent within our
society. Yet this story is all too often untold, leaving those in abject poverty to fight over the scraps off the
corporate table of wealth. The Labour Party used to stand up to these myths and fight for a more fair society,
yet those days seem to be a thing of the past in Westminster. In the past, Labour used to raise funds for
campaigns by going to the miners and social clubs. They used to work with the trade unions with the mutual
interest of protecting the people who had elected them. Now far removed from their trade union links they
host fundraising dinners at 1000 a table. Who can afford that? The same businesses and interest groups
that seek to maintain the same cycle of me first politics. [...]Independence isnt the destination, merely the
beginning. The hard work starts there. The opportunity given to us with independence must not be
squandered, we should make no excuses or diversions, we owe that much. I look forward to working with
comrades within a real Labour Party, and members of all political parties and none in achieving a better way,
a better Scotland and a better tomorrow.

Former minister in Scottish independence Yes vote Leslie Huckfield, who served in James Callaghan's
government in the 1970s, is urging Labour supporters to follow his lead and vote for independence on
- 108 -

September 18. He said an independent Scotland offers an opportunity to implement the policies and causes
that Labour has traditionally supported. (ITV News)

Party of Home Rule now wants us to vote no Labour has gone from winning every national election in
Scotland since the 1950s to losing two successive Holyrood elections to the SNP and allowing it the mandate
to call a referendum launching a three-year campaign that is now reaching its climax.Since its inception,
Labour's leading Scottish figures have been advocates of home rule. Its historical giants like Keir Hardie were
in favour and in the 1920s a Home Rule Bill was introduced to the Commons but failed. Latterly John Smith
and Donald Dewar championed the cause. In the 1960s a commission set up by Labour recommended a
Scottish Assembly and a bill was brought in 1976 which led to the 1979 referendum which failed to get the
required percentage of votes. The next Labour Government in 1997 produced the Scotland Bill which led to
the double yes vote and the creation of the Scottish Parliament. Since then it has been anything but plain
sailing for Labour, with its number of MSPs dropping at each election from 56 in 1999 to 37 in 2011 and
George Robertson's prediction of devolution "killing nationalism stone dead" looking more ridiculous every
four years. According to Neil McGarvey, politics teaching fellow at Strathclyde University, Labour has failed to
grasp devolution. He said: "They were the home rule party of the 1980s and 1990s, but now they are the
standard bearers for Better Together in a switcharound, backing the union." (Evening Times)





Houses of Parliament
This is an interesting article on the fantasy of British democracy. In particular, it highlights that:
The statutory quorum (minimum number of MPs) required for the House of Commons to pass
a Bill is 12 and the statutory quorum required for the House of Lords to endorse the Bill is 3 (any
bill passed by the House of Commons needs to be endorsed by the House of Lords).

- 109 -

Therefore, only 15 people can alter your life and mine irrevocably, plus the lives of every man
woman and child in the United Kingdom if Westminsters MPs so desire, and they can do it on
an overnight sitting without warning.

Let no one try to convince you that is good, healthy democracy at work. It sucks. Those fifteen
three unelected can remove any, or all, of Scotlands devolutionary powers, and indeed, can
and have warned they will take all sorts of retribution if Scotland fails to win its plebiscite for
genuine democracy.


As an aside, you might be surprised to read about the Remembrancer in this Daily Mirror article. He is:
a -little-known figure will be taking his special seat close by all the better to scrutinise every
new piece of legislation for how it benefits or damages the banks. Hes the only non-MP or civil
servant with a seat in the House of Lords and House of Commons. His job dates back to Henry
VIII. He has a budget of 5.3million, a staff bill of 500,000 including a team of six lawyers
and he represents bankers interests at the heart of our democracy. Hes called The
Remembrancer. And as the banks get away scot free and disabled people pay for the banking
crisis, as millionaires get tax cuts while poor people get taxed on how many bedrooms they
have a new campaign by pressure group Avaaz called Kick Bankers Out of Parliament is
beginning to ask exactly why hes still allowed the special privileges he has.

And of course there are the expenses scandals that continue, including the increasing costs for champagne
while austerity cuts are being made everywhere else and now another 10% pay increase for MPs ("MPs will
get 10 per cent pay rise, expenses watchdog says" - Telegraph).



- 110 -





And remember what representation Scotland has in the House of Commons:



- 111 -




House of Lords
Now everyone should be aware that this is a group of individuals that were not democratically elected but
instead chosen by the UK government of the time to have a significant degree of control over your lives.
There was a promise by Tony Blair to reform it by making it elected but like many of his promises, it came to
nothing.

But why should you be concerned about this unelected house? Surely the House of Commons has
supremacy? And that is indeed correct but it doesnt stop this unelected group of peers having some control
over the lives of citizens in Scotland and the rest of the UK if the House of Commons are in agreement. For
example, it was the House of Lords that removed powers from the Scottish government over the
environment, a change that allowed the UK government to grant fracking licences throughout Scotland (as
well as rUK).

Many Lords have simply bought their way into this chamber with large donations to the party in power. For
example, City banker made a peer by PM had given 300,000 to Tories two months earlier (see
Independent). Through having enough money to buy a peerage these wealthy individuals now have a greater
degree of political and economic control over your life than you do. The other 11 individuals David Cameron
made peers are listed here in the Mirror and their connections to the Tory party.

And as this article here points out, there has been a statistically disproportionate number of criminals
committing the most horrendous and heinous crimes known to human society in the House of Lords, with
many implicated, involved or convicted for such crimes as Murder, Illegal War, War Crimes, Terrorism,
Torture, Crimes against Humanity, Corruption, Espionage, Treason, Drug Trafficking, Paedophilia, Rape,
Indecent Assault, Sex Trafficking, Arson, Blackmail, GBH, Bribery, Insider Trading, Cash for Questions, Asset
Stripping, Tax Evasion, Money Laundering, Expenses Fraud, Theft, Perjury, Phone Hacking, Spousal Assault,
Perverting the Course of Justice, Cover Ups ,Cash for Honours, Conspiracy and Forgery.

Flagrant misconduct: UK Lord forced to apologize for signing lobbying contract with overseas tax haven
see RT.com

And as if its bad enough having rich people buying peerages, it seems these peers like to recuperate their
costs with being on the payroll of Russian oligarchs Revealed: The knights, peers and even members of the
Royal Family who are now on the payroll of Russian oligarchs see Daily Mail

And austerity certainly doesnt seem to be hitting them with Expense claims of House of Lords UP by
4MILLION under Tories (Daily Mirror) and David Cameron under fire as cost of running House of Lords
leaps by 42m - see Daily Mail. Total cost of the House of Lords is estimated to be around 247 MILLION per
year, when calculated from this 17% increase.

- 112 -







Fracking
This is an interesting subject touched upon above and which has the potential to affect many people living in
Scotland (and England) after using the House of Lords to remove powers from the Scottish government
over renewable energy (see here), the House of Commons changed the law that previously prevented any
company drilling under your property and they then issued hundreds licences to fracking companies to
search for shale gas that could be extracted using fracking.

What is fracking? I wont go into details as its
explained here but the side effect of fracking has
been minor earthquakes and tainted groundwater
(Germany has banned it on these grounds see
here).



The areas were fracking has been given the go-ahead cover vast areas of the UK including national parks such
as the Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park see here:
- 113 -



While the Scottish Government opposes fracking anywhere in Scotland, it is now completely powerless to do
anything about it (see BBC News).

"Proposals from the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) will allow companies to drill for
unconventional oil and gas below residential areas without first negotiating access rights." the Scotsman



- 114 -

EU Membership

Yet another subject Better Together continue to lie about is EU membership. As this article in the BBC News
reports An independent Scotland's entry to the EU would be "relatively smooth and straightforward", an
Oxford University professor has said. While the article in itself is interesting, its the paper itself (see here)
which is most interesting and should be read to appreciate this argument

Better Together and the mainstream media had pounced on EU President jean-Claude Junkers comments
that the EU would mark a pause in its enlargement and consolidate with 28 member states as
indication that Scotland would not be automatically admitted into the EU and would have to wait many years
until it was re-admitted. The following are links to those articles gleefully and dutifully reported by the
mainstream press:

Juncker deals blow to Alex Salmonds EU claims (Telegraph)
Independence: Juncker deals blow to Scots EU plans (Scotsman)
Alex Salmonds dream of staying in the EU dealt a blow by new President of the European
Commission (Daily Record)
Blow for SNP as Junker [sic] rules out EU expansion (Express)
Unionists hail Juncker hammer blow to Scotlands EU place (Financial Times)
Better Together said the presidents comments make it clear that a Yes vote in the referendum
would also be a vote to leave the EU. (Herald)

Even BBC Scotlands Reporting Scotland made the same claim about Scotland having difficulty getting into
the EU (see here).

However, as this article points out, all you need is
a journalist to do their job properly (a BBC one no
less!) instead of repeating press releases from
Better Together. Both the media and BT were
shown to be very wrong when a senior EU source
subsequently stated An independent Scotlands
potential membership would be treated as a
special and separate case to nations wanting to
join from regions such as the Balkans that have
yet to satisfy all the rules and that Junckers EU
spokeswoman had said the new EC president a
former prime minister of Luxembourg was not
referring to Scotland. subsequently reported in
The Scotsman




Furthermore:
Scotland would be exempt from the process as it is already a signatory to core requirements
for nation states in areas as such employment rights and equality legislation because of its 40-
year membership of the EU as part of the UK. European Union chiefs are also thought to be
angered by the prospect of the UK voting on an EU exit in the referendum planned by David
Cameron and view Scotlands desire to be a member favourably, an EU source confirmed.

See also the Herald:
"Yes campaign gets boost as future position in EU made clear

- 115 -

SUPPORTERS of independence have been boosted by indications that Scotland would be
treated differently from new EU applicants as it is already compliant with the rules.

New European Commission President was plunged into instant controversy last week when his
comments on putting the brake on new Eastern European entrants were seized on as an
example of Scotland's fate.

But his office then made the specific point that he was not speaking about Scotland and it was
claimed at the weekend that the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg would be "sympathetic"
to Scottish entry, given that it is already signed up to "core EU requirements"."

While this BBC News article states No EU member state would have "a material interest" in an
independent Scotland being outside the European Union, according to a new report.

Calls were made for the [...] No campaign to apologise after EC official confirms Juncker's remarks were
misrepresented (see here) but, to date, shockingly none have been forthcoming.

And just to lay the false rumours to rest regarding Spain vetoing Scotlands EU membership, given their
concern about it encouraging Catalonian independence, Spain will not veto an independent Scotland joining
EU see Scottish Express

It would be nice if the uncertainty regarding Scotlands EU membership could be officially confirmed by the
EU themselves. In fact, the EU has already said that it will give a clear official statement on the subject if its
asked to do so by the UK government (the Scottish Government cannot request it as it has no representation
at the EU level). However, the UK government has refused to take that simple step, no doubt to maintain
uncertainty, just as they do over the currency union.

As Derek Bateman wrote here:
Prof Sionaidh Douglas-Scotts report from Oxford University [full report] lends an
unimpeachable voice to the only sane solution on the EU, the one with least hurdles for existing
members and the course already laid out by the Scottish Government. Her calm exposition
reads like straightforward common sense when compared to the childishly hysterical screams
of alarm from Unionist MEPs and commentators who dont know any better. Her work
contrasts sharply with the Armageddon predicted by the high octane Professor Adam Tomkins,
a man who does not bear contradiction with grace and whose worship of Britain warps his
analysis.

The Douglas-Scott paper confirms what I was reporting on the BBC more than two years ago
that the EU lawyers have already looked at this question and reached a preliminary conclusion
which will go before the Council if there is a Yes vote. There is no exclusion, no long wait, no
queue to join, no new state accession, just an adjustment to treaty.

And as this Herald article reports:
"Italy has effectively declared the European Union's neutrality on Scottish independence as it
takes over the bloc's rotating presidency.""The country's European Affairs minister, Sandro
Gozi, warned anything said by Brussels officials could be manipulated and said the vote should
be up to Scots. His remarks, couched in -diplomatic language, mark a clear departure from the
stance of former European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, who said it would be
difficult if not impossible for Scotland to rejoin the bloc."

Even this UK Parliament publication from Graham Avery, Senior Member of St. Antonys College, Oxford
University, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, Brussels, and Honorary Director-General of the
European Commission states that:
Arrangements for Scotlands EU membership would need to be in place simultaneously with
independence
- 116 -

Scotlands 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
Negotiations on the terms of membership would take place in the period between the referendum
and the planned date of independence
The EU would adopt a simplified procedure for the negotiations, not the traditional procedure
followed for the accession of non-member countries

The Scotsman reported that Scotland wont lose EU rights after Yes vote after a report was released by
the Economic and Social Research Council.

There have been occasional claims that Scotland must have a central bank to join the EU (not even the Euro,
just the EU). As reported here, a response was requested from Graham Blyth, the Head of Office of the
European Commission in Scotland. His response, although lengthy (and can be seen here) is basically that
there is nothing in EU law that states you must have a central bank to be an EU member state.

Craig Murray wrote here about the unionist reaction when they pounced on Junckers initial comments:

This ought to be good news for everyone including the unionists. But such genuine Unionists,
should they lose the referendum, would surely wish Scotland to remain in the European Union?
That already guarantees the continuance of all the most essential links between England and
Scotland, in particular full freedom of movement and settlement and trade and citizens rights.
It is also important for Scotlands future prosperity.

Surely a real unionist would want to retain the Union, but still want Scotland to remain in the
EU if it became independent?

But instead, every professional unionist politician was gloating at the entirely fictitious prospect
of Scotland being kicked out of the EU. They were absolutely delighted at the prospect. They
really hate Scotland.

There are decent unionists. But the professional politicians are not decent unionists. They were
delighted at the very idea that Scotland might be kicked out of the EU. Because actually they
hate, despise and fear Scotland and the Scots. For them, Scotland only exists to pay for their
very comfortable public funded lifestyles. The idea they may lose their power, influence and
above all their money, horrifies them.

You are going to vote for the Union!! You are going to vote for me!! If not, you are going to
SUFFER, you bastards, SUFFER!!!

This article here also explains very well why Scotland cannot be expelled from the EU.:
Automatic explusion from the EU is not going to happen. Its not legally possible. You want a
certainty? Theres one right there. And as well as the legal impossibility, its next to impossible
in practical terms. The threat that Scotland will be evicted from the EU is scaremongering pure
and simple. Its not going to happen. No uncertainty. Article 50 is the only legal mechanism
recognised by EU law for a state, or a newly independent part of an existing state, to leave the
EU. And it was added to the EU treaty at the insistence of the UK government. They really DO
know how to do irony, dont they.

And remember, a claim from Better Together wouldn't be a claim without being full of hypocrisy - recall that
the Tories have promised an EU referendum in 2017. So if Scotland votes to stay in the union, it's an almost
certainty that it will be dragged out of the EU by England, even if the majority in Scotland vote to stay in the
EU (Scottish votes will count for nothing again). See, for example, this Guardian article "British people favour
leaving the European Union, according to poll. Nearly half would vote to leave while only 37% would vote to
stay"
- 117 -


Cameron to threaten EU with British exit. David Cameron is preparing to raise the spectre of Britain leaving
the European Union should it reject a large overhaul of its rules, The Times has learnt. the Times. The
arrogance and reckless gambling of the UK government is shown most clearly here arrogance as they
assume that 250-odd million other EU citizens will agree to the UKs unilateral demands to overhaul a huge
number of EU rules (they havent agreed to the UKs demands of late) and recklessness given the almost-
childish threat that if the EU doesnt agree to its demands that the UK will leave the EU.



Also see this Independent article that writes:
UK edges closer to EU exit as David Cameron is crushed in bid to block Jean-Claude Juncker's
leadership
Britain took another step towards the EU exit door as David Cameron warned that Jean-Claude
Junckers appointment to the top job in Brussels would make it harder to persuade the public to
remain in the 28-nation bloc. Mr Camerons stark warning came after he suffered a humiliating
defeat in his lonely battle to stop the veteran federalist becoming president of the European
Commission. At a Brussels summit, EU leaders voted 26-2 to nominate Mr Juncker after Mr
Cameron demanded an unprecedented formal vote on a post traditionally settled by consensus.
Hungary's Viktor Orban was the only leader to back the Prime Minister.

This article here expands on this point, highlighting:
The UK isnt exactly flavour of the month with other EU countries, a fact which Ed Miliband is
hoping is news of the except for viewers in Scotland sort. The UK, you know, the one that
punches above its weight and has massive influence in Europe, just got outvoted 27-2. Thats
even rubbisher than the square of the rubbishness of the Spanish and English world cup squads
combined. The only cheerleader Davie could muster was Viktor Orban the far right Hungarian
that no one else wants anything to do with. In 2013 the European Parliament endorsed a report
criticising the dangerously undemocratic way in which Orban was centralising power and
control into his own hands, and stated that his changes to the Hungarian constitution were in
conflict with the fundamental principles of EU treaties. So you can see why Orban wasnt keen
- 118 -

to support an EU President who was chosen by a majority of EU parliamentarians. Theres
massive UK influence for you. What was that about knowing people by the company they keep
Davie?



Meanwhile, Danny Alexander, Treasury Secretary, has claimed in this Telegraph article that 3 million UK jobs
are reliant on the EU. So basically, stay with the UK, get dragged out of the EU and lose approximately
300,000 jobs in Scotland alone.

Other international companies concerned about a UK exit from the EU:
US banks plan ahead for UK exit from EU Wall Street banks are drawing up preliminary
plans to move some London-based activities to Ireland to address concerns that the UK is
drifting apart from the EU.
People familiar with Bank of America, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley told the Financial Times
that they considered Ireland a favourable location for some of their European business if they
needed to move them out of the UK. One said he was already planning to move some activities
to Ireland. The people said their plans were in most cases still at very early stages. But they said
the US banks had started preparing for the eurozones impending banking union that threatens
to isolate Britain and, ultimately, for a possible UK exit from the EU. Im frankly looking at
moving some activities to Ireland, said one senior UK-based manager at a Wall Street bank. I
think the Irish central bank and government would welcome this. It is not so much Brexit, more
about legal entity optimisation. see Financial Times

Now bear in mind where these banks may choose to relocate if Scotland votes to leave the UK, stays within
the EU and the UK votes to leave the EU. Just like Ireland, many of these banks will see Scotland as an
attractive place to relocate to.

Another contender for the prize in hypocrisy has to be the unionist response from the Tory MPs that
attacked the head of Nissan for claiming that the company would reconsider its future in the UK if the UK left
the EU. Now doesnt that sound familiar? How often have unionists of all parties claimed that businesses in
Scotland would leave if Scotland became independent? Yet when someone else makes the same claim about
the UK leaving the EU the unionists have a hissy fit and claim scaremongering see Daily Mail

- 119 -



Punching Above Our Weight
As mentioned in the last document, you hear this phrase that the UK punches above our weight. Its not
entirely clear what they mean by this other than perhaps in military terms of being able to invade other
countries with for example aircraft carriers that cost around 3 billion each, only one of which will be used
since the other one will be mothballed as soon as its built due to costs, and even then the one aircraft carrier
that Britain will has no aircraft to carry.

Or what about the great British military forces, currently being decimated by the UK government

But do you want Scotland to be part of a militarily aggressive union whose history has left death and
destruction in its wake, not only in the days of the Empire but even within the last 10 years with the war in
Iraq that still casts a very deadly shadow over the Iraqis.

And what about the people of Gaza being collectively punished in their large open-air prison for the actions
of a few? While the origins of the most recent (and previous) conflict is complex, do you believe Israel is
morally right to kill so many innocent civilians in Gaza while so few have suffered in Israel? This is not
intended to discuss the issues of this conflict but perhaps you dont believe the UK should be taking an active
part in it? Instead of selling 50 million worth of arms to Israel, the UK should focus only on humanitarian
need to the people of Gaza (see the Guardian)? Would an independent Scotland provide humanitarian need?

In fact, there is no need to wait for independence since the Scottish government has already promised to
provide aid to Gaza and backed a call by the UN for a ceasefire, something the UK government had yet to do
at that point (see BBC News).

As Derek Bateman wrote here:
It isnt an easy decision. No administration seeking approval for cutting against the grain to
win its independence wants to alienate neighbours and international power bases
unnecessarily but has there ever been a moment of such disgust coinciding with a mass
audience when the voice of the Scottish people can be heard so clearly? There are times, and
this one, when it is plain humanity, not politics that is to the fore.



- 120 -

Education

Another of the unionist arguments against independence is that an independent Scotland would have to
offer free university places to students from the remainder of the UK, as they do now to students from other
EU countries.

Now the reason that the Scottish government has to provide free tuition to other EU students is thanks to an
EU law you cannot discriminate between students from different EU countries. However, it says nothing
about students within the same EU country and so Scotland can charge English students tuition fees while
charging Scottish students and other EU students nothing.

Aside from the argument from the unionists that Scotland wouldnt get into the EU (and so the law wouldnt
apply anyway according to them) once Scotland is independent AND in the EU, English students would be
eligible for free education as students from another EU state. That, by Better Togethers argument, would
swamp the Scottish university system with English students looking for free education (after all theyre
paying more than 9000 a term, soon to go up to 12,000 in England), meaning there would be far less
places for Scottish students and lost income from those English students who previously paid for their
education and now wouldnt.

However, as Germany shows, this can easily be resolved without breaking any EU laws. As discussed in this
article, Germany charges all EU students, domestic and those from outside Germany, tuition fees. However,
and this is the clever bit that the unionists struggle with the German state provides a grant to those who
have been resident in Germany for the previous 5 years that matches the tuition fees, effectively cancelling
them out for German citizens. Funnily enough, as mentioned in the article, another country has a similar
system in place Ireland (that busted country again).

So while the Scottish government has yet to announce this (it has over 18 months to do so), you can bet it
will to avoid the problem of English students receiving a free education. It also solves the problem of EU
students not paying for their education while Scottish students in other EU countries have to pay for theirs
there.



- 121 -

Another area of scaremongering is the funding of research performed in Scotland Academics say 'Yes' vote
could harm scientific research (see BBC News). However, in contrast A senior cancer charity fundraiser has
said he is very optimistic for the future of the sector if Scotland votes for independence. see The
Scotsman

Ignore scare-mongering: independent Scotland will attract top researchers. Fears that Scotland will lose
leading academic researchers in the event of a Yes vote do not stand up to scrutiny see the Guardian

Yes vote poses no risk to research funding see Aberdeen Press and Journal



- 122 -

Vested Interests, Deception and Lies, and Media Bias

Vested Interests
Several high profile individuals have expressed hard-to-substantiate concerns about repercussions from the
Scottish Government if they declared they were voting No. As Lesley Riddoch writes in this Scotsman article
which argues that:
Shouting out loud and saying youre unlikely to vote Yes is the best way to win cash backing
The Nobel prize-winning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse urged the Scottish and UK governments to
promise they wouldnt interfere with funding for academics who express contrary views during
the referendum debate. Meanwhile Sir David Carter, former chief medical officer, told Scotland
on Sunday that conversations with principals of five Scottish universities with medical schools
suggested they would all be voting No but are constrained from speaking out. Actually, if
governments really are so petty, a few thoughts arise.

Firstly, Sir David has just outed those five No-leaning university principals. They must hope
or privately know that his alarmist theory is wrong.

Secondly, since the UK apparently has a pivotal role in research funding, academic supporters
of independence have more to fear from a vindictive Westminster government, and brave souls
whose work questions all state funders might as well start packing their bags. And yet such a
panicked mass exodus is not occurring.

Thirdly, isnt it strange that eminent academics and leading businesspeople are so very
nervous? Almost all jobs in Scotland depend directly or indirectly on government funding but
its the eminent, monied and professional who seem inconsolably anxious about the
consequences of speaking out while the rest of us are happy to publish and be damned. Are
ordinary Scots rash or might the professional leadership class be a tad overwrought? Isnt it
more likely that prominent No-supporting academics will be rolling in research cash for life so
the Scottish Government can prove their worst fears wrong? Or at least they would be if
research cash was dispensed directly by governments. Instead as education secretary Mike
Russell wearily points out yet again academic funding bodies are independent of both
governments. Its far more likely that self-employed journalists and part-time PhD students like
myself jeopardise our own futures by continuing to question the motives of the Great and
Good. And yet even we are still here.

Another person doubting those claims is Anton Muscatelli principal and vice-chancellor of the
University of Glasgow (see the Scotsman) where he stated that I was struck by the recent
assertion that academics in Scottish universities are feeling intimidated and unwilling to speak
up in the independence debate. I think it is important to counter that impression. No-one, on
either side of the debate, has tried to intimidate, bully or silence me, my university or the
dozens of academics playing an active role in the campaign. Universities will never hesitate to
speak out when they feel that their interests are compromised, and we value our autonomy.
Personally, I feel fully engaged in the debate, and not intimidated.

Another person to claim this veiled intimidation by the Scottish Government is former head of the Scotch
Whisky Association, Gavin Hewitt, who was interviewed for the Channel 4 program Dispatches (see here) and
dutifully repeated here by the BBC. Again, there is nothing to support this verbal claim but its interesting to
note that they interviewed the former head of the Scotch Whisky Association, an organisation that
apparently is intimidated by the Scottish Government regarding the referendum but has no qualms about
taking the Scottish Government to court over the minimum pricing plans. Furthermore, could the reason
Dispatches chose the former SWA head was because it supported their premise of intimidation? Why ask the
former head of the Scotch Whisky Association when the existing head of the Scotch Whisky Association,
David Frost, is available? Perhaps because this existing SWA head has denied there is any intimidation in this
- 123 -

Scotsman article and instead states that the referendum debate had been frank and constructive, with
positive interventions from both sides.

Furthermore, Gavin Hewitt undermined his own
claims by previously stating in the Herald that
that none of the so-called 'intimidation' he
himself experienced was in the context of the
independence referendum. (see here)




CBI they were discussed in detail in the last document and suffice to say, nothing has came of their
electoral commission fraud. As this article reports, the CBI held private discussions with Electoral
Commission twice before application making a complete mockery of their public claims that their
application to register as a No campaign organisation was the result of an error by a junior administrator.
Furthermore, claims that emails on this subject had been deleted by both the CBI and Electoral Commission
have now been mysteriously found and reported in this article:
Electoral Commission finds 'deleted' CBI emails The emails which the Electoral Commission
last month claimed had been deleted show that a meeting was set up between the
Commission and CBI Scotland director Iain McMillan and assistant director David Lonsdale after
the Commission identified the CBI as a potential No campaigner.The development sheds serious
doubt on CBI chief John Cridland's previous claims that the CBI's registration with the
Commission as a No campaigner was the result of an error by a lone junior official. Rather, the
emails show that senior level meetings took place months before the registration was
submitted.

Nevertheless, this will be the last comment on their track record:



GMB as this article reports:
Claims by a trade union that it held a "long consultation" of its members before deciding to
back a No vote in the 2014 independence referendum have been challenged by members who
claim only five people turned up at one event and protocols may have been breached or
manipulated.

The Scottish GMB announced on Sunday that it would be supporting a No vote in 2014, and
campaign for 'further devolution'. Harry Donaldson, general secretary of GMB Scotland, said
- 124 -

the union's decision had been reached after a "long consultation" with Scottish members,
whose feedback had led to the union opposing independence.

Sunday Herald reporter Tom Gordon, who broke the story, described the decision as "a blow to
Alex Salmond and the Yes Scotland campaign". However, within hours of the story breaking,
angry Scottish GMB members flooded social media sites complaining that they had not been
asked their views and questioning the validity of the decision. [...]

"To say we have been consulted is a falsehood, pure and simple. There has certainly been no
consultation in this part of the world the first I heard about this was when I saw it on
Facebook." He continued: "This decision has not been endorsed by the membership and it
makes absolutely no sense. The union leadership has taken a hugely important and
controversial decision without having any of the hard facts about what a Yes vote will mean.
How can they possibly come to a judgment on independence without waiting for the Scottish
Governments White Paper on the subject, which is due out later this month and will give us a
full picture of an independent Scotland?"

Institute of Financial Studies a recent report tried to calculate the finances of an independent Scotland.
This article shows how accurate theyve been in predicting the UK economy over the past decade or so (not
good at all) so you should take what they say with a large pinch of government-ordered salt.

Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) data from the OBR is often used by the unionist campaign to support
various views, including Scotlands oil is dwindling and that Scotland is subsidised by and is not a net
contributor to the UK. But who is this department and why should they be treated with caution? As this
article here explains, OBR didn't exist prior to the 2010 UK General Election. The body was the brainchild of
Tory Chancellor George Osborne. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was established in 2010 to
provide 'independent and authoritative analysis' of the UK's public finances 'free from partisan political
influence'.

It consists of a three member committee, the members are: Robert Chote, Steve Nickell and Graham Parker.
Some commentators have opined that the pessimistic revenue forecasts provided by the OBR are politically
motivated and have little to do with reality. Given oil forecasts importance to the independence debate
there may be something to this, but rather than simply dismiss the OBR as a partisan pro-Union body, it is
probably better to look at its track record in order to establish whether its forecasts are credible.

In December 2011, just months after being formed, the body was forced to revise UK growth figures from an
initial projection of 2.5% growth for 2012, down to just 0.7%. Appearing before a Commons Treasury Select
Committee, the OBR chief Robert Chote was accused of using "guesswork" after a series of revisions for
years up to 2016 led to the 'disappearance' of 65 billion from the UK economy.

Pat McFadden, a former Labour cabinet minister, asked whether anyone should believe the OBR. "These are
drastic changes, these are not minimal changes. If you got it so wrong a matter of months why should anyone
believe what you have got to say this time or the next time?" he said.

Mr Chote was forced to concede that the chances of OBR predictions being "bang on the nail" were
"practically nil".

Aside from its dreadful record when forecasting economic growth, is there anything else that might call into
question the credibility of the OBR?

The OBR now claims that total oil and gas receipts between 2013-14 and 2040-41 will amount to just
39.3bn - a massive 17bn less than it forecast last year when it produced a figure of 56bn, which was itself
11bn less than its previous estimate of 67bn.

- 125 -

In the space of less than two years, the OBR has managed to almost halve the estimated revenue from oil
and gas.

But how did the OBR manage to come up with a figure so far into the future - 27 years ahead? The answer is
that it asked the HMRC to run a model. So, this 'independent' body, 'free from partisan political influence'
has essentially published a figure based on data supplied by a department of the UK Government.

Not only that, but the OBR's new figure of 39.3bn depends on only ten billion barrels of oil being extracted
over the next 27 years. Yet the Oil and Gas industry has stated that there are 24 billion barrels left to be
recovered. Indeed the UK Government itself, in its Oil and Gas Industrial Strategy document published in
March 2013, said there was 24 billion barrels still to be recovered.

The same estimate of 24 billion barrels was been cited by Sir Ian Wood, in his review of the oil and gas
industry. Professor John Howell, Chair of Geology and Petroleum Geology at Aberdeen University, has even
suggested the 24 billion barrels is too low and estimated that there are upwards of 35 billion barrels of oil
equivalent remaining in the North Sea and the surrounding waters.

In March 2013, respected oil economist Professor Alex Kemp described the OBR's oil revenue forecasts as
"contrary to the evidence" from the industry. Professor Kemp explained that OBR forecasts, which he
described as being "pessimistic on all fronts", were based on futures contracts and were often wrong.

Further heavy criticism for its oil and gas
revenue forecasts, with independent experts
claiming the "revenues could be up to six
times higher [365bn] than those forecast by
the OBR [57bn]" (see The Sunday Times).
The apolitical think-tank quoted in the
Sunday Times article is supported by the
Investors Chronicle that is quoted here "We
think that Westminster has been deliberately
downplaying the potential of the UK
Continental Shelf (UKCS) ahead of
Septembers referendum on Scottish
independence. [...] Many analysts believe
that the potential is much greater." (original
article) And as already mentioned before,
the Investors Chronicle isnt exactly a
renowned fount of Scottish-nationalist
propaganda for 150 years its been making
its living out of telling the City of London how
to get richer. If you want to find out what the
UKs wealthy elite REALLY think about the
North Seas prospects, you wont find a much
better indicator.


And to the last word on the OBR is "Right from the start the Tories have used the OBR not just as part of
government but as part of the Conservative party. They have succeeded in strangling what could have been
a good idea at its birth" as claimed by none other than Alasdair Darling himself in 2011 (see UK Parliament
Publications), who is now a leader of a campaign that now uses those same discredited forecasts to argue for
the union.

Sir Ian Wood Better Together have seized on Sir Ian Woods comment (mentioned above) that there is
ONLY(?!?) 35 years of oil left in the North Sea. Specifically, as the BBC News website reported:
- 126 -


A leading oil industry figure has claimed that the Scottish governments predictions for North
Sea oil recovery are up to 60% too high.

The figure of 24bn barrels is quoted in the White Paper as an estimate from industry body Oil
and Gas UK. But Sir Ian Wood [...] claimed there are about 15bn to 16.5bn barrels of
recoverable oil left, and that the figure from the White Paper is 45% to 60% too high.

However, according to the very same Sir Ian Wood, only late last year, he was quoted in the Scotsman as
saying:
A radical overhaul of the North Sea oil industry can deliver a 200 billion injection to the
economy over the next 20 years, a major report has concluded.

Oil tycoon Sir Ian Wood has led the biggest independent review of the North Sea oil and gas
industry in its history, and said yesterday that production could increase by four billion barrels
over coming years if major changes to the operation of the oil and gas sector are made.

Such changes would put the UK in a stronger position to extract nearly all of the estimated 24
billion barrels still remaining underneath the North Sea.

As this article here reports:
Sir Ian Woods report in February can be read in full here. It references the 24bn figure at least six
times. In itself that seems rather conservative, because a footnote on page 5 of the document says
that the UK governments own Department of Energy and Climate Change puts the high case
expectation outcome at 35bn barrels:



We know the oil industry which cares solely about profits, not politics thinks the future is bright,
because its just undertaken record investment of billions and billions of pounds in the North Sea. Just
days ago even the staid Sunday Post was talking of a new oil boom as the equally-Unionist Press &
Journal enthused breathlessly about spectacular new discoveries, and the potential for more in areas
that are currently off-limits due to UK government policy.

So were a little mystified about how Sir Ian has suddenly managed to not only arrive at such a gloomy
assessment, but also misplace a whopping 8 billion barrels of oil between his own report in February
(which hes disingenuously trying to pretend was actually the Scottish Governments) and now
coincidentally at the exact same time hes decided that he needs to come out in favour of a No vote.

None of this is really the point, of course. Everyone knows oil is a finite resource, and that a plan is
needed for the day when it does run out, even if that day is still 40 or 50 years off. Other oil-rich
countries have dealt with the issue by creating huge oil funds, something the UK government (almost
uniquely in the world) chose not to do.

Thanks to petroleum riches, Norways sovereign wealth fund is minting money. The challenge? How to
spend it all.

But Scotland has been given a second chance. Its well-placed to cope despite that UK failure, being
blessed with enormous renewables resources and decades in which to use oil money to exploit them.
We can see the problem coming a long way down the road, and we have all the tools needed to
address it, but theyre currently in the hands of incompetents who are interested only in bleeding the
oceans dry and blowing the proceeds on weapons and wars and more tax cuts for the rich.

- 127 -

Westminster has wasted the last 40 years of oil money with nothing to show for it, but it doesnt have
to be allowed to waste the next 40 as well.

Meanwhile, Kenny Anderson, leader of Business for Scotland in Aberdeen said:

Sir Ian Wood is a respected figure in the oil industry and in business. His estimate of
discovered oil reserves is in line, albeit at the low end of estimates, provided by Oil and Gas UK
and other experts and provides over 1 trillion of reserves by value. Professor Alex Kemp of the
University of Aberdeen, a world-renowned expert in this field has said that approximately half
the oil by value remains to be exploited.

These estimates of course do not take account of undiscovered reserves. The Scottish
Government only last week undertook to commission an accurate report on oil and gas
reserves west of Shetland, West of the Outer Hebrides, in the Clyde Basin and in the Solway
Firth.

Oil reserves in Scottish waters have consistently been under estimated both in volume and
value in every constitutional debate since the news of oil being discovered in the late 1960s.

He continued: Oil is a finite reserve and what we have with independence is the opportunity
to grow our blossoming oil technology exports, which exceeded 10 Billion for the first time last
year, as well as exploiting our vast renewable energy reserves while at the same time
sustaining and nurturing exploration and extraction of our hydrocarbons.

Regardless of the endless debate on the exact extent of oil and gas reserves and how much is
left to discover we must remember that Scotlands GDP per head excluding oil and gas is
identical to that of the rest of the UKs - oil and gas is a huge bonus which by voting for
independence we can utilise instead of squandering it as has occurred under Westminsters
watch.

And this article provides a video interview of Ian Wood stating Weve produced 41 billion barrels. If you look
ahead, we could still produce another 25 billion barrels at $100 a barrel, thats $2,500bn.

Here Sir Donald MacKay responds to Sir Ian Wood's remarks on oil and gas Donald MacKay stating that:
In forecasting output, the first source I looked at was the Wood review in which Ian Wood
states that "a number of larger new fields are about to come on stream in the next two or three
years and that could take production back to the level of two to three years ago". Similar
forecasts have been made by Oil and Gas UK and by Professor Alex Kemp and I have taken the
former forward through my calculations. The result in output in the first five years from 2014-
15 is much greater than that anticipated by OBR who, contrary to the views of the industry,
predict a continuing fall in output right through to 2018-2020. Therefore that is a major factor
in predicting much more substantial oil tax revenues than those predicted by OBR. The point is
that Scotland will begin life as an independent nation in a better fiscal position relative to the
UK. An independent Scotland should use that financial advantage to invest in re-engineering
our economy towards industrial, manufacturing and trade-able services development. Within
this fiscal framework the Scottish Government should be able to deliver the major economic
programmes contained in their White Paper.

- 128 -



And are there any reasons Sir Ian Wood was persuaded to reduce his oil forecasts? Well, you decide:


Douglas Flint the HSBC boss came out against independence as reported in this Scotsman article. However,
what this article, and any other in the mainstream media failed to report (a quick Google search found this) is
the Douglas Flint is a Commander of the British Empire (CBE). While this doesnt mean that all knighted
people will be pro-union (there are a couple who are not), you still have to ask what is their vested interests
if they are knighted and pro-union (Sir Donald MacKay mentioned above would be one of the exceptions).

It turns out Douglas Flint (CBE) has called for halt on rules ring fencing high-street business. Douglas Flint
writes to chancellor and regulators requesting banks are not forced to separate branch trade from casino
investment arms (see The Guardian). Other articles include:
New rules are too tiring says HSBC chief: As profits fall, he bemoans mis-selling crackdown Daily
Mail
HSBCs chairman has warned of a growing danger that employees are becoming too risk-averse
because they fear punishment for mistakes, the latest sign that banks are making a fresh push
against regulation. Financial Times
- 129 -

HSBC Chairman Douglas Flint said today the legislation from Brussels could have a 'highly damaging'
impact on how competitive the multinational bank is. Express
Breaking big banks not beneficial: Douglas Flint, Group Chairman, HSBC Economic Times
Douglas Flint, who is chairman of HSBC holdings, donated 25,000 to Better Together (BBC News)
Sir Simon Robertson, who is on the board of HSBC donated 600,000 to the Conservative party (see
Guardian)
HSBCs Flint apology over money laundering scandal - Scotsman

You should bear these in mind when judging the impartiality of Douglas Flints comments and whether he
really is a man whose views you should agree with.

And in a separate development, Flint signed his name to a letter, along with around 200 other business
leaders who encouraged voters to vote No. As can be seen here, these business leaders are certainly not
the kind of people you should listen too closely too.

And remember what they said about devolution in 1997:




Deception and Lies from Better Together

Lets Stay Together
The relentless negative arguments from Better Together continue, arguments based on deception and lies
with yet more videos, this time from (wealthy) English actors pleading for Scotland to stay in the union
(Lets Stay together). As this article here (Trinny and Susannah Just Say Naw) says:
I dont know whats more offensive, the idea that we should continue the union because Ross
Kemp experienced camaraderie in Afghanistan (because of the situation we were in hmmm
best not explore that particular travesty too deeply) or the nice woman who doesnt want to
lose some amazing theatres and fantastic festivals.

This video was arranged by Dan Snow the historian, who also happens to be married to the daughter of the
Duke of Westminster, who also happens to own a huge chunk of Scotland (not so impartial now, eh?). These
- 130 -

articles here and here describe how some of those who are claiming to now love Scotland and dont want it
to leave were perhaps less complimentary in the past. They include the historian David Starkey (previously
called it a feeble little country obsessed with the deeply boring provincial poet Burns and the awful
bagpipe). More recently he called the First Minister, democratically elected twice by the people of Scotland,
a Caledonian Hitler who sees the English everywhere, like the Jews.

As someone wrote elsewhere:
When someone you know is getting a bit carried away with themselves because they have
gained a bit of authority it is understandable why they might be referred to as Little Hitlers.
No one is seriously suggesting that someone who is called Hitler is responsible for the death of
eleven million people. However, to many people the very mention of the name conjures up
images of extreme cruelty and barbarism on an unimaginable scale that should never be
forgotten or taken lightly. It is for this reason that I find it particularly appalling that those
campaigning against Scottish independence have referred to the democratically elected First
Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond as Adolf Hitler. It insults the First Minister of Scotland and
the democratic process of Scotland and it insults the intellect of the people of Scotland
regardless of whether they are in favour of independence or not. The First Minister, Alex
Salmond and the Scottish National Party were elected to government by the democratic
process and by the Scottish electorate. To compare him to Adolf Hitler and his government to
the Nazi Party is ultimately insulting to the millions who suffered and perished at the hands of
the Fuhrer and to those who were left behind.

Those despicable individuals who seek to demonise our democratically elected First Minister by
comparing him to the most ruthless and murderous dictators of all time clearly need a history
lesson. If they knew the facts about the real Adolf Hitler then they would never include him and
the First Minister of Scotland in the same sentence. For those Unionists out there who don't
know the history about the Fuhrer then I suggest you avail yourself to the facts so that you will
know the difference in future. Sadly the politicians who deliberately orchestrate this sustained
smear campaign against Alex Salmond and the Scottish Government are educated people and
they do know the difference between the democratically elected First Minister of Scotland who
is in his second term of office with a historic majority and the Fascist Dictator Adolf Hitler. Not
all No voters are seasoned and cynical activists who will stoop to any level to secure a No vote.
Some No voters might view this appalling smear campaign as a step too far and be forced to
reconsider their position.

Theres also Ross Kemp (who previously likened Glasgow to a third-world warzone) and the deeply
unpleasant right-wing columnist Rod Liddle, who opined in 2010 that:

The only reason any people remain in Scotland is on account of the extremely cheap alcohol
available in supermarkets, plus a ready supply of heroin for when the alcohol runs out. (see
here).

Even Ray Winstone has been known to be less than complimentary to Scotland but what is worse is that he
believes the UK is being raped yet feels that Scotland should stay within that country to be raped too
(see the Telegraph).

There have certainly been plenty of responses to the video, one response is particular from an Englishman
living in England:
So when it comes to making an emotional case, I want to make one to you. Please, please
examine your deeper motivations for why you want Scotland to be with us in the UK. Is it
because you have analysed the pros and cons, like Scottish voters are doing, and you
passionately believe in the case for No? Or is it because Scottish independence presents a
very real challenge to your emotional attachment to Britishness which you are not really
prepared to look at?

- 131 -

And another one from the same person above, again in response to the same video that Dan Snow put
together there are very many points addressed very well in this page, which Ive reproduced below:

1. You describe the UK as a family.
Families are not always healthy. Even if they are, children grow up and leave home with
their parents blessing. The Yes campaign has set out many reasons why they believe
Scotland should leave the UK family. See http://www.yesscotland.net/ None of these
reasons are based on any kind of attack against the other nations of the UK family.
Rather, they represent a different political vision to what they see from the main UK
parties. It aint personal. Its political. And thats OK.

2. You say that if Scotland leaves the UK, it will be a partnership that ends.
Independent nations work in partnership all the time. Look at the Channel Tunnel. There
will be every reason for Scotland and the UK to continue to work in partnership on a whole
range of issues. This is the position of the Yes campaign. The partnership will be on
different terms to how it works now. But where there is a will, there is a way.

A vote for independence will only mean an end to partnership if we in the remaining UK
choose to see it this way. If we do so, then we need to examine our deeper motives. It may
be that we are upset about Scottish independence. If so, we need to work through our
feelings first before considering action which damages relations with an independent
Scotland.

3. You say that if Scotland leaves the UK, that we will all feel later that we could have
made it work and that we should give this a chance.
Yes voters generally believe that the UK doesnt work for the people of Scotland and that
they have given the UK enough chances to to try and make it work. A growing number of
people in Scotland have become more and more dissatisfied with the direction that the UK
has taken over the last few decades on many key, political issues e.g. the war in Iraq, the
poll tax, cuts to public expenditure, welfare reforms, the bedroom tax, Trident nuclear
weapons and so on. Again, these reasons are political, not personal.

4. You say that fighting together in Afghanistan was about camaraderie and not about
why we were out there.
I dont knock the camaraderie, but actually, it is about why we were out there. The SNP run
the Scottish government with the support of more than 50% of Scottish voters. The SNP
took a very different view to UK governments on military intervention in Iraq and
Afghanistan. They would not have involved Scotland in the last Iraq war, in which 19
servicemen from Scotland died. These are lives which would not have been lost had
Scotland been independent. I would be upset if English lives were lost as a result of
involvement in wars that, for example, the USA made us enter. Scotland is entitled to take a
different political view to the UK on military intervention overseas. It cant implement its
view unless it is independent.

5. You say that together, we have a powerhouse of creativity that we dont want to
lose.
Artistic co-operation crosses borders, perhaps more than any other kind of international co-
operation. Politics doesnt come into it that much. We will still be able to visit and take part
in the Edinburgh Festival. Scots will still be able to watch and take part in West End
musicals. Independence poses no real threat to artistic co-operation across borders.

6. Scotland is part of who we are and part of our identity. You say that you have
family from all over the UK and feel absolutely British.
Its OK to feel that, but this says more about us than about the people of Scotland. If many
Scots dont feel British any more, there are probably some good reasons and perhaps we
- 132 -

should find out what they are. The UK only exists if the member countries want it to exist. If
Scotland leaves the UK, then we in England will need to work through our feelings on what
being British still means to us, as opposed to being just English. We will do well to start that
journey now.

7. You say that with Scotland in the UK, we have a sense of a bigger nation and all that
that encapsulates.
Bigger does not always mean better.

8. You say that we were a sporting powerhouse with a positive spirit competing
together as Team GB at the 2012 London Olympics. You say that we will never have that
again.
Political change does sometimes involve mourning the loss of some things we hold dear.
For some, this will include the loss of Olympic Team GB. But I think we English are a big
nation and are strong enough to pull through on this one. We do have experience of the UK
nations competing as individual nations in football, rugby and at the Commonwealth
Games. Sport is important but does rank below the more serious political issues which
underlie the desire for independence.

9. You say that we love you and we want to be with you, and thats not going to
change.
Love is more about action than words. Perhaps it is worth asking Yes voters for instances of
when they did not feel loved by UK governments over the years. We can still love Scotland,
and be with them in a multitude of ways. Forgive the imperfect analogy, but when children
leave a happy home, they will still visit their parents and have a lot to do with them. But
love is also about knowing when to let go.


Yet another response here that illustrates the issue is not with the English or England but with the politcal
establishment in Westminster:
"But why should that justify a political union if its failing to benefit its constituent parts? Why
should that justify sharing a highly centralised government, based 300 miles from the Scottish
border, that has in the last 35 years systematically privatised key industries and the welfare
state, led us into illegal wars despite overwhelmingly public resistance, and induced the most
widespread democratic malaise probably since universal suffrage? Whats most striking about
the Lets Stay Together intervention is the complete lack of attempt to grapple with why
many people in Scotland support independence, beyond the lazy assumption that they must
not like us very much. Its substance-free fluff, devoid of any political content whatsoever. "

Another response here echoes what has been said above:
There are a few unfortunate conceits at the heart of these recent "love-bombing" attempts by
English celebrities that undermine their efforts to wade into the independence debate. The first
problem is that these people seem to think that the argument over Scotland's constitutional
future is simple; they constantly present their "argument" against Scottish independence in
incredibly simplistic terms. "Please don't go" is the extent of it and in the brief paragraph which
accompanies the list of signatures they simply claim that they want to renew "bonds of
citizenship". Well that's nice, but you've completely ignored all the social and identity problems
that are the foundation of the whole independence movement.

The second problem is that this has nothing to do with England or the English. This is a fact that
many people seem to find completely impossible to understand about the "Yes" campaign.
Westminster offers more power (sort-of, maybe, probably not), Better Together claims the Yes
camp hates English people and celebrities say they love Scotland (although some of them are
bald face liars). All of this holds as much weight as "don't leave me baby, I can change!" The
majority of people supporting independence simply want to get the government they vote for
- 133 -

and have the chance to create their own nation. England and the English are not part of the
equation.

The third, and biggest issue, is quite frankly the balls-to-wall arrogance of it. It's pretty hard to
exaggerate just how presumptuous it is to think that signing a bit of paper, which presents no
real arguments, will have any effect on the referendum vote. Yeah, you're celebrities but the
majority of you are a veritable "Who's That?" of the British establishment. But even the paltry
offering of "big names" are without meaning or weight. Believe it or not, your ability to act or
the popularity of your stand-up does not effect your political weight on constitutional matters.
Please stop trying to make this about you. This question is for the regular people of Scotland
and so the half-baked constitutional musings of rich, almost entirely English, celebrities could
not be more irrelevant.

Yet another article here writes:
Once it had been established this wasnt giant Scotlandshire-sized hoax, reality dawned that
this was actually the substance of Better Together/No Thanks/UK:OK/United Togethers
campaign, veering wildly from smear to grimace.

This is actually real. This is not a spoof.

For all the gnashing and wailing about the quality of debate and I just want the facts that is
belched out by the media as if there wasnt an encyclopedic quantity of verifiable data out
there, now along comes Tom Daley, Ben Fogle and Kirsty Allsopp.



They must somehow have confused us with a different nation, a group of halfwits who make
political decisions based on what the celebrity voices of a sort of moron culture think.

If there was a low point for political campaigning, this is it.

From the delightful Rod Liddle (Scots are Alcoholics and Drug addicts) to the super-friendly
David Starkey to the wonderful Andrew Lloyd Webber (We have to vote Tory, he said. They
do represent our only hope when times get rough) the latest LoveBombing is like a roll-call of
vaudeville Britain, with Dame Vera Lynn and Barbara Windsor in a chorus of yesteryear. Its a
desperate swan song for a failed political project.

While one side creates a sea of literature, and brings a whole new focus to understanding
power and exploring new solutions, new paths, new ways forward for our societys grievous
problems, the No campaign comes up with Ronnie Corbett. While one in five of Scotlands
children are officially recognised as living in poverty, and in some areas over one in three
children grow up in poverty (Source CPAG), Better Together give us a lecture from Cliff Richard.

We are constantly being told that this isnt an emotional debate, to ignore Braveheart then
this? As Dan Snow, husband to Lady Edwina Grosvenor, the second daughter of the 6th Duke of
- 134 -

Westminster puts it: But more than the celebrities, this is the view of the majority of people in
the rest of the UK. At a time of sweeping austerity, mounting inequality and disfiguring
poverty, this isnt a love letter, its an insult.

This article here writes:
Scotland has no currency, no money, its a huge financial risk (because of course, were a
basket case), its cursed with resources it cant possibly manage by itself and which generate
huge amounts of paperwork, and is totally dependent upon the goodwill and largesse of the
kind hearted Westminster Parlie. But they love us because we make them feel better about
themselves, weve got gorgeous scenery, and we provide a tartan splash of colour that helps
British nationalism pretend its not a form of nationalism at all.

Still, it was awfie nice of the two hundred slebs. It would maybe have been nicer if theyd signed
an open letter to the Westminster Parliament telling them that theyre a bunch of
unaccountable wasters whose self-interest and short-termism have turned the entire UK into
internal colonies of the financial sector in the City of London, but its likely that our elected and
unelected unrepresentatives would have slung them a deifie. [...]

The letter well, I say letter, a paragraph doesnt count as a letter. Its more of a postcard
asks Scotland not to leave this shared country of ours and asks us to remember the bonds of
citizenship. And theres the problem right there. This is not a shared country, and I dont mean
that Scotland is a different country from England a self-evident truism which only needs to be
explained to some of the more obtuse below the line commentators in publications like the
Guardian. The UK is not a shared country, its not a sharing country. In the UK a small number
enjoy access to wealth and privilege at the expense of the majority. Thats not sharing, its
dispossession. For the majority of its citizens the UK is not a nation, its a state of alienation.

Bonds of citizenship sound lovely and cosy too. Like fur lined handcuffs. The bonding only goes
one way. Non-slebby types, those of us who are not rich or well connected, are bound to put up
with whatever crap, whatever political wheeze, that gets thrown at us. And theres bugger all
we can do about it. Where were the bonds of citizenship when a diabetic ex-serviceman had his
benefits sanctioned and died due to lack of food and a fridge that no longer kept his insulin
usable. Theres not much in the way of bonds of citizenship for the mother who walked seven
miles to a foodbank so she could feed her weans. Thats not a bond, thats bondage.

Its all very well to ask others to keep sharing when youre one of the ones on the receiving end
of the largesse. The two hundred slebs dont put forward any political solutions to the ever
widening social and economic chasms which disfigure the entire UK. Instead theyre making a
call for inaction to the only people who are proposing to do something about this lamentable
state of affairs. Its like Labours suicide pact, sorry Labours plea for workers solidarity only
with BAFTA nominations. Stay with us Scotland, so we can emote about you. Vote Nob Orders
for nobs. [...]

We want out of this cycle of despair, were tired of being cynical, weve lived long enough with
alienation. But although we are alienated from the Westminster Parliament, we are not
alienated from each other. Were cynical about the motives of the powerful and connected,
were not cynical about our hopes and aspirations for dignity, equality, and justice. But weve
learned that things will only change if we change them ourselves.

So dont send us a wee postcard begging us not to do it because some comfortable and
connected people might suffer a pang of personal regret. Do something useful, Dan, do
something unselfish. Support us.

And a more succinct response made elsewhere:
- 135 -

They're talking about being a power house, big on the world stage, sending our people to war.
These celebrities with their privileged lives. We want a more democratic country, we want rid
of nuclear weapons, we want free education for our kids, an NHS which is for all the people, a
more just society. Not to have to go to war for big business and corporations to support
multinational weapons manufacturers , thats what they don't seem to understand

You might be surprised to find out that the "Let's Stay Together" campaign is almost entirely funded by the
same oil-tycoon linked to genocidal mass murderers who are also bankrolling the better Together campaign.
But then again, maybe by now, youre not surprised in the least.

But back to Better Together and the truthfulness of their claims.
Better Together claims on Scottish economy 'probably misleading' admits leading spokeswoman. According
to this article:
A leading member of the anti-independence campaign Better Together has publicly admitted
that a key claim her campaign made about the Scottish economy is 'probably misleading'.

Catriona Headley who represents the pro-Union alliance in female centred debates and
discussions made the admission after being challenged about a claim that appeared on an
official Better Together leaflet.

According to the leaflet, an independent Scotland would have an economy ranked 45th in the
world, below that of Pakistan. The No campaign document The Facts You Need includes a
table that shows the gross domestic product of the world's major nations, with the UK ranked
sixth behind France.

This contrasted with a Yes Scotland leaflet which said that Scotland would be in 14th place in a
world table of economies higher than the UK.

Quizzed by a member of the audience on the Better Together claim, Headley conceded that the
leaflet was probably misleading.

"It's right in the context of what it is the figure is correct but I understand if you read it in that
context [of GDP] it probably is misleading".

This controversy centred on the use of absolute GDP rather than GDP per head. If using the latter then of
course countries like Pakistan, with 182 million (16 times the size of Scotland) can have higher absolute GDP.
But I think this also says something about the strength of the Scottish economy (and other small European
countries) that it has a similar absolute GDP compared with countries far, far larger than it.

Besides, if you were to accept Better Together seriously flawed reasoning in their argument then they are
proposing the UK should become a Communist one-party state given China has higher absolute GDP than the
UK:

- 136 -


This is simply another example of the desperation in Better Togethers arguments, taking certain figures and
making an argument from them that is completely nonsensical.

Theres more, as they say. As reported in this article, Tory MSP John Scott repeated the blatant lie Gordon
Brown made (see The Courier "Brown raises organ transplants fear ", Fife News Online "Gordon Brown
Accused of Scaremongering Over Organ Transplant Comments ", here Gordon Brown targets chronically ill
in latest attack on independence and here Brown repeats false indyref claims over transplants and
transfusions") that becoming independent will lose access to hospitals in England, including Great Ormond
Street. As explained in the last document, and clearly refuted by Great Ormond Street themselves, the
Scottish NHS and English NHS currently exist independently within the UK and there are cross-border
arrangements in place that are expected to continue, just as there are arrangements with the Republic of
Ireland. And just to repeat what Great Ormond Street Hospital stated regarding this lie made previously by
Vote No Borders:


And a response from the NHS Blood and Transfusion Donor Line, which can be found here:

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your recent telephone call to the NHSBT Donor Line.

I can confirm that Scottish independence will not affect organ donation and the system will continue as
it does currently.

I hope this answers your query, please let me know if you require any further information and I will be
happy to help.

Kind regards,

Tom Kempster
ODR Assistant

NHS Blood and Transplant
Organ Donation and Transplantation Directorate
Fox Den Road
Stoke Gifford
Bristol
BS34 8RR


- 137 -

Funnily enough, as reported here,
this unequivocal and unambiguous
answer wasnt published by the
media to allay fears any readers may
have had over Gordon Browns
comments. But at least someone (a
consultant radiologist) tried to do
the papers jobs for them:




Has Gordon brown been economical with the truth elsewhere? Well, as reported here, according to Gordon
Brown apparently oil revenues will be the sole source of money for an independent Scotland. No taxes at all.
Apparently theyre only 3 billion a year, even though theyve in fact NEVER been as low as 3bn since the
Scottish Parliament existed and most sensible projections put receipts for the next few years at an average of
at least twice that. Its heartbreaking that some Scots will decide the future of their childrens country on the
basis of such utterly shameless, brazen, cynical, tribal, self-serving dishonesty. We dont trust ourselves to
say any more on the subject than that.

- 138 -

Even Danny Alexander is
shocked by how low Gordon
Brown and other Better
Together figures have been
scaring Scottish voters over the
NHS. And if a fellow unionist
who is in collation with the
Tories thinks its bad then it
must be bad!




Perhaps Gordon Brown is simply making the Better Together campaign look ridiculous because hes a secret
supporter of independence? Ok, that might be stretching it a bit far but this review of his recent book in The
Courier does indeed suggest his book lays a case for independence. For example:
there is also a sense of hurt in the book, which perhaps, so it seems reflects the
condescending treatment that some Scots are subjected to by the English. Mr Brown mentions
that Jeremy Clarkson called him a one-eyed Scottish idiot and he recalls that a Sun columnist
referred to Scottish people as anti-entrepreneurial, on the make and spendthrift.

But, as Mr Brown shows, some of the most entrepreneurial individuals in the world have been
Scots, to wit, John Logie Baird (the inventor of television), Alexander Fleming (who discovered
penicillin) and Robert Watson Watt (who developed radar). Given these attitudes from the
English elite, one could not blame voters if they decide to vote for independence. Why stay
together if all you get is condescension and abuse? [...]

It has been a persuasive case for Yes Scotland that independence would bring the country
closer to the Scandinavian welfare states. It is Mr Browns contention that inequality could be
higher than in England if Scotland were to go independent. Granted, attacking Yes Scotland
from the left at a time when an estimated two out of five Labour voters would vote for
independence makes political sense.

But his argument while sophisticated is not convincing. For example, he argues that
allocating money to free university education (which benefits the middle classes) means that
less money will be spent on those in real need. This sounds reasonable in theory. But the
evidence from the Scandinavian states, which many in the Yes camp want to emulate, shows
that it is possible to ensure both redistribution and free tuition fees at the same time. Indeed,
the provision for free tuition provides the middle classes with an incentive to support the
welfare state, as Scottish academics Michael Keating and Malcolm Harvey have shown in Small
Nations in a Big World.

Moreover, Mr Brown does not adequately explain why Scots would enjoy more equality if
they are ruled from Westminster by a Conservative government. Would a Tory
administration at Westminster be more committed to social equality than a Labour
government in a future independent Scotland?

- 139 -



But this spreading of lies isnt limited to the highest levels of Better Together. Even Harry Doyle, teenage
Labour activist from Liverpool likes to spread the lies (see here for full article):



Why should we be concerned about a Labour activist in Liverpool? Well, it turns out he was bussed up to
Scotland by the No campaign to canvass for Better Together. So you can imagine what it was he was saying
on folk's doorsteps.

NHS Lies
Then there was a poll that Better Together claimed showed
93% of leading doctors are voting No (also on the Better
Together website here).

However, as this article here found, Better Together polled
106 Scotland-dwelling fellows of the London-based
Academy of Medical Sciences. Of the 76 respondents, 73
indicated their preference as remaining in the UK. So thats
the 93% figure dealt with. Who are the Academy of Medical
Sciences? Their about us page states:

Our elected Fellows are drawn from the
fundamental biological sciences, clinical academic
medicine, public and population health, health
technology implementation, veterinary science,
dentistry, medical and nursing care and other
professions allied to medical science as well as the
essential underpinning disciplines including
mathematics, chemistry, physics, engineering, ethics,

- 140 -

social science and the law.

This is not an NHS-affiliated organisation and its membership is evidently drawn from such a wide range of
disciplines, many of which not directly related to clinical medicine, that calling their respondents top
doctors is arguably very misleading.

Who funds the Academy? Well, their site states they do receive funding from the Department of Health, but
their donors list is essentially a directory of huge multinational drug and medical technology firms. What are
their aims? Heres one of the sections:

We seek to capitalise on our independence and ability to connect stakeholders from across the
life sciences sector to [Facilitate] strong and equitable partnerships between academia,
industry and the NHS along with promoting effective engagement with regulators and policy
makers

So, there you have it. Better Together have presented the above figure as a majority of leading doctors
planning to vote No. What we actually find is that the leading doctors are actually Fellows of a London-
based organisation, primarily concerned with academia and not directly affiliated with the NHS, funded in
part by donations by big pharma and openly stating their aims include influencing policy decisions. And the
last thing to note is the comically-inadequate sample size of just 76 people.


And while it is obvious to most people that the NHS organisations in the UK are slowly being privatised, and
that many working in the NHS in Scotland are very concerned about what future the Scottish NHS would
have within the UK, Better Together have had the audacity to claim that Nationalists 'scaremonger' a No
vote ends Scottish NHS Alistair Carmichael, the Scottish Secretary, attacks the Yes Scotland campaign over
claims that rejecting independence would "threaten the very existence of the NHS in Scotland as we know
it." (see the Telegraph) Well, if theres one thing we know about Alistair Carmichael, its that he always says
the funniest things.

But seriously? Are the SNP only scaremongering about NHS privatisation? Well, to be fair, the Yes campaign
arent the only ones scaremongering (warning actually) about NHS privatisation - UNISON are doing the
same (see here):

- 141 -


Even Andy Burnham, Labours health spokesperson, said in his 2013 conference speech that in England they
were witnessing:
The first steps towards an American healthcare system. English hospitals now asking for credit
cards before they give care. see Labour Press

Burnham is also credited with the following (see here):
The NHS cant carry on like this. It is heading for the rocks.- Andy Burnham, Labour shadow
health secretary, July 2014.

Four years ago this month, Andrew Lansley published his Liberating the NHS White Paper. I
can remember the shock I felt when I turned through its pages.
Just weeks before, I had spoken alongside Lansley at many hustings events and heard him
promise no top-down re-organisation. And then this the biggest bombshell ever to land on
the NHS.
He had clearly been drawing up these plans in Opposition, with the help of the private health
care company which funded his office, but chose not to tell the voters.
When they hit the light of day, the problem wasnt just the danger of a distracting
reorganisation when the NHS should have been focusing on the financial challenge and all the
inherent risks to patient care.
What was more breathtaking was the sheer audacity of the plan to treat the NHS as another
utility to be broken up and privatised.- Andy Burnham, Labour shadow health secretary, July
2014.

In a barnstorming speech, greeted by whoops and cheers, to party delegates at Labours
annual conference, Andy Burnham said that the Tory-led coalitions health reforms had placed
the NHS on a fast-track to fragmentation and privatisation and that the legislation had to go.
Internally there has been a debate within the party about whether these populist measures
could be easily implemented.
Critics point out that Tory and Liberal Democrat peers will control the Lords and would almost
certainly block attempts to roll back dramatically a key coalition policy especially if Labour
ended up seeking Nick Cleggs support to run the country. - The Guardian, September 2013.

David Camerons biggest mistake by far is his decision to break the Coalition Agreement
promise of no top-down re-organisation of the NHS. He is the prime minister who put the NHS
up for sale without first seeking the permission of the British public.
David Camerons re-organisation has left the NHS, in the words of its former chief executive,
bogged down in a morass of competition law. If we leave things as they are, the NHS as we
have known it for 66 years will not survive. - Andy Burnham, Labour shadow health secretary,
June 2014.

Camerons reorganisation is giving private firms the green light to cherry-pick services.
This arrogant PM needs to be reminded he has never been given the publics permission to put
their NHS up for sale.
If he is not stopped, the NHS will be broken up.
Thats why the choice on the NHS at next years election is as stark as ever: a public service
under Labour or a privatised utility under the Tories. - Andy Burnham, Labour shadow health
secretary, February 2014.

Get ready for the next scandal NHS hospitals, pushed by Mr Cameron to earn half their
income from private patients, charging for beds left empty by these new restrictions.
Think about that NHS hospitals, built with public money, charging people for treatments that
used to be free and (are) still free to people living elsewhere. NHS staff turned over to priority
care of those who can pay or are in such pain they have to dig deep.
- 142 -

Suffer or pay the same old choice in a two-tier Tory NHS. Weve got to wake people up to
what is happening now. These are the first steps towards an American healthcare system,
(with) English hospitals now asking for credit cards before they give care. - Andy Burnham,
Labour shadow health secretary, September 2013.

US health-care companies will be able to say to an NHS clinical commissioning group: We
have a legal right to bid for that service. Dragging the NHS down that path will destroy it, it
will devour whats precious about the NHS.
All the legal advice I am getting says, while we will just about be able to pull it back at the 2015
election, after that, it will be gone. Thats the choice voters face.
We were warning [about privatisation] when the Bill was going through. People might have
said we were scaremongering. But here we are: the Competition Commission is intervening, for
the first time, in the NHS, to block the sensible collaboration between two NHS hospitals. They
can no longer deny it, its absolutely clear. - Andy Burnham, Labour shadow health secretary,
August 2014.

Be warned Camerons Great NHS Carve-Up is coming to your community. A forced
privatisation, ordered from the top, and a secret privatisation details hidden under
commercial confidentiality but exposed today. - Andy Burnham, Labour shadow health
secretary, October 2012.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg have both failed to respond to repeated requests to call for an
exemption for the NHS from the emerging EU-US trade Treaty. Presumably this is because, as it
stands, it supports the governments policy of opening up the health service to greater
privatisation. In fact, it could make it unstoppable. - Andy Burnham, Labour shadow health
secretary, April 2014.

Clive Efford, Labour MP for Eltham, June 2014 claimed
I am introducing this Bill because we need to save the NHS. When out and about meeting my
constituents time and again they tell me how worried they are about the privatisation of our
NHS.
And of course my constituents are right to be worried because our NHS the service which is
there for us from when we enter the world to when we come to leave it is being shamelessly
dismantled before our eyes.

Meanwhile Ed Miliband claimed in the Labour Press:
And [Cameron] promised there would be no more top down reorganisations. But he spent
billions of pounds on a top-down reorganisation that nobody wanted and nobody voted for
which has put the principles of markets and competition at the heart of the NHS like never
before: A boost for the private companies and competition lawyers; a burden for everyone
else.

Competition, fragmentation, and privatisation - thats how the Tories see the future of our
NHS and thats why it is going backwards. David Cameron has broken his bond of trust with the
British people on the NHS. He has proved the oldest truth in British politics: you cant trust the
Tories with the NHS.

And this English-based Facebook page campaigning against NHS privatisation 999 Call For The NHS


Defence Lies
Better Together continue to peddle the lie that 11,000 jobs in Faslane and Coulport would be at risk from
independence as the Scottish Government is committed to removing Trident (see here). However, as
mentioned in the previous document and Scottish government White Paper, Faslane and Coulport would
become the headquarters of the Scottish Defence Force which is likely to result in an increase in numbers at
- 143 -

the bases, not a decrease, and also populated by staff who are more likely to live in the local area than at
present. And in fact, as far back as 2012 only 520 jobs were deemed to be directly dependent on Trident and
of those 159 are employed by the MoD and 361 by contractors Babcock Marine and Lockheed Martin. The
remaining jobs cited by the No campaign are based on the military and security personnel present on the
base for standard duties, but even here its estimated that 85% of base personnel do not live locally but
travel south when not on duty, thereby contributing little to the local economy (see here).


Better Together Information Booklets
This article here Better Together vs the truth discusses one of the Better Together booklets sent to
households throughout Scotland:
Yet, for some reason, the authors of the booklet - Better Together - decided to swamp sensible
arguments such as these under a welter of misinformation. For instance, its true that goods in
Ireland are more expensive than they are in Britain. But Irelands per capita GDP is 16 per cent
higher than the UKs ($45,921 compared to $38,920) and the Irish minimum wage is ten per
cent higher than the British (7 per hour compared to 6.31 per hour). It is also true that 65 per
cent of all Scottish exports go to the rest of the UK. But so what? Some 70 per cent of Canadas
exports go to the US, yet Canadians seem to be handling their independence relatively well.

The further into the booklet I went, the more spurious the assertions became. Page eight
stated: This year we saw a collapse in the money coming from the North Sea. Had we been
independent, this would have taken 4.4bn from our budget. This is equivalent to what we
spend on schools in Scotland. But fluctuating oil revenues are not news. Oil revenues have
always fluctuated. The point is that annual variations in North Sea tax returns tend to even out
over a five or ten year stretch, as high revenues one year compensate for low revenues the
next.

One of the key figures behind the Better Together campaign opposed the creation of a Scottish
based news programme that would have brought jobs and skills to Scotland, because it had the
support of the Scottish Government, a Freedom of Information request has revealed. Blair
McDougall, who is the Campaign Director of the cross-party pro-Union alliance, was a senior
Labour Party Advisor when he called for a Scottish Six evening news programme to be blocked
by party officials, labelling existing BBC Scotland programmes "parochial". see here

Another laughable claim from Better Together, this time regarding their:
plans to turn majority support into a majority vote by contacting every household at least
three times over the next month and every undecided voter at least four times. Up to a million
postal voters will be contacted and more than 25,000 activists will be working to mobilise
support for No ahead of polling day. The campaign will also be using advertising on websites
such as Facebook to reach 500,000 undecided women. (see The Telegraph).

As this article here points out:
Firstly, ARE there 500,000 undecided women? Most polls are putting the undecided figure at
around 10-15% now, which would mean that of a 4m-strong electorate thered be a MAXIMUM
of 600,000 undecideds altogether, assuming a 100% turnout. At least 83% of undecideds being
women seems a bit of a stretch.

We havent even the heart to mock the 25,000 activists line again.

So that leaves us with contacting every household in Scotland at least three times between
now and the referendum, which by our sums is 28 campaigning days away. Lets crunch some
numbers on that, shall we?

- 144 -

There are 2,372,780 households in Scotland, according to the last census in 2011. The number
is increasing so its probably more now lets up it just a tiny bit to 2.4m to keep the figures
neat.

For at least three times, lets just say exactly three times, which gives us 7.2 million individual
contacts. By far the quickest and most efficient way to contact people is by telephone, so for
the sake of calculations lets say all the contacts will be phone ones.

A mindbogglingly generous estimate of the highest number of phonebank operators Better
Together could deploy at any one time would be 1,000. (In fact wed be amazed if they could
get a thousand people out at a time on ANYTHING, on the streets or on phones or both. The
most theyve ever been able to verifiably muster is a couple of hundred, with half of those being
shipped in from Manchester or Newcastle.)

Which means each operator would have to make at least 7,200 phonecalls in 28 days. Thats
just over 257 calls per person per day. In reality its far more, as lots of people will be out or
engaged and youll have to try them more than once, but some will also be committed No
voters who wont take up much time, so lets allow an average of a tight three minutes per
voter.

That means every phonebank operator would have to work 13 hours a day, not including lunch
or toilet breaks, seven days a week from now until September 18.

Except that most people arent in for 13 hours a day they have to go to work, or college, or
shopping, or whatever so thats a waste of time. Realistically your window for catching most
people at home, assuming you dont want to harass them at 11 oclock at night, is more like
three hours say 7pm to 10pm.

257 calls a day in three hours takes the time per call down to 42 seconds, including dialling and
ringing time perhaps 30 seconds max of actual conversation. Thats barely enough time to
introduce yourself and either find out the person is already a No voter or be told to go and take
a running jump, let alone change a Dont Knows mind with compelling arguments about
invasion from North Korea and whatnot.

But wait as we see from the image above, BTs phonebanks are only actually operating
Mondays to Thursdays. So those 42 seconds plummet to 24, leaving the conversation time,
optimistically, at 12 seconds per call.

Lies About Receiving the BBC
And of course the old chestnut about not being able to receive the BBC reared its timid head again going by
its output during the referendum campaign, many would argue thats no bad thing. Besides, its not that
simple to block the BBC yes the transmitters may stop broadcasting it but its unlikely Virgin or Sky will stop
broadcasting it, given Sky and Virgins equivalent in Ireland show all BBC channels (and all UK commercial
channels too). Of course either require a subscription but the one broadcasting medium the BBC cannot stop
without affecting the rest of the UK is Freesat the footprint of the satellite used by Freesat covers both
Scotland and England and cannot be adjusted to remove England (or the Republic of Ireland for that matter,
which can pick up the BBC on Freesat for free). So all you need is a Freesat dish and decoder should the BBC
stop broadcasting from ground transmitters in an independent Scotland. Surely thats a very small price to
pay to rid Scotland of any more unelected Tory governments?

But what about the BBC iPlayer I hear you say? You didnt say that? Well, Scottish Conservatives leader Ruth
Davidson certainly did (as reported here), claiming that Scotland wouldnt be able to access it. However, as a
politician, technology is just a black box to her and she failed to understand that the BBC CANNOT block
Scotland from using the iPlayer. While the BBC can block other countries using IP geolocation i.e. if the public
IP address you use to access the iPlayer is listed as being outside the UK then the BBC can indeed block it.
- 145 -


However, the public IP address that you use actually belongs to the internet service provider you use, all of
which are UK-wide (e.g. BT, Virgin, Sky, TalkTalk, etc). The public IP address i.e. the ISPs connection to the
internet is currently in England and so anyone in Scotland accessing the iPlayer currently appears to be
coming from England. And given there is currently no legal requirement to change this current situation i.e.
to have all Scottish homes access the internet from a Scottish break-out IP address, its very unlikely any of
the ISPs will undertake the significant cost of redesigning their network just to placate the BBC (who havent
yet asked for it to be done anyway).

And as the article states Were sure that an independent Scottish Government would come to a reasonable
and sensible arrangement with the BBC to purchase its services legally. Scots want access to the
Corporations programming and the BBC desperately needs money, so neither side has any interest in any
other outcome. Perhaps with even more authority (though given who said it Im not sure about that) BBC
could be shared with independent Scotland, says Treasury secretary. Danny Alexander concedes Scotland
could continue using the BBC and national lottery even if it votes for independence see the Guardian

Jim Murphy and his Soapbox Campaign
Meanwhile, Jim Murphy, the Labour MP travelling around 100 towns in Scotland preaching from a soapbox
(or Irn Bru crate) how great the union is to the masses:



However, he has become embroiled in another controversy as he is "named among 27 MPs in new expenses
row" - see the Herald.
"MPs were embroiled in a new expenses row today after it emerged that 27 are letting out
London homes at the same time as claiming public money to rent in the city. Shadow ministers
Jim Murphy, MP for East Renfrewshire, Andy Burnham, and Chris Bryant; Communities Minister
Don Foster; and former defence secretary Liam Fox are among those listed as raking in income
from properties while receiving up to 20,000 a year in expenses."

And talking of Jim and his soapbox, he recently received some heavy heckling from a crowd in Motherwell.
There are videos circulating regarding the heckling (harsh language involved which might have seemed
unnecessary although what Jim had said before to someone who asked him a question hadnt been captured
so the abuse he gave the crowd wasnt recorded). However, as this article here points out (Jim Murphys
Hecklers Reveal True Danger for Labour), its the heckling itself in a very Labour town thats most
interesting:
Weve all heard the saying that you could put a red rosette on a donkey in Scotland and they
would still be elected in Scotland. Scotland has a long tradition of voting for Labour but this is
now in serious doubt.

In 2007, the SNP won the Holyrood elections and ran a minority Government. Labour assumed
that the SNP would be a one-term Government with traditional Labour party voters reverting
back to Labour in 2011. This condescending and patronising assumption that Labour needs to
- 146 -

do very little to gain Scottish votes came back to haunt Labour in 2011. Yet despite Labours
unsuccessful election campaign in 2011, where the electorate reiterated their displeasure of
Labour, Labour still didnt listen. Instead of looking inwards and seeing how they could improve
their relationship with the electorate they stomped their feet like a petulant child and blamed
all their partys ills on the Nats.

Which brings us to Jim Murphy and his hecklers. The people who heckled Jim Murphy werent,
as NO campaigners claim, a YESNP rent-a-mob. They were ordinary Scots who are sick to the
back teeth with the Labour party. If this was a Tory MP who was on their soapbox in a Scottish
town then, Id imagine, they would have received the same reaction as Jim Murphy. This should
seriously worry the Labour party.

The manner of Labours campaign against independence has, to use a guid Scottish phrase,
stuck in the craw of many traditional Labour party voters in Scotland. Labour appears to think
that the electorate in Scotland are either dumb or completely ignorant. For example, the Welsh
Labour Health Minister, Mark Drakeford, claimed that Westminster budget cuts would impact
on the health service in Wales. He said: We have a Westminster Government that believes in
shrinking the state, which believes in doing less through the public realm, and passes less
money down to us in order to be able to do it.

And yet we have Gordon Brown claiming the opposite. I genuinely wonder if Mr Brown thinks
that we are a bit stupid and that we cant use the internet.

My question is this: Are Welsh Labour politicians lying to Welsh voters or are Scottish Labour
politicians lying to Scottish voters or is it just that Labour are so used to lying that they dont
give a sh*t anymore?

The problems with Labour run deeper than individual politicians. Their problems run deep
within their psyche. They see the Scottish Independence Referendum as a war that they have
to win completely ignorant or unaware of the fact that they have now declared war on vast
swathes of the Scottish population. They have declared war on many traditional Labour party
voters and their families. Are they unaware that this war against Scottish voters is effectively
signing their electoral death warrant?


My family are what you would describe as a traditional labour party family yet every single
one of my family will vote YES next month. At an independence public meeting last month, my
brother whispered in my ear, while a speaker was speaking about Labour, and told me that he
would never vote for Labour again and that he had a visceral hatred of what the Labour
party now stand for.

You name a major Labour politician that has intervened in the Scottish Independence debate
and you will see that their intervention was based on lies, mistruths and scaremongering*.
People are sick of Labour politicians talking down Scotland. We are sick of Labour politicians
lying to us. But the straw that breaks the camels back is the fact that Labour are excusing and
ignoring the sheer nastiness of the campaign colleagues, the Tories.

It difficult to comprehend Labours opposition against the Tories at Westminster when they
preach to Scots that the injustices that they oppose at Westminster are suddenly now evidence
of Scotland getting the best of both worlds by being in the union.

I will never forget the day that ordinary Scots were protesting in Stirling against the Tories
welfare reforms. On the same day that we were protesting against the Tories, we had the sight
of Alistair Darling receiving a standing ovation from the same Tories that we were protesting
against.
- 147 -


On the same day that we were protesting against the Tories, we had the sight of Alistair
Darling receiving a standing ovation from the same Tories that we were protesting against.
On the same day that ordinary folk in Scotland were protesting against the Tories, we had
the sight of Alistair Darling receiving a standing ovation from the same Tories that we were
protesting against.

Lets be frank, there is no need whatsoever for Labour to unite with the Tories under the banner
of BetterTogether. Labour have refused to work with UKIP against independence. They have
distanced themselves from fellow pro-UK supporters in the Orange Order. These were the
correct decisions for Labour to make and it does show that they do have to power to distance
themselves from certain elements of the Pro-UK campaign. Yet Labour are more than happy to
campaign with the Tories a party which has reaped devastation in Scotland over the last 35
years.

This union with the Tories is self-defeating for the Labour party. Labour have positioned
themselves into a no-win situation regardless of the result of the Independence referendum. A
NO vote will be taken as an endorsement of Labours current strategy and Scotland just wont
accept this. It would come as no surprise if Labours vote in Scotland collapses in the 2015
General Election.

If Scotland votes YES then Labour will be blamed for losing Scotland. You can be sure that the
Tories and Liberals will repeat this claim until it becomes an indelible stain on the character of
the Labour party. To compound this, they will have to face an electorate in 2015 that they
have been at war with.

I think that, when history is written, then this period will be known as the era that Labour, as
we know them, are no longer relevant in Scotland. A shadow of the party that grew from the
Trade Union movement. If this is indeed the case, then Scotland will need another party to
represent the wants and needs of ordinary folk in Scotland that will replace the UK Labour
party.



Of course, Jim Murphys campaign has now descended into farce with an egg being thrown at him. This
serious assault resulted in him calling off his campaign for a few days, no doubt to recover. The
mainstream media wont crazy with this assault, claiming that it was thrown by a Yes supporter despite
absolutely no evidence to back up this claim (see here). In fact, there have been some suggestions that it was
organised by Jim himself to boost his seriously flagging soap box lectures and to try and tar the Yes
campaign. Its notable that while the media were having a feeding frenzy over this incident, they were very
quiet about another incident where a unionist campaigner booted a homeless woman in the stomach when
- 148 -

she complained about his inflammatory speech (he was a member of the fascist Britannica party and was on
Argyle St in Glasgow when he assaulted her). See this very brief BBC News article and video here.

Other Incidents
As this article here shows, Kezia Douglas, Labour Shadow Education Secretary, is caught lying outright when
she claimed that pre-negotiations were precluded from the Edinburgh agreement (the referendum bill). This
is simply not true and absolutely nothing is mentioned in the Edinburgh agreement that prevents pre-
negotiations.

One of the most amusing comments regarding this has came from that political genius and giant Anas
Sarwar:
We have a majority SNP Government in the Scottish Parliament, but that is not a democratic place in
the conventional sense; it is a dictatorship of one man sitting in Bute house, who will do not what is in
Scotlands interests, but what is in his own or his partys interests."
I think Anas needs to go back to school and learn what democracy means I guess his memory is so poor he
doesnt remember what its like to live in a democracy where one party wins absolute control of a
parliament. I mean 2010 is a long time ago.

Meanwhile Willie Rennie was unable to explain how international lending rates can cause mortgage interest
rates to rise and fall. Well, no-one can blame him for failing to do so given both are completely unconnected.
As this article here explains (and has an interview of Rennie struggling badly on this question) theres
absolutely no inherent connection between the cost of government borrowing and that paid by individuals
for domestic loans like mortgages the rate the government pays for money doesnt affect whether you can
afford the repayments on your mortgage or your new car or not, so why would your interest rate change?

For an amusing and tongue-in-cheek report of a Better Together public meeting that highlights the lies and
contradictory statements made by BT, click here.

While not exactly lying, BT have came in for a huge amount of criticism over their advert featuring a
housewife at the breakfast table. This article here sums up nicely (as do many others) how patronising this
advert is to women:
"It shows a woman in her kitchen (because thats where we belong, obviously) bemoaning her
husband boring on about the referendum. Because, you know, politics is boring. You should find
it boring, because youre a woman. Politics is for the menz. Women dont pay any attention to
politics after all do we? She cant even remember the name of our First Minister, you know the
one the country elected with a majority, hes just that guy aff the telly. That politics, its all so
very far above our engagingly fluff-and-kitten-filled heads. Wed never bother to do our own
digging about whether the oil is a bit too good to be true, because we have female intuition
and snap judgements you see, and theyre much better than talking to knowledgable people
and making up your mind based on hard well-researched fact. Besides, were too busy in our
kitchens. And our teenagers are only interested in their phones. Eat your cereal.".

To be fair though, it can only have given the Yes campaign a boost and certainly a few laughs with a
new meme "PatronisingBTLady"

And now their latest campaign is claiming that unionists love their family, love their kids and love
Scotland, seeming to imply that anyone supporting independence for Scotland hates their family, kids and
even hates Scotland (see here and here)

- 149 -



Or perhaps the truth should be advertised instead:



And let's not forget the bedfellows that Alasdair, Gordon, etc have chosen - the Conservative party. At a
speech in Glasgow the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, announced that voting to give the
Scottish people the opportunity to protect their public services, benefit from their natural resources and
avoid being dragged into illegal military conflicts, would mean selling young Scots short. Davidson also
comments on the importance of giving future generations the life chances they deserve and goes on to
note that:
Its our responsibility to make sure they [young Scots] get the best possible chance of achieving their
full potential.
Odd, then, that she supports a political system which has left one in every five Scottish children living in
poverty, and represents a party whose welfare reforms are predicted to double that figure before the end of
the decade.

Other delightful bedfellows include such senior Tories like Lord Ian Lang, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Lord
Michael Forsyth, all former Scottish secretaries, all Thatcherites and all hated by the people of Scotland
during their terms (as Im sure youll remember if youre the older side of 35) see BBC News


Censorship by Better Together
The Better Together Facebook pages and comments sections on other websites are very heavily censored,
not to remove offensive comments (a quick visit will confirm this for you) but to remove anything that was
posted in favour of independence. As this article writes, it ironic that Better Together then try to claim that
Scotland is under a dictatorship run by Alex Salmond and the SNP. Even more ironic given it is currently the
only party in the UK given a clear, unambiguous mandate and overwhelming majority (in a system Labour
deliberately designed to stop from happening) by the electorate of Scotland, while all other ruling parties
have had to resort to coalitions because they failed to secure an overall majority in an electoral system that
provides massive majorities will less than 40% of the vote.
- 150 -




But why would Better Together prefer you
didnt know about one of their biggest
donators? Well, weve already met Ian
Taylor before but for those with a short
memory:



- 151 -






Grassroots Campaign
A running joke within independence supporters is calling the Better Together campaign an Astroturf
campaign as there is a lack of evidence of any noticeable grassroots campaign from them i.e. their grassroots
campaign is artificial. This view is certainly supported by the supposed grassroots campaign Vote No
Border which being funded by a Tory party donor is hardly grassroots.

Canvassers too have invariably been Labour, Tory or LibDem party members and in particular elected
representatives. However, this lack of grassroots campaigners recently took a disturbing turn when it was
revealed that not only were Better Together bussing up Labour party members from England, they were also
paying volunteers (who cant be volunteers if theyre paid) to canvass for them (see here and below)


- 152 -



And how about this Better Together page that was
positively encouraging tax evasion:


There also seems to be difficulties with finding ordinary mothers to support the Better Together campaign.
My last document mentioned the Clare Lally incident, that infamous ordinary mother who happens to
hob-nob with the upper echelons of the UK Labour party, North British branch:

- 153 -



Even the BBC had difficulty finding any ordinary mums after it resorted to interviewing her on BBC
Breakfast on the 18
th
August (far be it from me to suggest that the BBC and Better Together are in collusion
on matters like this).

Now Better Together have found
themselves in another controversy
with the finding that yet another
ordinary mother, Yvonne Hama,
who featured on the Better Together
website and a Better Together advert.
As reported here, here and BBC News,
it turns out that Yvonnes views of the
union included supporting the BNP
after she re-tweeted former BNP
leader Nick Griffin and compared the
SNP to Nazis (at least the latter is a
common slur amongst many unionists
including senior figures at Better
Together).


- 154 -

Here is Yvonne on the Better Together website:




And here she is with
someone rather famous
(or infamous) in
independence
referendum circles:

- 155 -




And then as reported here, after the furore erupted and Yvonne had been removed from the Better
Together website, it seems that someone neglected to remove her from the Better Together broadcast on
the BBC. But the real disappointment was that a simple check of Yvonnes Twitter feed before employing her
in their services would have shown to Better Together what kind of ordinary mother they were using in
their campaign.

But is any of this really surprising considering the
bedfellows Better Together share their unionist bed
with?




Then there is the elderly lady who
appeared in the Better Together campaign
as someone impartial, worried about her
pension. Strangely though, she appears to
bear a remarkable resemblance to
someone helping out Jim Murphy on his
Shout at Everyone 100 Streets Tour:




- 156 -


Furthermore, as this article reports (the extract is almost the full article and its a bit long because, well,
there are a LOT of ordinary people used by Better Together who have, in fact, vested interests):
The startling lack of grassroots support in the No campaign has been a recurring theme on this site.
Time and again, people presented as typical members of the public turn out to be dedicated political
activists with a vested interest in the status quo.The Better Together website has a long-running
series of blog posts under the banner Why Im saying No Thanks. All of the people featured in it are
introduced with no mention of any involvment in politics. Out of idle curiosity we thought wed see if
we could find out a little more about them.

This, for example, is ordinary
Meghan Gallacher, a
graduate from Holytown.















Or as she was described in
the Daily Record a couple of
months ago, a dedicated
member of the Conservative
Party with a Boris Johnson
fetish who wants to be the
next Tory female Prime
Minister something shes
rather less likely to achieve
as a Scot if Scotland is no
longer part of the UK.



- 157 -

Heres ordinary Greg Black
from Edinburgh.


A Labour activist and PR
man previously seen working
for former First Minister Jack
McConnell and then for
Labour MSP Kezia Dugdale
in the Scottish Parliament.


- 158 -



Then theres ordinary
student Marian Craig from
Paisley.


Caught in a casual moment
when shes not working as a
research assistant to Labour
MSP Mary Fee, shadow
housing minister.



- 159 -

Who could be more ordinary
than unemployed graduate
Alan Grant from Stirling?


After all, which of us HASNT
spent a few years as a
spokesman for the
University of Stirling
Conservative Society, trying
to preserve every aspect of
the UKs political status quo?
(Basically he just hates
anything with Yes in it.)



Next up is ordinary full-time
mum Leanne Williams from
Galston.


- 160 -

Seen here relaxing at home
from a busy spare-time
schedule of campaigning for
and assisting Labour election
candidates across East
Ayrshire.



This is ordinary Barry Turner,
a retired planner from East
Lothian.


Something else hes retired
from is being a
Lib Dem councillor. He was
suspended for breaching the
Councillors Code Of Conduct
over a planning application
in 2011.



- 161 -

Theres nothing political
about ordinary Alison
Dowling from Clydebank.


Or we assume not, at least
since she failed in her bid to
be selected as the 2016
Labour candidate for the
Holyrood seat of Clydebank
& Milngavie back in March.


Still, shell get some
sympathy from ordinary
Greg Williams, oil worker
from Aberdeen.


- 162 -

As he actually managed to
secure a Labour candidacy in
2011, though he lost out to
the SNPs Maureen Watt in
the Aberdeen South and
North Kincardine seat.



Ordinary Edward Mountain,
a farmer from Moray, might
empathise too.


Given that he too failed to
win a seat in the 2011
election, having been
Tory candidate for
Caithness, Sutherland and
Ross as the chairman of the
Highland Conservatives.



- 163 -

Ordinary Conor McElwaine,
a student from Dundee, has
no such experiences.


Although given that hes the
Chair of Scottish Young
Labour, as well as the
President of Dundee Labour
Students, you wouldnt be all
that surprised if it was on his
to-do list.


- 164 -

In the future, Conor might
find himself sparring with
ordinary Kyle Thornton.


It doesnt seem too
implausible that their paths
could cross one day, given
that Kyle is Secretary of the
Glasgow University
Conservative Association.



- 165 -

But Conor would probably
get backup from ordinary
Lora Bedford in Edinburgh.


What with her being
secretary of Edinburgh
Labour Students and all.



And there might well also be
support from ordinary Allana
Hoggard.


- 166 -

who is the same bodys
vice-chairperson.



We could go on and on, folks. But we imagine youve grasped the gist of it by now.
There is, of course, nothing at all wrong with careerist politicians and ambitious party activists being
involved in the referendum campaign. But readers might be forgiven for wondering whether those
budding careers and ambitions ought not to be openly disclosed when people are posing as ordinary
members of the public concerned only with the wellbeing of their fellow Scots, rather than personal
and party advantage

And if you really want to see what the grassroots support say about the union and independence, take a
visit to this Vote no Borders comment page where many unionists give their arguments for voting No. The
reasons many of them are voting no might shock you. Sadly, this is a fair representation of most unionist
comments and feel free to confirm this by visiting any other pro-union Facebook page or website.


Foreigners and Borders
There have been many comments now from unionists in general and Better Together in particular that argue
that if Scots become independent it would immediately make foreigners of their English relatives - see here
and below:



- 167 -

Vote No Borders was also guilty of
stigmatising foreigners in their
campaign discussed in detail here (and
also discussed in my previous
document):




As this article here highlights:
theres nothing worse for a parent than your children seeing people as foreigners. Were sure
that Eds Belgian father and Polish mother would agree.

Marion Miliband (ne Kozak) was a Polish Jew who survived the Holocaust, which according to
the Labour leaders fellow registered No campaigner Alistair McConnachie never happened
(see The Guardian). She was also an Eastern European immigrant, who almost certainly
wouldnt have been allowed into Britain if Milibands other No-camp allies UKIP had any say in
it.

Youd think that if there was anyone in Labour who would be embarrassed to join in the
gruesome, pejorative language about foreigners that has so hideously disfigured Labours
anti-independence campaign, itd be Ed Miliband.

There is an inherent implication that being foreign is somehow derogatory and those
foreigners deserve your familial love less.

As Derek Bateman argues here in direct response to Tom Browns article:
Rules that are never applied to any other country be it New Zealand or Canada, strife-torn
Ukraine, tiny Malta or the wasteland of Gaza are nevertheless forced on Scotland to show that
self determination, far from invoking pride and self-esteem, is divisive and dangerous, breaks
up families and leads to bitterness.

Tom runs over the practical problems he thinks will accrue from a Yes vote but never once talks
of Scotland with pride as his country, doesnt find a scintilla of hope in the ambition to be
independent and expresses nothing positive of what a Scotland run by Scots for Scots might
achieve.

Simultaneously, he turns a blind eye to the horrors of Union being visited on our population
today. A Labour man who spent his life with a Labour paper finds no words in his analysis of the
rapid growth of measurable poverty, of welfare sanctions, of foodbanks, of income cuts for the
disabled, the harsh treatment of young war veterans, the fall in pensions fashioned by his hero
Gordon Brown, the spiralling national debt, Labours adherence to Tory spending plans and no
revulsion at his side working hand-in-glove with the people implementing those measures.

He quotes Brown: This a debate and a decision that affects children whom I love and people
whom I respect. Exactly. This is for our children so that 180,000 of them dont have to live in
- 168 -

poverty, suffer ill-health and diminished life chances, in homes free from alcohol abuse and
with the chance to transform social mobility and our economy through fee-free education.

And how more respectful could you be than to treat your friends and neighbours as equals and
work in partnership with them the normal relations between friendly independent states?

It made me recoil in horror at the picture he contrives at the very suggestion of our own little
Scotland running its own affairs but it shows you clearly how others dont have ambition for
Scotland, dont care enough to grant it independence, dont believe we could manage and have
tied themselves emotionally to the UK. This is a Britnat declaration the UK is their country and
Scotland comes a long way second. Toms article drips with implied contempt and reveals how
it isnt just Tories who have disdain for the Scots but it is very much alive in Labour circles too,
demonstrating that the party prefers right wing Tories quite likely working with UKIP in less
than a years time decimating our country, than Scottish-elected governments delivering
social justice.

Another unionist with an issue with foreigners appears to be Liberal Democrat MP for Campbeltown, Alan
Reid. As reported here, one of his constituents, Catherine Wilson is a French citizen, but has lived and
worked in Scotland for the last 20 years. Shes on the electoral register and can vote in local and Scottish
Parliament elections, but not UK Parliament ones. She wrote to her LibDem MP Alan Reid focussing on the
"foreigners" question that the unionst campaign is so keen on. Her letter was:

"Dear Mr Reid,

You are part of the Better Together campaign which keeps insisting that independence would
make our family and friends in the rest of the UK foreigners. Although that may be true in the
strict sense of the word, I cant for the life of me understand why that is a problem.

I am a French citizen, as are my children, but their dad is English, and lives in England. Does
that mean he is a foreigner to us? This has never been a consideration for us, and I would like
you to explain why it should be.

Could you also tell me if you, as my MP, consider me who has lived and worked in Scotland for
over 20 years, as a foreigner? Does that affect the way you are representing me?

These questions are of great importance to me, as for all the years I have lived in Scotland, this
has never been an issue, but lately, I have noticed that people were asking where I was from,
and in the context of the referendum, why I had a say.

Although this is strictly anecdotal, it does worry me that people are starting to think in this
way, and I cant help thinking this is linked to the rhetoric deployed by the Better Together
campaign.

Also of great concern to me, as a European citizen, is the question of Europe. Can you
guarantee me that in the event of a no vote, the UK will still be in the EU in 5 years time? And in
the event of a vote for leaving the EU, what would happen to me and my children who are here
on an EU passport?

Both my children were born in the UK, one in England and one in Scotland, they consider
Scotland their country, so what guarantees are there they wouldnt be made to leave if we
remained in the UK but were out of the EU?

Please do not reply by telling me that we would be out of the EU in an independent Scotland,
that is a separate issue and I already have the answers I need on that one.

- 169 -

Yours sincerely,
Catherine Wilson"

However, the response she received was:

Dear Catherine Wilson

The legal position is that, as a French citizen, you are a foreigner and so I am not your MP.

Nobody can give you a guarantee that the UK will be in the EU in five years time.

Without knowing more details about your childrens circumstances and any changes to the law
which may be made by a Parliament, which hasnt yet been elected, it is not possible to answer
your questions about their future.

Yours sincerely
Alan Reid MP

So, despite having lived in and contributed to Scotland for a number of years, Catherine has no political
representative apparently. And yet, as this article shows, there is nothing in UK law that backs up Alan Reid's
position that he does not need to represent this "foreigner".

There is also the immigration issue that Better Together continue to scare voters with. As this article points
out:
The No campaign will argue that if Scotland has a different immigration policy it would
require a border so England can prevent those arriving here from slipping over into England.
But this is patent nonsense. If Canadian provinces can manage differing immigration, its
inconceivable that two separate countries wouldnt manage.

Across the EU, countries manage to have differing immigration policies and no border controls.
Besides which, if someone from outside the EU secures a visa to work in Scotland in a skilled job
we need people to do, why would they want to slip over the border to be an illegal immigrant in
a hostile rUK?

So in playing the race and immigration card, the only people the No campaign appear to be
demanding we put barriers up against are those from the rest of the UK which puts them in a
place more extreme than any supposed nationalist party in Scotland.

Playing the race card in this way also makes a mockery of their smear campaign that the Yes
campaign has anything to do with ethnic nationalism. These claims never seem to die, with
John Major, JK Rowling and now even Stanley Baxter coming out with the old canard that were
all anti-English, just weeks after Darling agreed that the SNP was driven by blood and soil
nationalism.

(Although theyre the ones always going on about foreigners.)

Another article here points out the ludicrousness of the rUK erecting border posts after Scotland becomes
independent:
The notion has always been cobblers, for all sorts of reasons including the ludicrous cost such
an undertaking would entail [..], but if you think about it theres an even more obvious one.

Because there are essentially two kinds of immigrants legal ones and illegal ones. Anyone
whos a legal immigrant will by definition then become a citizen of Scotland, and as such
entitled to live and work anywhere in the EU. There would be absolutely nothing the rUK could
- 170 -

do to prevent such a person moving to the rUK, and therefore no point in putting up border
controls to try to stop them.

And then there are illegal immigrants. Nobody has proposed letting illegal immigrants come to
Scotland, and therefore Scotland will be as keen to keep them out as anyone. Scotland will
remain surrounded on three sides by the sea, so the number of illegal immigrants gaining
access in the first place will presumably remain extremely small.

A second Hadrians Wall erected across the border by the rUK, then, would and could achieve
absolutely nothing. Even if Scotland had taken in 10 million immigrants, theyd be legal EU
citizens and perfectly entitled to move to the rUK if they wanted, so no amount of barbed wire
and gun towers could stop them.

And since illegal ones by definition dont obey the law, an independent Scotlands immigration
policy would be completely irrelevant. (Also, if youre an illegal immigrant, the last thing in the
world you want to do is draw attention to yourself by moving. Every dealing you have with a
government authority is another chance to be uncovered.)

While this article writes:
Now Ed Miliband is saying that the UK, or more precisely the England-Wales-Northern Ireland
component of the former UK, will maintain its opt out on Schengen while erecting border
controls with its neighbour to the north. Because well have become foreigners, and foreigners
are bad. Foreigners attract other foreigners, and the newly foreign Scottish foreigners will let
loads of other foreigners in who will immediately want to go south of the border because they
dont like Scottish foreigners either. At least I think thats the logic. Its hard to tell with
Westminster PE teachers. Theyre not really renowned for joined up thinking.

Because it certainly cant be because Scotland might adopt an immigration policy that was
different from the one Ed wants. The Republic of Ireland already does that, they have their own
immigration policy which does not require prior approval from the UK Home Office. Oddly
theres no passport controls between the UK and Ireland, what with them being a part of a
Common Travel Area. And it cant be the foreigner thing either in Irelands case, what with the
1949 Ireland Act passed by Westminster deeming that Irish citizens are not foreigners, and the
Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country, for the purposes of UK laws.

So that only leaves were just spiteful gimps in suits as the reason for the Scottish border
controls, which doesnt sound like an attractive reason for voting No in September. Expensive
things border controls, all just for the sake of an infantile strop. And all the cost on their side
like Scotland needs to bother protecting the border when theyre doing such a sterling job of it.
But sterling is something else the border will be porous to as well.

The threat has no substance. Its a wee fantasy the Eds want to scare us with. They want us to
take off our trousers and run at their command. But lets indulge the Eds in their little power
trip fantasy. What happens next? The northern neighbour will, upon being cut off from the rest
of the UK and Ireland by red tape passport controls and a fit of Westminster pique, go ach fuck
it, lets join Schengen and then we can go to Benidorm without a passport, thus removing
from the rUK the sole reason it got an opt out from Schengen in the first place, because all of a
sudden theyve got a land border with a Schengen member after all. One they could so easily
have avoided creating. And Ed proposes to create this 100 mile long rod for his own back at the
same time that Westminster wants to renegotiate the UKs EU obligations and opt outs with
Brussels. Meanwhile the other EU countries are going Oh look weve got shiny new ways to
put pressures on Westminster that we couldnt use before. Way to go to strengthening your
negotiating position with Angela and Franois, Ed.

- 171 -

And when its not those in England becoming foreign, its Scotland becoming a foreign country, again as if
thats a terrible thing. As this article here writes:
With a Yes vote there are suddenly two sovereign bodies in the UK. The Westminster
Parliament and the people of Scotland. We will have taken back the power of decision making.
The power of control. The power of self-determination. Westminster tells us that means wed
become foreign. Oh right so like an equal sovereign state that Westminster has to treat
with mutual respect?



VAT
Better Together recently posted this on their
Facebook page.

However, to say this is misleading is an
understatement since according to the VATLIVE, the
EU VAT Directive specifically states that the company
may be able to recover the VAT (Nil VAT). For
example: medical supplies, childrens clothing,
education, food, books.

Besides, this is kind of insulting given the Tories have
already discussed placing 15% VAT on food and
childrens clothing according to this Daily Mirror
article Now Tories want to slap VAT on food and
childrens clothes and RAISE tax on energy bills




Yes Campaign Vs No Campaign
Im sure by now the difference between the 2 campaigns will be obvious the Yes campaign is a true grass
roots campaign while the No campaign is a top-down centrally controlled campaign. Not only that the Yes
campaign is full of positive messages about empowering the people of Scotland and about the better future
Scotland could have when independent. Anything deemed negative has been a result of changes that are
happening in the UK right now (NHS privatisation, increasing poverty, etc) or is planned by the next
government, whether Labour or Tory.

This article in the Guardian gives 5 reasons Yes is winning

The No campaign on the other hand (nick-named Project Fear by themselves), is based entirely on
groundless scaremongering intended to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of No voters and undecideds. As
this article shows, it is relentlessly negative - there is no hope for remaining in Britain they argue, just that
- 172 -

itll apparently be less worse than independence without a single shred of evidence to support it. There still
is no positive case for the union the best they can come up with are empty phrases that cannot be
quantified or even explained logically such as Better Together, Best of Both Worlds, UKs broad
shoulders, etc.

"Best of Both Worlds"? Is the UK currently really the best of both worlds that could be expected by being in
the union? As this article here argues:
"the so called strength and security purportedly provided by the UK is being viewed as a virtue
by the No campaign then an explanation must be sought. The last 35 years of Westminster
governments, of whatever hue, have initiated, expanded, and accelerated a neoliberal
economic model of privatization, de-regulation and low-wages. Standards of living are falling,
the number of food banks has exploded, the poor are getting miserably poorer whilst obscene
levels of wealth are being redistributed upwards into the hands of a tiny elite at the top of
society. The union provides strength and security only for the wealthy [which is why they've
contributed so much to the Better Together/Vote No Borders campaigns] for those who have
the greatest to fear from an independent Scotland possibly braking with the existing economic
order of things rather than for the mass of people working for poverty pay. "



Meanwhile, the term UKs broad shoulders would appear to be a euphemism for subsidising since it
seems to suggest that if the going ever got tough for Scotland i.e. it ceased to be a net contributor to the
union, then the rest of the UK would begin to subsidise Scotland using the UKs broad shoulders. Now as
already explained in this and the last document, Scotland has not been subsidised by the rest of the UK for as
long as records have been kept, despite those figures not including revenue that should be attributed to
Scotland but isnt due to the way the revenue is raised (see above e.g. VAT and corporation tax from sales in
Scotland by English-registered companies, excise duty attributed to the port of export, usually England, for
Scottish products - see here for an excellent article on this). Does anyone really expect the UK to use its
broad shoulders to start subsidising Scotland when times become tough not just for Scotland but for the
UK as a whole?

On the one hand, Better Together plead that their hearts would be broken if Scotland left the union, and
even rope in many English actors, media types, etc to reinforce this message (all who are wealthy, all who
live in England, all who dont have to be concerned with poverty and foodbanks or even nuclear weapons in
their doorsteps and none of who have a vote in the referendum).

- 173 -

On the other hand, Scotland is scolded like a child or a submissive spouse that if it leaves the union it wont
get to keep the pound, rUK will erect border posts, it wont even get the BBC, and many more which have all
been shown to be nonsense.



Or as someone else described it We love you Scotland! Leave us and well beat you to a pulp.

As Derek Bateman wrote here:
the blocking of the currency union a major mistake engineered by Darling which laid bare
the true colonial-lite mentality of even the Labour Party and the supposedly federalist Lib
Dems. They behaved like masters as they do over for example shipyard contracts which must
now be built on the Clyde regardless and pretending not to buy our renewable energy
exposed this very week as tosh [see here]

Do as youre told or youll be punished just isnt the language of the caring friend, at least none
I want to know.

The author of this article doesnt hold back on his views of the Better Together campaign:
We are Better Together the Tory funded unionists preach at us from behind their
mainstream media towers, manned by their compliant and willing flunkies who pretend to be
real journalists and reporters. You have to be stretching your imagination a fair whack to
believe it to be an inspiring call to arms for anybody, but the most dim-witted or willfully
ignorant.

The arrogant but failing No Thanks demagogues in their glorious and infinite wisdom, decided
the best way to win the hearts and minds of the people of Scotland, was to bombard them with
the vilest, most deceitful and negative case against independence they could muster, rather
than evangelising what they claimed to be their holy grail, a positive case for the union.

But of course as we all know, there is more chance of your granny lighting a fire using
snowballs, than finding a pro union positive!

The visionless BritNat geniuses heading the fight against the people of Scotland have even
managed to dream up the wonderfully hilarious slogan, Better Together with UKOK No
Thanks! Perhaps their real ploy is to laugh us into a no vote! Could this just be, the most
stunningly absurd and astonishingly stupid campaign ever launched by a political group? To
name your own strategy as Project Fear from the offset clearly exposes a lack of basic joined
up thinking and a condescending, dismissive and insulting attitude towards the intelligence of
the people of this nation. The deception of the uninspiring and resentful anti-independence
campaign is to ignore the issues and merely muddy the waters by replacing debate with
personal insults, smears and fiction. I suspect, in the not so far off future, the dictionary
definition of Better Together will read, a gathering of numpties.

Another article here also discusses, very powerfully, "Best of Both Worlds The Perverse BetterTogether Lie
That Sickens Me" and the author is really very raw in his anger regarding many aspects of the UK today,
including a subject that doesn't get as much coverage as foodbanks, absolute poverty, etc:
- 174 -

"The working poor The Working POOR!! How the hell was this allowed to happen? We have
got to the depressing stage where workers work all the hours that they possibly can yet they
still do not have enough money to feed their family. The sickening fact is that there 6.7 million
families in the UK that are in employment but are still living below the poverty line."

While this article in the Huffington Post writes that the "the 'No' campaign has been rather more Jeremy Kyle
than Made in Chelsea. It has been so shamelessly threatening that at times I have wondered if it is part of a
covert plot to drive Scotland away. As we have got closer to the September vote, the arguments against
independence have got more desperate and apocalyptic."

Another article listed the number of scare stories published against independence, which have been listed
below (click on each entry to find the source article):

IF YOU VOTE YES TO INDEPENDENCE:
Youll Probably Die Of Cancer
Scotland Will Be Bombed By England
Your Children Will Be Kidnapped
The Economy Will Be Destroyed
The Edinburgh Zoo Pandas Will Be Confiscated
Well All Be Murdered By Terrorists
And Even If You Only Get Injured Youll Bleed To Death
Women All Over The World Will Be Raped
You Wont Be Allowed To Listen To British Music
And You Wont Feel As Connected To Tennis At Wimbledon
Well Have To Drive On The Other Side Of The Road
Youll Never Win The Lottery
England Will Build A New Hadrians Wall
Youll Need A Passport To Go To Garelochhead
Orkney And Shetland Will Form A Breakaway Country
Nobody Will Know Scotlands International Dialling Code
And You Wont Be Able To Afford Phone Calls Anyway
You Wont Get Any Holidays Ever
We Might Have To Get A Weird-Looking New Queen
Well Be Barred From Joining The Eu
But Well Have To Pay The Eu A Fortune, As Well Be Too Rich
You Wont Be Able To Watch Strictly Come Dancing
Or Doctor Who
Well Get Nuked And Nobody Will Care
Your Pension Will Be Slashed
Your Friends And Relatives Will Become Foreign
We Wont Have The Horserace Betting Levy Appeal Tribunal
The Whole Of Western Civilisation And Democracy Will Fall To The Forces Of Darkness In A Globe-
Spanning Cataclysm

In April 2014 Better Together launched a more positive campaign strategy so what happened to the
headlines then? Did BT in fact become more positive? Well, below is a list of stories since then (click here for
the original article, again click on each entry below to find the original source):
Yes vote is threat to freedom
Independent Scotlands economy would crash if it tried to use sterling
Go-it-alone Scotland defenceless: Nation will be left without weapons
Mortgages up 1600 if Yes
Scottish yes vote could lead to currency limbo, say MPs
Postal costs in Scotland could rise after independence, say MPs
- 175 -

Scotland and the UK will separate geographically, as well as politically
Yes could be catalyst for sterling crisis
Yes will send shares crashing
Labour claim 1m may lose jobs after independence
Darling: Independence could cost Scotland 8bn
700,000 to Leave if Union is Broken
Yes vote would lead to economic crisis worse than the crash
UK split to set back cure for cancer
Gordon Brown raises organ-transplant fears ahead of referendum
Alex Salmond Is A Prototype Dictator And Master Of The Borg
Juncker Ends Salmonds European Dream
Scotlands tourism industry is threatened by independence
Split may cost Scots 400m for welfare IT
Yes vote pension cost warning
Vulnerable people could lose benefits in an independent Scotland
Bank bailout doubt if Scots vote to quit UK
Independent Scotland Could Suffer Iceland-Style Financial Collapse
Consumers would snub separate Scotlands brands
Scottish independence would harm worlds poorest
Go-alone Scotland faces threats from space
Scottish Independence Will Lead to Soaring Energy Bills
Scotland faces 143bn debt after independence
Fears for fishing in breakaway Scotland
Thousands of defence jobs will be at risk if Scotland votes Yes
Scottish independence will cause civil war in Africa
Scottish independence would be cataclysmic for the world

This article here is dated 15
th
August 2012 and ignoring the main subject (opinion polls), it mentions This
site welcomes both the continued determination of the Unionist parties to bully the Scottish electorate into
making a stark choice between hope and fear once again, and also their complacency about the outcome.
So over 2 years ago Project Fear was in full flow and in the past 2 years has not changed one bit.



This article here highlights how the Better Campaign has been left in tatters, with each scare having been
demolished.

And a comment on Facebook was worth including as it summarised quite well the No campaign:
Juncker ends Salmonds dream except he didnt.
Our children will have to go on a waiting list for GOSH except they wont.
We wont be allowed to use the pound except we will.
We wont be allowed back into the EU except we wont be leaving in the first place.
The SNPs leaked document says one thing in private while they say something else in public
except both things were public domain and there are zero contradictions.
SNP voted against an energy price freeze except they didnt.
Alex Salmond ducked out of debate with Darling except he didnt.
Mark Carney said currency union impossible except he didnt.
A currency union requires a single government except it doesnt.
The UK doesnt build warships abroad except it does.
The UK wont share its embassies except it ALREADY shares embassies in multiple countries.
Well lose our pensions except we wont.

- 176 -





- 177 -




Theres more about the Tesco response to Better Togethers scaremongering here.

This article here discusses how one of the most bitter aspects of the No campaign that the appalling ruin the
Union has inflicted on so many of Scotlands poorest areas is the very thing used as a reason to vote to keep
it. It remains only to be seen whether the people will buckle under the intimidation and make a success of
Project Fear. This was written in response to an article in the Guardian that wrote:

The industrys once mighty labour force has dwindled to around 3,200, divided between here
and nearby Govan, and including some workers seconded east to Rosyth.

The loss of community is still keenly felt. When I was a child in the 60s you could time
everything by the hooters from the yards, recalls local historian Sandra Malcolm. Now you
dont even hear a dredger.

- 178 -

Since the destruction of most of Glasgows heavy industry, Scotstoun has become a byword for
poverty. Of 4,000 residents, 59% were identified in the most recent Scottish index of multiple
deprivation as being in the most deprived 10% of the population.

This used to be a thriving area, says Barrie, with a crown post office, a butchers and banks,
but now its all mobile phone shops and takeaways. There used to be queues out the door.

It is not simply that peoples shopping habits have changed, but that many more cannot shop
at all. A lot of people have lost their jobs so they dont have the money to spend. You hear
about more and more people going to food banks.

Its getting drummed into the young ones to get an education, says Love. But my nephew
went to the University of Dundee and now hes working in Poundland.

Decay, neglect, poverty, unemployment and starvation have been the legacies of the Union for
the people of Scotstoun. Under both Conservative and Labour governments at Westminster,
their proud industry has been (and even now continues to be) slowly destroyed with nothing
created to replace it. Their town centres are dying, the talents and potential of their children
are being wasted. And yet the people are so beaten and cowed by the decades of deprivation
that theyre afraid of anything changing.

In Scotstoun, the positive case for the Union comes, literally, in the form of the words DOOM
and GLOOM. Glasgow MP Ian Davidson, appeared on national TV yesterday categorically
guaranteeing that the shipyards would lose all their work in the event of a Yes vote
something hes in no position to either know or promise, but says anyway to induce terror in
the electorate and ensure his own gravy-train job stays secure. (see here)

As someone wrote elsewhere:
All Scotland has ever experienced of the Union in my parents and my own lifetime is cuts, job
losses and the shrinking of industry yet, the No campaign tell us independence is a threat to
these things and our future. Do you feel the No campaign is justified in spreading this message
when history shows us the same has happened as part of the Union?

But back to the difference in the campaigns, as Derek Bateman wrote here about receiving abuse from No
supporters after posting his articles online:
The difference between that unyielding nothing-must-change mentality and the open, all
embracing optimism of Yes is yawning. But then No is about the opposite of optimism. The best
that can be said is that it entrenches the position of those who already do well out of it so I
understand the middle class rejection of any threat to their status. But it does involve saying
To hell with the workers and I dont care about my country.

The trolling is always in direct proportion to the degree of strength contained in my last post so
whenever it happens they are informing me I scored a direct hit. It is, as they say, a dead
giveaway.

I used to plead on the blog for intelligent Unionists to engage and inform us but I realise that is
useless. There is no argument that anyone articulates beyond it being somehow safer to
remain in the UK.

And Scottish playwright Peter Arnott described quite succinctly the Better Together campaign here:
The very core of the fear in Project Fear is fear of English vengeance. All the stuff about
trade barriers and borders and passports and no one ever buying whisky again are predicated
on the same thing: on the apparently inevitable consequence that they will hurt us if we dare.

- 179 -

This expectation which informs all the dire prognostications of economic boycotts and general
administrative bloody mindedness, even of proper fisticuffs over the assets is based on an
image of the English as petty, spiteful, nasty and vengeful.

The No campaign seem certain that the majority stakeholders in the greatest multinational
family in history will react like vindictive children.

While this comment from elsewhere stated:
Just got my "Guide" from the Electoral Commission. In the "No Thanks" bit they manage to
mention "best of both worlds" THREE TIMES- yet do not offer ONE example of HOW we are to
achieve this hallowed goal?

They say we can have a "strong Scottish Parliament" (just so long as it's under the power of
Westminster though)

They say we have "strength" do we? What do they mean? Within the EU? (They want to take
us out of the EU) the military? (How many jobs have been lost?)

They say we have "security. Really? Due to Westminster's stance with the USA, and their
heinous foreign policy we are more insecure than ever!

They say we have "stability" we have just gone through the biggest crash in living memory and
not ONE of the people responsible were held to account- it has wiped BILLIONS from the value
of the UK- this affects mortgages, insurance, fuel, cost of living, etc... We are all in a worse
position now precisely because of this INstability.

To say we are "stable" is a lie. How can we have stability if it is based on lies?

They say we will lose the "strength" of the UK pound??
Previously they have said we would not be "allowed" the pound- so how can we be subject to
not having it, AND a "weakened" version of it? Yet they do not say this? Because it is not TRUE!

They say we will pay more for mortgages, credit cards; and loans.
Are we not ALREADY- because of the crash- because of them in London? Yes we are! We are
ALREADY paying more out. It is happening NOW!

They say our pensions are at risk- yet David Cameron only just took money out of the military
pension, and Gordon Brown took BILLIONS out of the pension pot as part of the UK. Pensions
are NOT SAFE in the UK, and the state pension is the LOWEST IN EUROPE.

They say big companies will "leave" like who? Why? Is it free to relocate a big company? The
only companies I have heard say they "might" leave are companies with CEOs/Directors that
are unionists- saying it to create fear and doubt in their workers!! Despicable- of "financial
institutions" that fear tightened regulation in an independent Scotland (as set out in the White
Paper)

Finally they say if we leave there is "no going back" NO country who gained independence
from the UK (and there are MANY) have EVER asked to go back into subservience and over-
lordship). But even then they cant stick to that story given Alasdair Darling has also said An
independent Scotland that kept the pound as its currency will slowly and surely return to the
political union with the rest of the UK

- 180 -




Better Together/ project Fear/ No Thanks/United with Labour, whatever you want to call them
are in the FEAR GAME!! They are constantly attacking what Scotland is and what we all can
help Scotland to become. We have a choice to give in to that fear and negativity- to have NO
faith or hopes, or we can say a massive NO THANKS to Westminster.

Two images that sum up each side of the campaign. For independence (the sign says Were #YesBecause we
want to see Scotland prosper):



And for the union (its all about winning a war for Labour):


- 181 -





George Galloway
One of the surprising stars of the unionist campaign has been George Galloway just when everyone
thought hed disappeared after having his fill of brutal dictators and celebrity shows, he re-appears to defend
the union. Now it should be apparent to even Better Together (which dont want him associated with them)
that theres a certain amount of hypocrisy when someone demands the freedom of Palestine but refuses to
support freedom for his own country. His remarks on independence have been a mixture of bizarre and
stoking fear and hatred amongst the Scottish population, even more than Better Together have. It includes
claiming that there will be ethnic cleansing of Catholics by a protestant majority in an independent Scotland,
simultaneously ignoring the centuries of oppression Catholics endured in the union even today the
execution of a Catholic is celebrated around the UK on the 5
th
November (and its telling its not marked in
Ireland which was part of the UK back then and which its own Catholic population suffer hugely under the
union) and a Catholic cannot marry the head of state nor become Prime Minister (the last is not legally
enforced but exists culturally nonetheless Tony Blair had to wait until he resigned from being Prime
Minister to become Catholic while his wife always was one).

Anyway, this open letter here from someone who attended a talk by George Galloway pretty much sums up
Georges distasteful views and lies.


Canvassing Material
Unsurprisingly, canvassing material from various unionists has been found to be, well, economical with the
truth to say the least.

For example, a leaflet from David Mundell, Scotlands only Tory MP, has an image of what appears to be an
ordinary family choosing to vote No as they believe their family is better off in the union. Putting aside the
fact that 1 million families in poverty are unlikely to share his reason, its interesting that what is not
mentioned is why this ordinary family is better off in the union this family has personal vested interests
(surprise, surprise) as the father/husband is a local Conservative Councillor (echoes of Claire Lally here again,
the ordinary mother who seems to intimate with the upper echelons of Scottish Labour).

- 182 -

Now he is obviously entitled to his own opinions and entitled to make them known but the public are also
entitled to know why he wants Scotland to stay in the union, especially when its not just for reasons that
other ordinary families may consider but also when he is effectively employed by a pro-union party, would
have been instructed to claim supports the union whether or not he personally does, and would lose his
position as councillor if he supported independence.

As well as this deception, there is the usual blatant scaremongering lies about Scotland not being able to use
the pound, EU, NATO, NHS, etc. A more detailed analysis can be found here.

Another of his party colleagues, this time John Lamont, has been using the following leaflet (suspiciously like
David Mundells) which has helpfully been annotated with some clarification:



- 183 -

Given the questions and answers are identical, yet both claimed different people asked them and they both
each have answered them, something isn't right here and as reported in the Edinburgh News:
"Scottish Independence: Tory leaflet dishonest" "The SCOTTISH Conservative party has been
branded dishonestafter circulating phony pro-unionist campaign leaflets. The authenticity
of promotional flyers was called into question after Tory MP David Mundell, MSP John Lamont
and Tory candidate Alexander Burnett all expressed exactly the same views and gave the same
answers word for word - to identical questions posed by allegedly different constituents."


Alasdair Darling vs Alex Salmond
They are two very public faces of the opposing campaigns but what about the men themselves? Well, weve
already established that Alasdair Darling was caught fiddling expenses, flipping his home 4 times (hence his
nickname Flipper) AND claiming for 2 homes at the same time (see the Telegraph). He also resigned from
the Faculty of Advocates as a result of the investigations (see the Telegraph).

According to this Daily Mail article from 2009, Darling:
claimed 70,000 in five years for his family home in Edinburgh. He obtained taxpayer funding
for mortgage payments, household bills and furnishings by classing the 1.2million townhouse
as his 'second home'. Before he became Chancellor, Mr Darling had claimed that a small
London flat - worth only around 150 a week in rent - was his main home. Since moving into
Downing Street he has resumed claiming expenses on his Scottish 'second' home.

Before becoming Chancellor in 2007, Mr Darling lodged with Lord Moonie - one of the Labour
peers in the 'cash for amendments' affair - in a flat in South London. He lived there from around
2003 until January 2005, listing it as his 'main' home. This enabled him to claim a total of
45,954 on his 'second home' - the family house he bought with his wife Maggie for 570,000
in 1998. The imposing building stands in the heart of Edinburgh's most desirable area.

Before 2004, all ministers had to declare London their 'main residence'. But even after this rule
changed, Mr Darling continued to list the flat share as his 'main home'. In 2004/05, he drew
another 15,341 for his Scottish home. An average rent for a flat like Lord Moonie's was 125
a week. Mr Darling claimed an average of 321 a week on his second-home allowance

In September 2005 he eventually classed Edinburgh as his 'main home', but only after running
up an estimated 9,000 more in expenses. In detail, Mr Darling's claims for his Edinburgh home
were 15,756 in 2001/02; 14,792 in 2002/03; 15,406 in 2003/04; 15,341 in 2004/05; and
9,000 in 2005/06. Designating which are 'main' and 'second' homes can let MPs claim higher
sums in expenses.

And in this Herald article:
"Darling doesn't deserve too many congratulations. He was part of the Labour Government
that indulged and coddled the banks in their mad, criminal ways. He served when Gordon
Brown was pulling the private pensions system to pieces and making a mockery of the state's
alternative. In point of historical fact, British banking came apart at the seams on Mr Darling's
watch.

You would think he might be cautious, then, about employing one of Labour's larger failures for
the purposes of analogy. Not a bit of it. In an interview with a London newspaper, Mr Darling
announces that a vote for independence could have consequences for Scotland worse than the
2008 crisis. No scaremongering on his part, then."

- 184 -








What about Alex Salmond? Well, there isnt much to report. For anyone that thinks they cant trust him and
so are voting No (because they obviously trust the British political class before one of their own), Alex
- 185 -

Salmond has not been involved in any expenses scandals despite being a Westminster MP for 23 years.
Believe me, if the unionist campaign could find ANYTHING scandalous on Salmond, they would have released
it long before now to try and discredit him. He also donates one third of his salary to charity because he
thinks politicians are paid too much I very much doubt youll see Alasdair Darling donate any of his
substantial MPs salary, speakers fees, etc to charity.

Since he became an MP, Salmond has been fighting
for Scotland in Westminster while labour sat back
and allowed Thatcher to decimate it:



And he was quoted as saying:
If a Brahan seer said to me: Listen, you retire from politics tomorrow and I guarantee you
Scotland will be an independent country in the spring of 2016, I would shake hands on that
right away. Absolutely.

I love the SNP. Ive been in the SNP for donkeys years and I just think it is a wonderful political
organisation. But, if the Brahan seer said to me: And the other cost for getting independence
is the SNP has to be abolished, then I would agree to that as well.

Now you might take that with a pinch of salt but can you imagine Alasdair Darling, Gordon Brown or David
Cameron making the same statement? Heck, David Cameron has said he WONT quit even if Scotland gains
independence (see RT News).


Regarding that STV debate that has been mentioned quite a few times in this document, there have been a
few responses to Alasdair Darlings performance. For example, it is recommended you read this article in full
as its very good and any one extract doesnt do it justice.

Perhaps you agreed with the media that Darling won the debate? Well, this wasn't a surprise as it'd been
predicted that no matter how well Alex performed and how poorly Alasdair performed the mainstream
(unionist) media would report Alasdair as having won, and that's exactly what happened. This is despite the
polls showing the opposite from the media, as discussed here and shown below that illustrate people who
- 186 -

were Yes voters before the debate thought Salmond won, and those who were No voters before the debate
thought Darling won, both by enormous margins. But the telling stats are among the people the debate was
targeted at the Dont Knows. And what the poll discovered is that among voters whod started out as
undecideds, Salmond won by 55-45. Among those who remained undecided at the end the First Minister
was still judged to have done best, by a thumping 74 to 26.



Still, why let the truth get in the way of a good(?) story.

As this article points out:
"[despite] the part where Alistair Darling couldnt say the words Scotland could be a
successful independent country, even when asked twenty times? Remember the derisive
laughter from the audience when Darling claimed that the UK redistributes money from rich
areas to poor areas?

The news coverage had the precision of a military Psy Op. Immediately after the debate, we
were shown the clip of Salmond being barracked about currency. Then a panel of five
undecided voters were shown talking about currency. Then the evening news began, reporting
as its top story that Salmond couldnt answer about currency. These moments were vital for
memory formation. The next morning, every front page screamed that Salmond had no Plan
B. By the following lunchtime, it required a massive conscious effort to remember that any
other topic had been discussed.

Salmond will not be allowed to win the next debate either, no matter what he does or says.
No-one can stop Darling from repeating an unanswerable question or disingenuous scare story
again and again, and as long as he has done that, our obsequious press will make it the only
event of the evening. I cannot emphasise this strongly enough: the Yes campaign will not be
allowed any wins in the press at any point in the whole campaign. Get used to it. Steel yourself
for it."

Perhaps you liked Alasdair's performance? The way he pointed his finger a lot, shouted, grew aggressive and
almost hysterical in places, wouldn't let Alex answer certain questions and answered none himself? Well, it
seems he was advised by a former Sky News presenter to "speak to viewers like they're 10-year-olds" (see
Daily Mail)
"Speak to the viewers like they're 10. That's the trick Alistair Darling's media handler likely
taught him before his TV tour de force in the Scottish Independence debate. Scott Chisholm, a
former Sky News presenter turned media trainer, reportedly coached the former Labour cabinet
minister for his debating clash with Scots First Minister Alex Salmond."

It was a disappointing performance really since Alasdair Darling should have been better prepared given that
Emails seen by The Sunday Times show a senior member of staff at Mentorn Media, which also produces
Question Time, alerted a Better Together regional campaign organiser 10 days ago of forthcoming televised
debates. A note from its producer, Sheena Lahive, says this would give the organiser a head start in
spreading the word to get supporters to apply to join the audiences in Stirling, Inverness, Edinburgh and
Aberdeen. see the Sunday Times

- 187 -

Alasdair Darling had again been caught out lying in a Radio Clyde interview when he claimed that those in
Denmark pay more tax and have got less to spend. However, as this article points out, this is not only a lie
but those Danes earning the average Danish salary are actually 2,112 per year better off than those on the
average UK salary. The other pint to make is that that Denmark is a far more equal country than the UK as
almost all countries are so you have more chance of actually getting that average than you do in Britain,
where in reality youre more likely to be on much less with the average skewed upwards by a small number
of very high earners.

Nevertheless, the second debate showed what Alex Salmond is capable of and what a one-trick pony
Alasdair Darling is (Whats your plan B, to which most of the audience laughed and booed).

And finally, for a bit of light relief, click here to find out what Alasdair Darlings predictions were for Scotland
if home rule was established. Still, good to see he has softened his views after his republican phase (see here
and below)




- 188 -

Deception and Lies from the UK Government

As explained here, the UK Government is reputed to have spent over 750,000 putting together a small
booklet entitled, "What Staying in the United Kingdom means for Scotland", delivered to every household in
the country. There was a considerable outcry when the Scottish Government published the White Paper,
about the "waste of taxpayers' money", "use of government employees on SNP propaganda" etc. but as
always, with the No Campaign, there has been not a single word raised in protest at the "waste of taxpayers'
money" for the dissemination of UK Government propaganda. This piece of propaganda, from a UK body
that is supposed to remain impartial, made a number of statements that have been countered in many
places since, such as here and here, the first of which Ive quoted below:

"By staying in the United Kingdom, our economies grow together" That is no more than a
statement of the obvious but what is not stated is that over the past thirty years, the Scottish
economy has grown by at least 0.5% each year less than the rest of the UK, ensuring that
Scottish economic progress has been greatly disadvantaged as a consequence of government
policy. The current boom in London's property market is creating even greater imbalance,
leading to speculation that interest rates will have to be increased much earlier than expected.
Increased interest rates are the last thing Scotland needs at the moment.

"Staying within the UK is the only way to keep the pound we have now" That is a lie. The UK
Government may refuse to have a currency union but there would be nothing to stop an
independent Scotland from using the pound sterling as its currency of choice. There would be
disadvantages in doing so and it would not be the best option for an independent Scotland,
but that would be up to Scotland, not the UK Government to decide.

"Putting up an international border with the rest of the UK would slow growth". That is not
necessarily true as borders, of themselves, do not slow growth. In any case, who is talking
about putting up economic borders? English jobs rely on Scottish trade just as much as Scottish
jobs rely on English trade, why would either government put up borders?

"By staying in the United Kingdom, your money is safe and goes further". Is that meant to be
a joke? Did the banking crisis of 2008 not happen? Did the frauds of PPI and CPP not take
place? Did RBS alone, not pay out 9 billion in compensation and, unlike the Icelandic
Government, did the UK Governments of both Labour and the Tory/Lib.Dem Coalition fail to
prosecute a single banker for the billions they cost the UK economy? Wonga and Barclays -
AGAIN - are both currently under investigation for financial fraud. Is it just a coincidence that
51% of the Tory Party's total funding is provided by the City of London, that over FIFTY
financiers donated over 50,000 each to the Tory Party in 2012?

"The United Kingdom's financial standing helps keep interest rates low. That means cheaper
loans and mortgages." That is no more than a snapshot of the current financial situation. If
the London property market is allowed to continue to distort the UK economy, the cost of
consumer borrowing will rise much sooner than expected. The UK already has a massive
balance of trade and balance of payments deficit and, as that gets worse, as it will do, the
pressure on sterling will increase, raising the cost of borrowing. The above claim is a total
distortion.

"Staying in the UK would keep future energy bills for Scottish households up to 189 a year
lower" That is an out and out lie. Scotland's energy situation is far healthier than that of the
rUK and the greater the development of Scottish resources, the greater the advantages will be
for Scottish consumers. Energy companies in the UK are ripping off consumers at the rate of
101 each year for every family in the country, an increase of 1,000% in five years. Ofgem has
ordered a full-blown inquiry into the conduct of energy companies and for the UK Government
to make such a claim beggars belief.

- 189 -

"State Pensions are more secure because costs are shared by 31 million people." this is
another out and out lie because the security of State Pensions rely on a great deal more than
the size of the population. Taking the rUK Government's argument to its logical conclusion,
China's State Pensions would be the most secure in the world and Norway would struggle to
pay any kind of pension at all. It is a measure of how little regard the UK Government has for
the intelligence of the Scottish people, and the stupidity of their own advisers to advance such
an argument in the first place. State Pensions are determined by not just the resources of a
country but the way in which those resources are used. Spending 100 billion on Trident, a
weapon system that will never be used, ensures UK pensions will never be as good as they
could be. Scotland's defense expenditure is only ONE example of how a change in the use of
resources can make a difference in the size of the State Pension.

"In 2008, we were able to provide Scottish banks with support worth more than twice
Scotland's national income" Had we not been in the UK, would our banks have been in the
disastrous position they were in? UK banking de-regulation in common with those in other
western countries, caused the financial disaster, allowing the banks to almost destroy the
entire economy. The money to bail out the banks was BORROWED, creating the biggest debt
mountain for the UK taxpayers, the UK has ever faced, which is hardly something about which
to boast. The banks have learned nothing, they still commit fraud, pay out ludicrous salaries
and bonuses to bankers, some of whom should have been jailed, instead of being given seats
in the House of Lords, which has become the biggest standing joke of a second chamber in the
Western World.

"Staying in the UK is worth 1,400 every year to each person living in Scotland". Why not
1,600 or 1,900 or 2,500 or any other fictitious figure, in fact, why not just pick a number,
double it, then treble it, subtract a banana and add an orange? This nonsense does no more
than debase the debate to the point where the majority of people will simply switch off. We
are being asked to decide the future of our people and nation on the basis of a piece of tawdry
and meaningless arithmetic, presented be even more tawdry politicians who can't even be
trusted to count their own expenses.

"Scotland benefits from public spending that is around 10% higher than the UK average".
Scotland receives an annual grant from the UK Government, a grant that is being reduced, and
chooses to spend that grant on public services to a greater extent that the rest of the UK. The
fact Scots choose to spend our own money on items such as free prescriptions, is then used by
the UK Government to suggest that is another reason to stay in the UK, despite the fact the
same UK Government denies those advantages to the people in the rUK. We are to be bribed
by our own money.

"An independent Scotland would need to create new public institutions, which would be
complex and expensive" This ludicrous argument has already been shown to be a pack of lies
created by The Treasury, by Professor Dunleavy of the London School of Economics, the man
on whose research the arguments were supposed to be based. The figure of 2.5 billion
produced by The Treasury has been admitted as being a figment of some official's imagination
and a more realistic figure has been set at 250 million. Many of the departments already
exist, others would not be needed and none would be as expensive as those used by the UK
Government.

"The UK is more able to protect Scottish interests in areas like agriculture and fisheries".
Surely the biggest lie of them all. The Scottish steel and fishing industries were sacrificed by
Ted Heath as part of the entry fee to the then Common Market. Previous blogs have given far
more detail but the fishing industry alone has lost over 100,000 jobs as a consequence of the
Common Fisheries Policy CFP, to say nothing of the tens of thousands of tons of fish which
have been dumped at sea in order to meet quotas that do nothing to either protect fish stocks
or create a healthier industry. The Scottish steel industry was one of the best in Western
- 190 -

Europe and Ravenscraig Mill, at the time of its closure was the most efficient and largest mill in
Europe. Its workforce had been reduced from 13,000 to 770 and its closure led to the closure
of another four steel factories in the Lanarkshire area, with the loss of tens of thousands of
jobs.

Yet another leaflet from the supposed impartial UK government (see here), paid for by your taxes, was
debunked here but again, the article has been reproduced pretty much in full below:
1) The pound is one of the strongest and most stable currencies in the world. Staying in the
UK is the only way Scotland can keep the strength of the Bank of England and the pound as
we have now. Setting up a new currency for an independent Scotland would be costly and
risky.

Any country that wants to can use the pound, so claiming that staying in the UK is the only
way Scotland can keep the currency that we have helped to build is, without any doubt at all,
a blatant lie.

2) Currently, Scotland benefits from public spending per person that is around 10% higher
than the UK average. Taxpayers across the UK help fund the vital public services we need
such as health and education. The long-term financial benefit of staying in the UK is worth up
to 1,400 a year to each person in Scotland.

All three Westminster parties are completely committed to cutting public services further and
further, so the notion that staying in the UK is what will protect us from the very cuts being
imposed by the UK government is beyond absurd.

3) Scotland trades more with the rest of the UK than with the rest of the world combined.
Hundreds of thousands of Scottish jobs are connected to trade with the UK. A new
international border and a different currency system would make trade harder and cost jobs
at a time when the UK economy is recovering.

The exact same situation exists in numerous places across the world (such as Canada and the
USA, or the Republic of Ireland and the UK) so why should things be uniquely impossible here?

4) The UKs financial standing keeps interest rates low. That means cheaper mortgages and
loans. Plus our greater size makes household bills cheaper. Staying in the UK would keep
future energy bills for Scottish households up to 189 a year lower.

Scotland is in a position to become a (perhaps the) world leader in renewable energy, with a
massive chunk of the EUs entire potential in wind and tidal energy available to us. On top of
that, a new oil field west of Shetland has just been found to contain much more oil than was
previously expected. Scotland is an energy rich nation, yet Westminster wants us to believe
that we need them in order to benefit from this? The other point about the UKs financial
standing is also spurious given its recent downgrade in credit rating and the fact that
Scotlands annual deficit is, in fact, lower than that experienced by the rest of the UK.

5) The Scottish Parliament already decides important matters like health and education,
and more powers for Scotland are guaranteed. And, as part of the UK family, we benefit by
sharing resources and pooling risks. By staying together, we can have more decisions taken
here in Scotland backed by the strength, stability and security of the UK.

New powers for Scotland are not, in any way, guaranteed; Scotland will receive more powers if
and when the main London parties can agree on which scraps they should deign to offer us.
Dont forget that the same promises were made in 1979 and turned out to be lies. Of course,
even if these entirely unspecified new powers were guaranteed, this wouldnt change the fact
that Scotland is completely capable of making its own decisions in all areas of public policy if
- 191 -

we already deal with education, health, criminal justice and a range of other areas then why
on earth would we believe that we arent capable of being a successful independent nation?

And just to clarify why the 40% minimum vote was immoral (as mentioned in the last document), in 79 it
wasn't just people who died "the week before" that were counted in the electoral roll (and so counted
towards No given they were counted as voting No), anyone not removed from electoral role after death was
counted no. In those days with no internet etc the numbers would have potentially been larger than today.
But another twist no one talks about is that if you had multiple addresses you were registered on more than
one place but by law you could only vote on one of them so for address 2,3,4 etc would be automatically no.
The register was so out of date that even in an area where major support for a "yes" vote might be expected,
achievement of 40% of the electorate was virtually unattainable. This was because the majority of electors
lived in older tenements or newer Council blocks of flats where specific flat numbers were not specified. The
work of electoral registration staff to obtain an accurate current register was almost impossible. All this
would have been well known to Westminster and the 40% figure WASN'T just picked at random but carefully
selected as it was almost impossible to achieve.

The false claims in yet another leaflet from the UK government is addressed here (at length):
All the advantages of the pound
As part of the United Kingdom, Scotland has one of the oldest, strongest and most stable
currencies in the world, backed up by 31 million taxpayers and the strength of the Bank of
England. It would not be possible to recreate todays currency arrangements across two
separate states. Staying within the UK is the only way to keep the pound we have now.

Hmmm, in Scotland we have currency thats different anyway run as a currency union where
every single pound in our pockets has a similar amount lodged with the Bank of England.
According to Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England the money lodged with them
now is 6 billion. I dont quite see why it would not be possible to have similar arrangements
to the way they are now. Would not be possible is the same as wont do it or ye cannie
as far as I can see. I do know that the rest of the UK benefits greatly from the exporting
capability of Scotland which is in the top 35 exporting nations worldwide and as England is an
importing nation, if Scotland didnt use the pound Sterling then that would create a great big
black hole in the balance of payments and Im pretty sure I heard an economics expert say that
without Scotland, the pound would take a tumble. So not so sure about that oneperhaps
they should change the wording to just might be possible? After all, one of the coalition
cabinet ministers said it just might be possible, didnt they?

Closest trading partners
The United Kingdom economy is set to recover faster than every other G7 nation. As two-thirds
of Scottish exports go to England, Wales and Northern Ireland more than the rest of the
world combined putting up an international border with the rest of the UK would slow growth
just as our economy is starting to take off.

I dont think I like the sound of that at all. But wait! What would happen to the goods and
services that the rest of the UK sell to Scotland? Are the UK government telling us that they
would actively slow trade between the two states? Or are they just worried that somehow that
might happen? And what about the phrase just as our economy is starting to take off???
Hasnt George Osborne been telling us that the economy is alright now and that everything is
just fine and dandy? So which is it? Is the economy all better now or are we still waiting for the
starting gun? And doesnt that starting gun go off before 2016? When thinking about that, the
words Housing bubble just popped into my head. Hasnt Mark Carney the governor of the
Bank of England written to George Osborne about the dangers of another housing crisis? The
United Kingdoms headline economic figures may be looking okay at the moment but if built
on a housing bubble, wont that be a little short lived? The words just as our economy is
starting to take off. are perhaps a little over confident, dont you think?..And what about
- 192 -

that public debt of 1.37 trillion? Doesnt that have something to do with it? More on that
later on.

More businesses and jobs.
Many thousands of Scottish jobs are connected to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom.
For example, 200,000 Scottish jobs are supported by banking, insurance and finance, and the
industry itself estimates that nine out of ten customers live in the rest of the UK.

Hold on jist a wee minute, if youre going to make an argument about More businesses and
jobs, shouldnt that argument cover a little bit more than financial services? And where does
it say more jobs??? I think I should get the calculator out here.lets see..Scotland has
8.4% of the population so Ill give them the benefit of the doubt here and say 10% leaving 90%.
So the statement about the industry itself estimates that nine out of ten customers live in the
rest of the UK doesnt actually need an economic wizard to work out does it? And if Many
thousands of Scottish jobs are connected to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom,
shouldnt the argument cover what those thousands of people actually do? I mean, doesnt
Scotland do more than financial services? And yet again, are the UK government in this leaflet
telling us that there wont be any trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK? That trade
will still be happening because businesses in all parts of the British Isles will want it and it
doesnt matter what the government say. Just like any business person, I dont care where the
bits are that I need to operate my business come from, just so long as theyre available and
dont take too long to arrive. On this one I have to say that if thats the best argument that the
whole United Kingdom government with seemingly unlimited resources can come up with
then I will definitely take that as an area where they dont have much of an argument and
support independence.


Next page..oh look! Here we have two people
coming out of a house and loading what looks like bags
of food into a car.now why would they be doing
that??? I know! Theyre taking donations to the local
foodbank! How nice of them. But wait a
minutetheres a label attached to the picture and
that says, By staying in the United Kingdom. your
money is safe and goes further. But if theyre going to
the foodbank, doesnt that mean that a sizeable chunk
of the population havent got any money? Otherwise
they wouldnt have to go in the first place. Lets get
this right, I want a fairer society, not one where the leadership is saying that for only part of
the population that their money will be safe and go further, thats dreadfully unfair isnt it?
Shouldnt we aspire to more? Shouldnt we be trying to end the use of foodbanks by giving
everyone that works a living wage where they can actually afford to feed their families without
relying on handouts? Am I alone in wanting this? I dont think so.

Cheaper bills
The United Kingdoms financial standing helps keep interest rates low. That means cheaper
loans and mortgages for you and your family. And because the costs of investing in Scotlands
energy networks and renewables are shared across the whole of Great Britain, staying in the
UK would keep future energy bills for Scottish households up to 189* a year lower. ( *
Source: Scotland analysis: Energy, HM Government, May 2014)

Well there you go, thats the UK government saying that if you opt for independence, because
your tiny little country wont have any credit history, your mortgage or your car loan will
rocket in cost of repayments. And theyre saying that because of the United Kingdoms
financial standing. But that cant be true. Didnt the big credit reference agency Fitch
- 193 -

downgrade the UK where it lost its AAA credit rating? And didnt the other big credit
reference agency Standard & Poorssay that after the analysis they had done on an
independent Scotland without the oil, that theyd give us their highest credit rating due to
Scotlands wealth? Now what about those energy bills. Did you know that you pay a premium
for your energy bills right now and have been for the last 20 or 30 years? Its simple when you
look at the facts. First, Scotland produces more gas and electricity than it needs, so the rest
goes to England. England needs much more than we give them and many times more than
they produce themselves. That means they need to buy in the rest to satisfy their needs. They
end up paying through the nose for imported gas and electricity. Now who do you think bears
the brunt of all that extra cost? You. Its added onto your gas and electric bill and yet you
live in Scotland that doesnt have to buy from abroad. Thats unfair isnt it? Its estimated that
the amount added to each bill in Scottish households is 305* a year higher. ( * Source:
Scotland analysis: Energy, Paying to much to keep the lights on elsewhere, June 2014) And
what about renewables? So far weve had a UK govt that are positively anti-renewables so Ill
stick with the Scottish governments plan to invest in our own renewables and re-industrialise
Scotland into the bargain. Ill be voting yes then.

Safe savings and pensions
With Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, you savings in any UK bank or building society
are protected by a guarantee of up to 85,000. And state Pensions are more secure because
costs are shared by 31 million taxpayers across the UK.

Now I dont want to seem ungrateful here but out of the hundreds of people I know
personally, perhaps a handful of those people would have anything approaching the 85,000
limit thats talked of. Perhaps the other thing I should tell you is that three of those people live
in England. Personally, Id rather see banks and building societies that didnt play roulette with
their customers money every night. And besides which, the Bank of England belongs to all the
people that live on these islands that we inhabit. Or doesnt it? Now what about State
pensions.they would in fact be safer in an independent Scotland because were in a much
better position financially than the rest of the UK. Please dont forget that the UK has an
enormous 1.37 trillion in public debt. Now it doesnt matter who gets into Downing Street in
2015, that debt is costing one billion pounds a week and the chancellor will have to start
applying the brakes more, much more than in the past. Savings and Pensions are just sitting
there, arent they? I mean, what else does the chancellor have left to strip to the bone?

A bigger economy that protects us all.
The United Kingdom economy is the sixth largest in the world. Our collective size, strength and
diversity allow us to grow and succeed together, and help to protect jobs in difficult times. In
2008, for example, we were able to provide Scottish banks with support worth more than twice
Scotlands national income.

If Scotland was already independent wed be in the 14th place in the list of developed nations
by GDP and the rUK (rest of the United Kingdom) would be in the 22nd place. Thats according
to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). So that sixth
position would be subdivided somewhat and its very telling that its the rUK that drops 8
places more than Scotland due to Scotlands exporting muscle. We really are that loaded.
Now lets put the bank bailout thing to bedTaking the higher of the estimates of the bailout
of HBoS (Halifax Bank of Scotland) and the RBS Royal Bank of Scotland was 66 Billion in 2008,
however, apart from anything else, the Scottish GDP that year was 145 Billion so it wouldnt
have bankrupted us as some say and I think its a pretty cheap trick to use the amount given to
Scotland as a block grant to do the calculation on the UK governments leaflet. worth more
than twice Scotlands national income. Its quite apparent that Scotland would have dealt
with the banks just as well but perhaps wed have taken a different path. Iceland handled it
well, didnt they? They bailed out no one, jailed the bankers and the politicians connected with
them and now theyre on the up and up. Theyre doing much better now than most countries
- 194 -

in Europe. The big story that was generally kept under wraps is that Barclays which is the
quintessential English bank received a bailout of over 600 Billion from the US Federal
Reserve. I wonder if the Americans talk about English banks the way that the UK government
talk about Scottish ones? Banking is an international pursuit and banks run across almost all
borders in the world. The bailout of Barclays by the US Federal Reserve was commensurate
with the amount of trade they did in the US. Similarly, even though the brass plate exists in
Scotland for the two Scottish banks, only 5% of their total trade was carried out in Scotland.

Next page..oh no? What a gaff! How could they be so
stupid!!!! Here we have two women in a pharmacy with
one woman handing the other a free prescription! We
already know that we stand to lose 4 Billion off our block
grant if we stay with the UK and the first sacrifice would be
all the universal benefits that weve come to enjoy, all the
free prescriptions, free care of the elderly, free bus passes
and free university tuition..gone. So for the UK
government to have such a picture in a leaflet thats their
big pitch for getting folk to vote no is well, laughable.

Lower taxes, higher public spending.
As part of the United Kingdom, Scotlands finances are much stronger with lower taxes and
higher public spending. The UK Government estimates that the long-term financial benefit of
staying in the UK is worth 1,400* every year to each person living in Scotland. ( * Source:
Scotland analysis: Fiscal policy and sustainability, HM Government, May 2014)

Okay, this is nonsense, pure and simple. Calculator out again. Scotland runs a deficit like most
countries in the world. This isnt money gifted to us by a benevolent Westminster, no, its a
loan. We get a block grant each year and then the UK treasury adds around 17 Billion to our
bottom line. Thats for things spent on Scotlands behalf but not on Scotland. Its for things like
the Golden Jubilee, the Olympics, our part of the Billion pound a week interest payment on the
public debt etc etc etc. Adding that much to the bottom line creates a deficit which we pay for.
Scotland more than pays its way if we were an independent country. At the moment we live
under Westminster rule, its like going to a restaurant and getting a huge service charge added
to the bill. Are we that daft? No not really, its just that we cant do anything about it unless we
vote for independence. Due to spending requirements and projects going through at the
moment like the widening of the M25 that runs around London, the HS2 High Speed Rail link
thatll only make it as far as Leeds or Manchester and a few more projects which dont touch
Scotland, that bottom line payment is going to get bigger. In other words the service charge is
going to cripple us. And then theres the public debt that wont go away no matter what the
chancellor does. It just gets bigger and bigger whilst the chancellor is saying things are getting
better and better. Whos fooling who? Lower taxes? I think the UK government are fooling no
one on that account. And the higher public spending depends on what side of the Watford Gap
youre standing. The M25 motorway around London is being widened whereas the M8
Motorway between Glasgow and Edinburgh which are two of Scotlands largest cities is still a
dual carriageway for much of its length. The maximum we can do at the moment is put up an
average speed camera system on the A9. All in it together?, Dont make me laugh. We can do
an awful lot better than that for ourselves.

More support for public services
As part of the United Kingdom, Scotland benefits from public spending that is around 10%
higher than the UK average. This helps fund public services like health, education and
transport.

As I said before, Scotland more than pays its way. That higher public spending is as a result of
choices made on our behalf by the devolved Scottish parliament. It is not some kind of a gift
- 195 -

from Westminster. The formula used to calculate what we get to spend is called the Barnett
formula. That formula looks as if its going to be dropped and well lose about 4 Billion from
our public purse as a result. Those public, universal benefits we enjoy such as free
prescriptions and free university tuition will actually be lost if we continue with the UK because
we wont be able to afford them. Our health service which is a publicly owned Scottish body
will come under attack pretty soon as well. So where are the benefits that the leaflet talks
about? It looks pretty dodgy to me.

Shared public institutions.
Scotland benefits from over 200 United Kingdom institutions and services: the BBC, the
National Lottery, Her Majestys Passport Office, Research Councils UK and the DVLA. An
independent Scotland would need to create new public institutions, which would be complex
and expensive.

I must admit, this one made me laugh. With the embarrassing expose a couple of weeks ago
of the UK Treasurys estimate of what it would cost to set up these institutions, egg is all over
the face of those involved. They estimated 2.7 Billion. The man that actually did the research
for them estimated 200 300 Million tops. His name was Professor Dunleavy and he was
pretty angry that the UK Treasury had dragged his name and the name of his university into
disrepute. Lets savour this one and vote yes. This will go down as one of the biggest laughs
when we look back and remember.

Next pageawww a woman holding a sleeping baby and
shes smiling, however, what thats got to do with the strapline
which says, By staying in the United Kingdom, Scotland has a
strong voice in the world. I dont mean to be unkind here but
the only connection I can possibly make is that someday after
the child has grown up, perhaps itll join the armed forces and
get thrown into another illegal war that America decides it
wants fought. The strapline obviously alludes to something
completely different and is a direct reference to the G7, NATO,
the UN, etc etc etc. Did we ever actually have a voice in those bodies? I mean does Scotland
specifically have a strong voice in the world? Think about that for a moment. Does anyone
think that Scotlands interests were ever directly discussed in any of those bodies? I would
have to say no. The only time that Scotland may have benefitted in some way (scratches head)
would be only if it suited some larger plan. I would say the most sensible solution would be to
regain independence first and take our place in the world. We have a lot of friends out there.
Sometimes influence isnt wielded by the person sitting at the top table. Sometimes a crowd of
little guys working together can be very effective.

Protecting our people and promoting our interests.
For centuries Scottish people have been at the heart of the United Kingdoms armed forces,
which keep us safe at home and abroad. You can rely on help from over 200 embassies and
consulates around the world if you get into difficulty. Scottish businesses are supported around
the world by the UK. This includes successfully promoting Scottish exports such as whisky.

Now forgive me for this, and I did have to look closely but theres a picture next to that
paragraph on the leaflet which is most definitely a British Passport. I havent held one of those
for years, I hasten to add that I do have a passport but its a European passport. That means
that if I get into difficulty abroad, I can go to any European embassy or consulate for help and
collectively there are many times more of them in the world than the amount run by the UK
and dont forget Scotland will have its own embassies. The UK have a head start of a few
hundred years but Im sure well soon catch up as much as we need to. As to the armed forces,
our lads and lasses have made a disproportionate sacrifice throughout the history of the union,
havent they? And yet the UK Government, almost in the middle of a firefight with the Taliban
- 196 -

in Helmand Province, tap the soldier on the back and hand him his P45. You could not make
stuff like that up, could you? As far as the promotion of Scottish businesses abroad is
concerned, Scottish trade missions are more effective than anything the UK Foreign Office
have ever managed. Scotland is a great brand now, think how powerful that brand will become
when were an independent nation.

Help for the worlds poorest.
The United Kingdom is the second largest aid donor in the world. Our collective influence and
reach means we are helping to end extreme poverty, saving lives during humanitarian crises
and making vital contributions to international peacekeeping missions. In response to Typhoon
Haiyan in the Philippines, the UK helped on million people by providing food, water, shelter and
lifesaving medicine.

Now Im all for humanitarian aid and an effort to end extreme poverty and I believe that an
independent Scotland would do more than just put its hand in its pocket, but what of the
humanitarian aid thats needed right here and now? The term help for the worlds poorest is
getting dangerously close to including folk that live in our own country. No Im not saying that
we have hundreds of thousands dying of starvation but we do have many people and children
that go to bed hungry every night of the week. Thats the stark reality of 21st century Britain.
Did you know that many millions was offered to the UK Government in aid for the foodbanks
by the EU and they refused it??? Its true. That happened shortly before Christmas last year. It
was an unforgivable display of foolish British pride over common sense by those millionaires in
the coalition cabinet. The foodbanks are always running out of food and that aid would have
created a bubble of comfort for those least able to help themselves during the festive season.
That one made me weep with sorrow and made me angry all at the same time.

So, my take on this particular section is that its fine painting pictures of what Britain has done
abroad but is pretty ignorant over the actual situation right here, right now. How do you feel
about one single child going to bed hungry anywhere in the United Kingdom? It churns my
guts when I think of it and yet those who have sworn a duty of care to the people on these
islands that we collectively inhabit seem to be happy that they are providing food, water,
shelter and lifesaving medicine to people in another country. As always, we seem to have
plenty of money when it comes to paying for nuclear weapons in the UK, but when it comes to
helping those least able to help themselves in society then moneys too tight to mention.

Let charity BEGIN at home.

An influential voice in important places.
The United Kingdom is a leading member of the UN and the only country in the world that is
also a member of NATO, the EU, the Commonwealth, the G7, the G8 and the G20. As one of the
EUs big four nations, the UK is more able to protect Scottish interests in areas like agriculture
and fisheries.

This one actually hit a nerve with me. Of course Scotland would enter the UN. From what Ive
read, well have very little difficulty joining NATO even if we do tell the nuclear subs and nukes
at Faslane to take a hike. Scotland will also be in the EU and the Queen will be our head of
state which means well be in the Commonwealth. There, whats missing? Oh yes the G7, 8
and 20. Well taking that Scotland will be 14th richest in the world thats right now if we were
independent, then why wouldnt we be invited to at least the G20? Collectively, the G-20
economies account for around 85% of the gross world product (GWP), 80% of world trade (or
if excluding EU intra-trade: 75%), and two-thirds of the world population. The G-20 heads of
government or heads of state have also periodically conferred at summits since their initial
meeting in 2008. So why wouldnt an independent Scotland be part of that?

- 197 -

G7 is a group of seven industrialised nations of the world, formed by Canada, USA, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, and the UK. (G6 refers to the same group minus Canada, while G8
refers to the group plus Russia.) Now to the good people of France, Italy and Japan I say this
with utter respect, if your country is in the G6,7 and 8 then why wouldnt a re-industrialised
Scotland be in it? Its just a matter of time. Perhaps in future those numbers would change to
G8, 9 and 10 to reflect an extra industrialised nation joining their number. Or perhaps well
form other allegiances in the future such as with the other Scandinavian countries. Well see.
At least well have the choice if we want it.

Finally on this section I have to call a halt to what is an extra-ordinary lie. the UK is more able
to protect Scottish interests in areas like agriculture and fisheries. When the UK began to
negotiate with the EU, certain bargaining chips were used to gain the UK things in other areas.
One of those bargaining chips was our fishing industry. In the past, the sea off Scotlands
coasts has been peppered with other EU fishing vessels whilst the the entire Scottish fishing
fleet was tied up at home, unable to fish their own home waters. Thats the core of the lie.
Protect Scottish interests? Dont make me die laughing! Similarly, we have the Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) which provides a grant to farmers all over the UK, however, Scottish
farmers never seem to get their fair share of that, do they? Its provided on a size basis and not
an agricultural output basis which it should be. Some huge estates owned by the landed
gentry have the gaul to boast an output of 0.25 grams of Grouse per acre, per year and get to
stuff their head into the nosebag of CAP for simply owning the land. Ridiculous! With proper
land reform laws, we can do so much better for our farmers and argue our corner with regard
to the EU fishing limits and rights. Independence is a must for this.

Next page.the picture shows happy workers in their place of
work. The strapline says, By staying in the United Kingdom
Scotland is stronger, what it doesnt tell you is that the guy on
the left is on a zero hours contract, hes just turned up for work
and has been told that hell have to go home because theyve
got enough folk on to cover what needs to be done that day
and the wee lass on the right is a Mum who is part of a single
parent family and doesnt earn enough to keep her and her
children with a roof over their heads and food on the table.
Shes looking to see if theres a foodbank that she can go to, especially after the extra that was
taken off her due to the bedroom tax and the cost of living just gets higher and higher. The lad
in the middle has a terribly disabled child in his teens and ATOS have just told him that hes fit
for work and are stopping his payments.

There you go, conjecture applied to a photograph, but Ill bet you that if you go to work places
throughout Britain, youll find plenty of living, real examples such as the ones I mentioned
above. In Scotland, we can put a stop to that. All we have to do is vote yes.

A successful family of nations
For over 300 years, Scotland has flourished as part of the United Kingdom. Together with
England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Scotland has created one of the worlds most successful
families of nations.

Correction, Scotland has paid through the nose to provide Tunnels, Motorways and more for
London and the South East of England in an unfair and undemocratic straight jacket that has
pulled us down and made us poorer. Just look at the evidence; Scotland has always paid its
way and yet in 1979, just when the real wealth of the oil was hitting the treasury with smiles
all round and a search for what can we spend it on?, we were funded through the Goeschen
formula (1888) which provided us with 13.75% of what was handed over to run England and
Wales. That was the year of the Scottish referendum where they hoodwinked the Scottish
people out of a Scottish Assembly by applying a made up rule that had never been used
- 198 -

before which said that at least 40% of the votes of everyone eligible to vote in Scotland had to
be a yes. Because of this, even the dead counted as no votes. Just shortly before that scam of a
referendum, the Goeschen formula (1888) was changed to the Barnett formula which gave us
just 11% of that given to run England and Wales. So it can be said that whilst Scotland had
discovered great riches under the waters that surround it, the people in our land got much
poorer as a result. Thats how its been with Westminster in charge all the way along. Are we
daft? No, we just cant do anything about it until we vote yes.

A strong Scottish Parliament
Scotland already has its own Parliament that makes decisions about hospitals, schools,
policing and other important matters. From next year, the Scottish Parliament will be getting
even more powers to set tax rates and decide if and when to borrow money.

Oh they mean the Scotland Act (2012) do they? Ive had a good look at that. Theres always
been the capability to raise taxes in Holyrood. The Labour Govt didnt use them and they could
have. Why not? Its simple really, there wouldnt be any net gain to Scotland. Anything extra
raised by extra taxes would simply get sliced off our block grant. The Scottish people would be
paying more in tax but getting nothing back in return. Thats an unfair set up. Many
economists like Professor Andrew Hughes Hallet have warned against being foolish enough to
do such a thing. The actual more powers are the powers to legislate on air rifles and vary
speed limits, not really helpful, is it? What about giving us power to vary APD (Airport
Passenger Duty) which adds a big sting onto the cost of air travel. At least that would have
been somewhat helpful to our tourist industry and helped cash strapped families get a wee
holiday abroad. We asked for that power to be given to us and it was refused and yet it was
given to Northern Ireland. Not much of a family spirit there eh?
The simple common sense answer to all of that nonsense is to vote yes in September and then
well get all the powers we need and we wont have the embarrassment of asking for more
powers and being turned down again and again.

We all benefit from being together
Collectively, the United Kingdoms four nations contain more than 60 million people and nearly
5 million businesses. This larger community provides more opportunities to succeed and greater
financial security.

Did you know that in the top trading nations on the list of successful nations are mostly made
up of countries that are similar in size or smaller than Scotland? Its true. The UK Government
are trying to somehow make out that large size equals stability. Very few individuals and
businesses have felt any stability in the last 6 years. In fact the downturn due to the credit
crunch was handled easier by those smaller nations because they could quickly react to what
was happening. In fact, over the last year and a bit, Scotland has out-performed the rest of the
UK and is still doing so. Its a shame that we dont get to enjoy the fruits of our labours though,
isnt it? Just think, all that money being frittered away on items such as the bar bill in the
House of Commons and they wouldnt even think of raising a glass in a toast to the people of
Scotland. However, they certainly will raise glasses full of expensive champagne if Scotland
votes no, wont they? Theyll have secured the gravy train from Scotland for another
generation. Dont give them that pleasure. Vote yes.

Next page..oh a happy smiling family complete with Mum,
Dad, two kids and the Grandparents. How nice. They seem to
be sitting at the bottom of a Scottish glen and the sun is
shining.

Across on the facing page we have the words, The
referendum on 18th September means making a big decision
that affects everything: how you live and work, what money
- 199 -

you use, the tax you pay, the laws you abide by and the passport you carry. The UK
Government believes that by staying united we have much more to share and much more to
gain.

I wonder if that family would be smiling if they realised that when the UK Government talk of
much more to share and much more to gain, its the UK Government that have much more
to gain out of that deal and its us thatll be doing the sharing.

The epilogue my opinion of this leaflet
If this is the best that the UK Government with all the resources that its got can muster then
frankly I think its fair to say that I dont feel the love. This was an exercise in say something,
say anything and I cant imagine that people would get taken in when they look at the reality
of whats actually on offer for the Scottish people. The reality of it is that the people of
Scotland will actually be much poorer than they are now and with a Scottish Government
champing at the bit to remove austerity from our land, we have the comparison of a UK
Government that have hardly started on their austerity measures which will go on for years. A
debt of 1.37 Trillion isnt going to get paid off inside just a decade. Our children will end up
working hard to pay off a debt that had nothing to do with them and was created by the banks
gambling addiction and a government that couldnt see beyond the bling that the bankers
were wearing at the time. Thanks a lot Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling and thanks a lot
George Osborne who should have stuck to folding towels. Between those three, a fantastic
debt has been run up which cant be paid off. If Ed Balls ends up as Chancellor, just like
everyone else, hell play politics for a while and then realise hell have to go cap in hand to the
money markets and restructure the debt. When that happens, if were sensible enough, well
have voted to regain our independence and should be able to stave off the worst of what will
happen next. At least when that happens, the rUK will have eaten a large slice of reality and
will realise that perhaps the Empire is no more and will stop fighting with everyone that the
USA points to.

Scotland needs out of the union urgently, but on the upside, if we choose independence, well
have a country to rebuild and were going to enjoy building it the way we want it.


Not quite deception and lies but simply pressuring those serving in the armed forces to vote No in the
referendum, as reported by the Herald:
"Westminster propaganda war to encourage armed forces to vote 'No'

WESTMINSTER has been accused of politicising the armed services after distributing pro-
Union "propaganda" to all UK military personnel alongside reminders about registering to
vote in the independence referendum."

Surely this has to be construed as an unfair advantage and interference by a UK government that claims only
the people of Scotland should decide how to vote?

Its ironic that they should pressure the armed forces into voting No given the treatment they have been
receiving from the UK government with numbers being slashed, regiments merged and disbanded:
9,000 ex-service personnel homeless after leaving the military (see Daily Mirror)
Tories' tax on heroes: PM David Cameron's 47m raid on Forces' pensions (see Daily Mirror) (this
was also discussed at length in my previous document)
Almost 200,000 servicemen and women face a 47million a year tax raid on their pensions. Soldiers,
sailors and air force personnel will be hit in the pay packet by David Camerons reforms. The tax rise
will kick in when the new flat rate pensions system starts in 2017. see here
Army to cut 20,000 jobs two years earlier than expected. General Sir Peter Wall says the army will
speed up its redundancy programme by cutting the posts by 2018 (The Guardian).
- 200 -

Scottish independence: MoD delaying cuts agenda THE Ministry of Defence is to postpone
publishing its annual report until after the Scottish independence referendum. Last year the 2012/13
accounts were published on 16 July but this year they are not due to come out until late September or
October. see The Scotsman

Whats worse is that the Scottish defence personnel have been cut by 27.9%, more than twice the amount of
UK personnel (see here). There are more facts regarding defence found here that the No campaign would
rather you didnt know.

Incidentally, this 20,000 reduction from 102,000 to 82,000 would be broadly double to what the UK army
would lose if every Scottish soldier transferred to the Scottish Defence Force (reduction is approx 20% while
Scottish members of the UK armed forces constitute around 10%). Yet you dont hear screams of cataclysm
and doom from losing twice the number of army personnel from cuts as you do from losing half to an
independent Scotland.





The previous Labour government werent
liked much either by the armed forces:



- 201 -





It wasnt just the armed forces that the UK government was exerting pressure on to vote No, the civil service
have also been pressured as can be seen in this letter below from Robert Devereux, Permanent Secretary of
the Department of Work and Pensions:



- 202 -



Further questionable pressure includes the UK government leaning on its allies to either interfere in
Scotland's referendum (remember Obama, etc?) or not interfere at all. This article in the Herald reports that
"Irish ministers warned not to express opinion on indyref" "Irish government ministers have
been warned not to express any opinion on Scotland's independence referendum."
Could the reason be the UK government knows, or at least suspect, that Ireland, as another small former
member of the UK, would be more likely to back Scotland than claim it should stay in the UK? And that it
wouldn't come out with nonsense like "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? I guess Obama doesn't know how broke
the UK really is.



Start-up Costs Debacle
Much was written about this in my last document and since there have only been a few more articles
showing how the UK governments claims of the start-up costs for new government departments for an
independent Scotland were wildly off the mark.

For example:
Dunleavy: 1.5bn indy startup cost 'not a figure I accept' Professor Patrick Dunleavy has said
the 1.5bn figure, touted by newspapers and the BBC is, "not a figure I accept". In a statement
to Newsnet Scotland, the academic who has been at the centre of a row after the UK Treasury
misrepresented an earlier study, said independence would cost no more than 600m. He said:
"To restate: Set up costs for Indy Scotland [is circa] 200m." Explaining that IT costs could add a
possible 400m over a ten year transition period, Professor Dunleavy added: "So my max
600m (including 200m above) in a decade contrasts with Treasury 1.5 bn," (see here)


- 203 -


Deception and Lies from Labour
Well, it's fair to say that Labour and Better Together are almost the one and the same, mainly because the
only thing more toxic in Scotland than UK New Labour is the Conservative party. Nevertheless, a few Labour-
specific comments are:







Dirty Tactics
Predictably, the unionist campaign continues to try and label Scottish independence supporters as Nazis.
Douglas Alexander, in a recent article in the Scotsman, tried to associate the inclusive, pro-immigrant
Scottish independence movement with far-right nationalist movements in the UK and Europe. As he said
They know full well that Ukips success, and the rise of other nationalist parties around Europe, owes more
to emotion than economics.

It is depressing that such a senior figure either hasnt a clue what Scottish nationalism is fighting for, or he is
willing to lie and label a large minority (possibly even majority now) in Scotland as racists. It is particularly
- 204 -

galling when you consider who are fighting WITH Better Together to keep Scotland in the union the Orange
Order, Britain First, the Britannica Party, the BNP and of course UKIP.

As someone said on Twitter:


Another comment from him was Instead, in the weeks ahead, I expect well hear increasingly shrill claims
from increasingly desperate spokespeople., completely missing his own irony given the scaremongering lies
emanating from an increasingly desperate pro-unionist campaign. And his comment that As a member of
parliament for an area that includes some of the worst deprivation in Scotland, I witness the pain of poverty
has to be one of the most crass comments made, given his party has been in control of his constituency,
Renfrewshire Council AND the UK government (for 13 of the past 17 years) and yet Labour have done
nothing about the deprivation in his constituency. It seems he likes to bang on about as if its a badge of
honour.

But back to the Nazi/racist slurs. Yet another series of comments, this time from Ian Smart, TV pundit, former
president of the Law Society and active Labour party member as reported here





- 205 -







It seems Ian Not-so-Smart was playing tar-the-SNP bingo here because hes managed to claim the SNP hate
the English, the Polish, Pakistanis, Jews, Catholics, blacks and even dead people! Yet the unionists are
actually the ones who constantly denigrate anyone born abroad as undesirable (see above and here)

Even Alan Smart, brother of Ian Smart (honestly!), wrote here asking if Johann Lamont agreed with his
brothers comments regarding Alex Salmond supposedly being upset because Hampden cheered on two
black English lassies and if not what action will she take against Ian. I dont think hes ever received a reply
yet.

An address at a University of St Andrews graduation ceremony was even used to compare the Scottish
nationalist movement with the far-right xenophobic movements in France and Germany (see here)

- 206 -

As reported in this BBC article, here and here, Labours
newest Parliamentary candidate, Kathy Wiles, had to
resign after she posted images of Hitler Youth members
and comparing them to Yes Scotland protesters. She
had previously called independence supporters
benefits dependents although she hadn't been forced
to resign because of that. Remember when Labour
stood up for those on benefits? Yeah, it was a long time
ago as their official party policy shows. Youll never
hear the SNP attacking the voters of any of the Unionist
parties. Youll hear plenty about them reaching out to
Labour voters in particular, telling them that they share
their values and can help to implement them in an
independent Scotland, or even that an independent
Scotland would enable them to elect a Labour
government.




Kathy was also guilty
of what could be
described as hostility
towards immigrants
with the following
Facebook comments
(see here for full
article discussing
them):



- 207 -

And what was Kathy Wiles excuse? Sauce for
the goose but not for the gander. it sounds
like given Better Together like to use images
of children in their own works of fiction.





And less than 2 days after Kathy Wiles
resigned, Louise Morton, Vice Chair of Moray
Labour Party, tweeted this (the original has
since been deleted) as reported here.



Incidentally, Louise Mortin is already famous, or infamous if you prefer, for laughing when Yes activists were
intimidated out of campaigning at a local fair by threats of violence (see here).

When you stop to think about it, it's all the more disturbing when the unionists try to argue that we're all
"Better Together". What does that mean really? Please don't go, you appalling proto-fascists? (see Herald)

- 208 -

And if it's not Nazis or comparing Alex Salmond to
Hitler, it's comparing the only government leader in
the UK who gained an absolute majority from the
electorate to a North Korean dictator or Robert
Mugabe (see How is Alex Salmond like Robert
Mugabe? The Spectator):




Another very common tactic is to try and label independence supporters as anti-English. For example, Kerry
Gill in the Scottish Daily Express wrote:
The Yes Scotland campaign comprised largely of SNP members and sympathisers, aided by a
ragbag of Green nationalists, a small number of disaffected Labour voters and rather more
anti-English bigots than anyone cares to admit is in trouble.

This could not be further from the truth (surprise, surprise) and many independence supporters both north
and south of the border are in fact English (as are a number of SNP MSPs). For example, in this article A
letter to Scottish voters a Yorkshireman shares his (positive) opinions regarding Scottish independence.
There is also an English Scots for Yes Facebook page and website (see here)

Hell, some in England are even campaigning for the border to be moved south in the event of a Yes vote
they WANT to join an independent Scotland! Campaigner calls for Scottish border to reach the south bank of
the Tyne - The Journal

- 209 -

Other comments from those in England include:






Another article Why English people sometimes upset Scots and where this comes from, written by another
Englishman living in England gives his view about the current relationship between Scotland and England and
how it can improve after independence.

Managing in one fell swoop to cover both the Nazi and anti-English slurs is David Starkey, the British
Historian mentioned previously, with his comment that the First Minister, democratically elected twice by
the people of Scotland, was a Caledonian Hitler [who] sees the English everywhere, like the Jews (see
Huffington Post)

- 210 -

And when theyre not calling supporters for
independence Nazis or English-haters, well, theyre
just calling them thick (reported here), such as when
Jill Stephenson, Professor Emerita of Modern
German History at the University of Edinburgh,
tweeted a quote apparently from another Professor,
this time John Curtice:




However, unlike other shameful Twitter comments made by others, this one is still available here on Twitter.
It would appear that the Professor either stands by her comment, or simply hasnt the intellectual ability to
delete it. You decide. At least someone got it with a great response to her claim.

And I think Peter Mullin sums it up perfectly:



Other Unionist Articles
There have been a few articles from unionists that try to argue for Scotland remaining in the union.
However, all repeat the same lies that Better Together pronounce, and one of the best, by Dr Nicholas M
Almond, was reported here complete with an error count made tongue-in-cheek. I wouldnt want to spoil
the surprise for you but the article believes it may qualify for the most spectacularly ill-informed and
offensively moronic article on the subject of Scotland ever to appear in a recognised and vaguely respectable
publication with 16 flat-out major factual blunders [...] squeezed into just 914 words. Thats one serious
mistake every 57 words. The article is worth reading just to see the howling errors made by Dr Almond.

And after having a complete irony by-pass, Charles Kennedy claims in this Telegraph article that
Independence would inflict huge damage on rural Scotland by increasing the cost of vital services such as
the Royal Mail, completely forgetting that privatising the Royal Mail (which his party helped with) is more
likely to inflict the huge damage on unprofitable rural services that independence ever could.



- 211 -

Better Together Funding
Despite Alasdair Darlings complaints about how the Yes campaign was better funded than Better Together,
funding for Better Together had a recent surge from the likes of JK Rowling and a number of Tory party
donors. For example, according to the Financial Times (see here)
Billionaire bankers, property companies and Conservative party supporters have led a deluge
of donations to Scotlands anti-independence campaign in the past six months, giving it a big
boost with just 10 weeks to go until the vote. Much of the money being given to those
fighting to conserve the union has come from people who also donate to the Conservative
party.

Broadland Properties gives 50,000 a year to the party, but gave 10,000 to Better Together
for the first time in March.

Flowidea, a subsidiary of Arbuthnot bank, has contributed to various Conservative causes in the
past, including more than 1m to the party itself.

Individual bankers, such as Bruno Schroder of the Schroders investment banking family, and
Scottish aristocrats, such as Earl Ian Seafield, have also given tens of thousands of pounds.

And as reported here:
Better Together disclosed 1.1 million of donations to its campaign. Almost half of that sum
came from one man: Ian Taylor, a long-term Conservative Party donor and Chief Executive of
oil-traders Vitol plc. [...] This raises several concerns. Taylor, according to The Sunday Herald, is
not registered to vote in Scotland. This breaks Electoral Commission guidelines for general
elections, which Yes Scotland has promised to follow. Secondly, Ian Taylor has given 550,000
to the Conservative Party since 2006. This is a further case of Tory donors and their political
interests bankrolling the no campaign
As well as avoiding tax for more than a decade, Vitol paid $1 million to a Serbian paramilitary leader and
suspected was criminal, paid kickbacks to Saddam Husseins regime for oil contracts, skirted Iranian
sanctions, and Ian Taylor has been accused of improper political donations to the Conservative Party.

And as mentioned before, try asking a question on a Better Together Facebook page containing Ian Taylor's
name and see if it will appear on the page.

While the Guardian article reports:
The Tory donor whose firm is one of Britains biggest tax avoiders - with HMRC's blessing
One of the Tories biggest donors and a major contributor to the Scottish No campaign runs
a vast oil-trading company which has potentially avoided UK corporate taxes on billions of
pounds of profit with the blessing of the tax man.

Meanwhile the Telegraph reported:
A company run by the one of the Tory Partys biggest donors is in negotiations to finance a
Russian oil company targeted by US sanctions against President Putin. Vitol, the worlds largest
oil trader, is looking to lend Rosneft $2bn in exchange for supplies of refined products over the
next five years.

Remember, this is a Tory supporter who has gambled a very large sum of money on keeping Scotland in the
UK you have to ask what he hopes to get from it and whether someone with his immoral history should be
helping to keep Scotland in the union.

Calls for Darling to hand back cash from tax-avoidance firm donor The company, run by one of the biggest
donors to the anti-independence campaign, has avoided paying tax on billions of pounds of profits, it has
been reported. see here

- 212 -

And as this article points out, having complained bitterly just a couple of months ago about being the
underdog because the Yes camp have more financial firepower, Blair McDougalls Better Together has
trousered over 2.4m from rich business donors, whereas Yes Scotland has collected under 1.2m, almost all
of it from lottery winners Chris and Colin Weir.

Those making gifts to various arms of the No campaign include the mysterious Rain Dance Investments
(200,000) a company with no website, which appears to be based in an eight-bedroomed house in a small
village in Lincoln which also seems to be home to numerous other companies.



There is also the Stalbury Trustees. Donating 50,000 to the millionaire-run Vote No Borders group (two-
thirds of its declared donations, although it appears to have also received a considerable number of
donations just under the 7500 limit), Stalbury Trustees is a company devoted to the promotion of
Conservative principles.

Magnificently, one of its directors lists his occupation as gentleman, while the others are all members of
the House of Lords with titles like something out of Game Of Thrones. One of them, The Seventh Earl of
Verulam, is actually John Grimston, a banker who until 2000 was Managing Director of ABN-Amro, the dodgy
bank which would ultimately bring down RBS.

Robert Michael James Cecil appears to be the current Marquess of Salisbury, also known as Lord
Cranborne and Viscount Cranborne, and a former Leader of the House of Lords, so it seems more likely that
it was him.

Ulric David Barnett the mere gentleman is another investment banker from an aristocratic line, about
whom we can find little further information, but were sure hes a top-hole fellow despite being apparently
the only non-lord in the group. We hope the others dont mock him too much for being an oik.




- 213 -

More information on who donated how much to the Better Together campaign:


This Guardian article claims Better Togethers tally includes significant donations from Tory backers and
senior financiers. It received 100,000 from stockbroker Andrew Fraser, who has given 1m to the Tories and
was head of equities at Barings merchant bank before its collapse; 50,000 from Ivor Dunbar, former co-head
of Global Capital Markets at Deutsche Bank; and 30, 000 from Britain's 11th richest man Bruno Schroder,
who owns a 16,500-acre estate on the island of Islay. The no side's total includes 75,000 from the No
Borders campaign, founded by Greenock-born millionaire Malcolm Offord, who has previously donated
100,000 to the Tories.




- 214 -

And where are the "permitted participants" from both sides registered? Well, I doubt you'll be surprised by
now to find that all except one pro-union participant is registered either in England, Wales or Northern
Ireland.




- 215 -

Media Bias
It is rather disheartening, but not really surprising that even during the official campaigning period when all
the media should be balanced that they continue to show overt bias towards the union. Many news outlets
partake in this bias and more examples are below.

As someone commented elsewhere I wonder how many have been converted to Yes by noting the sinister
difference between half the electorate voting for pro-indy parties, but NOT ONE daily newspaper supporting
them. And how many more people can be switched to Yes in the next eight weeks when that little point is put
to them?

This interesting article here discusses the subject of alienation from the mainstream media as a result of the
bias now being seen When you decide youre voting yes, you have freed yourself from the shackles of a
future thats determined for you by people whose interests are not your own. Youve realised that there are
different paths to tread, different destinations to strive for. Youre independent already, and you already live
in a Scotland that Westminster cannot deliver. Live independently in your own head, and youre already a
citizen of a new Scotland.

As a general comment on the
UK media, this article reports
how the latest European Quality
Of Life Survey illustrated the
almost unique and near-
pathological lack of trust in the
media held by the UK public.
With the exception of Greece,
every other nation on the
continent has considerably
more faith in its press. Its not
just a cynical British nature
trust in the Parliament and the
legal system(s) here are much
healthier in comparison to
other European nations, but the
people of Britain dont trust
their media as far as they could
throw it. (Perhaps astonishingly,
UK citizens trust politicians
significantly MORE than they
trust newspapers.)



There are far too many instances of this happening to list them all and so only a few xamples have been
provided (this section is already long enough).

When the Bank of England recently announced they had contingency plans for all currency options after
independence, instead of being reported in the positive light for independence that the original publication
can easily be read in, it was interpreted in a negative light by many newspapers including the Guardian, Daily
Record The Scotsman and the Scottish Sun who all used the phrase emergency plans, one that was never
used in the original BoE publication (see here for a full analysis)

Another incident involves the OBR (mentioned previously). They had issued reports of very poor oil forecasts
which had been dismissed as a gross under-estimation by experts in the oil industry (by 8 billion per year in
- 216 -

fact). But how did the media report these discredited figures about the oil revenues? Well, as you can read
here, there was one newspaper that reported the oil revenues in a positive light, which was the Sunday
Times. Disappointingly though, 14 news outlets reported the OBR's pessimistic and discredited oil revenues -
these were The Times, The Telegraph, The Scotsman, The Herald, The Independent, The Scottish Sun, The
Daily Record, The Courier, The Guardian, The Press & Journal (syndicated copy),The Daily Mail, The Financial
Times, BBC and STV. The oddest thing was that only TWO of the articles (the Heralds and the Couriers)
thought to even passingly reference Professor Sir Donald Mackays comments about the OBR from just days
ago despite several of the reports having been taken from the same Press Association newswire piece, which
DID include the reference to Sir Donalds article made by SNP MSP Jamie Hepburn, but were subsequently
and it would seem deliberately edited out.



This article explains how the media reacted with furore over the alleged (but never proven) intimidation that
the Scottish Government supposedly applied to the former head of the Scotch Whisky Association
(mentioned previously) and reported in Channel 4s dispatches. However, aside from the fact that the
existing head of the SWA stated he experienced no intimidation whatsoever, the episode revealed how it
wasnt deemed acceptable for heads of business to feel intimidated (understandably as long as theyre
honest in their announcements) yet when an employer attempts to pressure their employees into voting No
to apparently save their own jobs, the victim is STILL the employer, not the employee.

And of course there is little in the mainstream media about the UK government being accused of intimidating
companies to back the No campaign as reported here. Several senior defence executives told the FT that
they were being urged by ministers and other senior officials to make negative statements about Scotland
becoming a democratically self governed independent country. Keep in mind that defence executives
manage defence companies, most of which will be reliant on the MoD for contracts.

There's an interesting article here on "How the corporate media distorts and manipulates news and
information" unrelated to the referendum but still illuminating nonetheless for the distortion on the
referendum.

- 217 -



BBC BIAS
The BBC disappointingly continues to show bias towards the union and against independence despite
numerous protests outside their BBC Scotland headquarters (that still are barely reported by the BBC).

"Scottish audiences believe BBC Scotland needs a "thorough reassessment" of its news output and have
questioned its in impartiality covering the independence referendum." - the Herald

BBC Biased Against Scottish Independence - Media Expert see RIA

However, what is illuminating is how the BBC bias is becoming obvious in other areas of reporting, not just
on the subject of independence (it was probably already there but not that noticeable because the bias
related mainly to reporting events outside the UK). A couple of examples centre around how the BBC has
been reporting the events in Gaza. As this article here explains, the demonstrations against Israels actions in
Gaza have been under-reported in a similar manner to the demonstrations outside BBC Scotlands building.

Another similar incident and also unrelated to Scottish independence was when 50,000 people took to
central London as part of a Peoples Assembly demonstration to oppose austerity. Not a word, or single
reference to this event existed on the BBC. So under reporting demonstrations, numbers and so on is not
surprising.

Another example - you may have seen Question Time recently when an elderly gent stood up in an Inverness
studio and claimed I was born in Inverness, Im a passionate Highlander, and I love Scotland. I will take a
stand to keep the United Kingdom together. I will give my life for my country as my grandfather did in the
First World War. And his brother Charlie. Highland regiment! British Army! I am British forever! We will never,
never change! We will keep our union together in the name of Jesus!

The audiences for Question Time are carefully selected so this gentlemans pro-union outburst would have
come as no surprise to the program makers, or most certainly shouldnt have if the programme makers had
been doing their job properly.

Furthermore, and this is a point that encompasses the general mainstream media bias and not just the
BBCs, as this article points out where was the uproar from the mainstream media reporting about someone
who was willing to resort to violence to defend the union? While this gent is more likely to be looked upon
with pity than fear, would the press have reacted in the same manner if it was an independence supporter
who stood up and instead said
I was born in Inverness. I am a passionate Highlander. And I love Scotland. And I will take a
stand to break up this United Kingdom. I will give my life for my country as my grandfather did
in the First World War, and his brother Charlie. Highland Regiment! Scottish Army! I am
Scottish forever. We will never, never change. We will end this Union, in the name of Jesus. I
will break - if it's my own life - I will break up this country with my blood."
- 218 -


Would we instead have read headlines such as "NATIONALIST ACTIVIST IN BLOOD AND SOIL ROW" "HATEFUL
CYBERNAT INVADES BELOVED BRITISH TV INSTITUTION WITH SEPARATIST THREATS" "I'LL DIE FOR
SCOTLAND, SNP LUNATIC WARNS" "JESUS: HE'S NOT THE MESSIAH, HE'S A VERY BLOODY SEPARATIST."?

Another article, from Derek Bateman (see here), summarises well the apparent mindset within the BBC
They [BBC] do challenge the government but when its Westminster the home of democracy
against upstarts in Edinburgh or Cardiff, there is no contest. Its as if we dont have the right
to challenge, that it is an affront to right-minded peoplethat we are forgetting our place.
And the level of so called journalism makes me cringe when I hear the highly dubious and
unconfirmed claims that ministers intimidate businessmen being canvassed by the media.
What do the same dim wits think removing contracts, closing yards, sacking workers and
insulting them by making them foreigners amounts to? If that isnt intimidation, what is? We
will put up a border with guardswe will refuse to buy your electricitywe will deny you access
to your currencywe will bar you from membership of NATOeach one a direct public
ministerial threat to the Scots. Does our august media report it that way? Of course, not.
Balance, perspective and intelligence are the last attributes we should expect.

I heard another journalist on BBC Radio this morning a woman getting awfy nippy with
Angus Robertson which is OK if hes dodging a question. But he wasnt. She sounded very
indignant indeed that the British government made clear complex warships will not be built
outside the rUK and it didnt matter what a pipsqueak from the SNP said, that was that.
Theyve said it so it must be true even though they will build the second carrier on the Clyde
after any Yes vote oops! The lack of any understanding on her part was astonishing. If she
was so sure of her ground, where does she think future orders will go? To which yard? Who will
pay for the upgrade? Who will pay compensation to BAE Systems who are investing in a single
Clyde yard? Where will the skilled workforce come from? Why has the MoD been inquiring
around the globe about the costs of building warships? If the MoD is spending below the NATO
norm on defence and its heading that way where is the money coming from for a massive
upgrade of Portsmouth?

But that would be to engage in journalism rather than the objective which was to pity the little
fellow on the line. How could he how dare he go against the British government?

Would a Scottish minister or someone in the First Ministers office pretty pathetic that one
intimidate? Ministers are politicians so they try to win you over, convince you and get you on
their side. We call that politics. Any minister worth the name will deal with business on that
basis. If however he says: Do this or you wont get a grant approved or Shut up or there will
be no more work he crosses a line. Is there evidence of this? No. None. All C4 could come up
with is a former businessman who is a pillar of Unionist Britain and you have to laugh at an
organization like the Scotch Whisky Association which sells itself purely on its Scottish
provenance and yet which challenges the Scottish Parliament not simply on minimum pricing
which is a trade issue and therefore fair game but on the parliaments right to legislate.

And this is a comment from someone in response to that passionate Highlander:
I watched Question time on the TV, from Inverness, where there was a former Highland
Regimental soldier spoke out with passion for the Union. He has now gone viral on twitter
apparently, he lives on a croft with his dog and remembers his regimental history and his
family. I also have passion, for our regimental history and the history of our Land. I have wept
at the determination of the Scots regiments that sacrificed so much on the battlefields of
Belgium and France in the Great War, particularly comrades of family members in the HLI still
lying at Gallipoli, through those of the Deserts of North Africa, Italy, Burma, Korea..... The
battle role list of honours lie like a backbone through the British army, and I am proud of what
they did, the fighting spirit, the stoicism and endurance and courage.....

- 219 -

But I also know how that Westminster cadre used, abused, sacrificed the loyalty that they
harnessed. Fittingly, as this is a Highlander, from a Highland regiment, I would say to
him...remember Culloden, remember how even after the Highland regiments were ordered to
slaughter their kinsfolk, they were considered cannon fodder, expendable, by General Wolfe on
the Heights of Abraham....from his own words...no great Loss! Remember also, the men of the
Western Isles, returning after that battles, after battles under Wellington, or from other battles
against the French, to find their homes on fire, their families dispossessed, sheltering in the
heather, not that it stopped there...even after the Great War, the same happened, men
promised their sacrifice would give them a new home, land to work on and live, raise families...

From Uist and Skye, Raasay particularly, returned home to find their people struggling to exist,
where the Government had neglected them, even jailing them when they protested!.... History
records that the Government almost always favoured the Landowners, the Lords, big business,
over the crofter, the working man.....So as a Highlander I too have passion, though I am of an
age to have missed the wars, but I know of my history, know of my families sacrifices through
the wars, and have paid homage to them on some of these battlefields where they and
comrades lie. And I also know the pain, feel the pain, of the Clearances where all that Highland
loyalty, so cunningly diverted into the Army of Empire, was casually abused or discarded when
no longer needed. It goes on even today, with the cut backs over the last decade....So while I
understand him, I can't agree with him, in him the brainwashing still exists.....

I weep for him, and those comrades and family whose pride I recognise and give full homage to
the sacrifices made. I ken not many folk will read this, many will be focusing on the financial
worries of Independence, yet I feel that this is also about our hearts. In my ancestry, we fought
with Bruce, fought with Charlie, but this fight should aye be for the freedom of Scotland to
decide herself, enough of the sacrifice, let's stop people leaving, whether driven out by wealthy
landowners with power, or by economic necessity because of no work, no money, no
homes....in the year of homecoming, let's honour their memory, their sacrifice.... And give them
a home they can remember with pride, give them a home they can return to!


This article points out how the BBC seems desperate to report on alleged failings of the childcare sector in
Scotland yet doesnt report on the successes:
The BBC report on the 8th of August indicated that 12,000 parents were on waiting lists for
childcare and that many mothers struggled to locate full-time childcare. The BBC report
suggests the sector has problems in relation to its funding and availability. The BBC report
questioned if local authorities could meet the requirement to increase provision for three to five
year-olds from 475 hours per year to 600 and to extend provision to vulnerable two-year-olds.

How big are those problems? There is a definite hint of project fear about the BBC report. The
Family and Childcare trust 2014 report recognised that there was still a lack of availability in
some parts of Scotland but more positively indicated that: 74% of local authorities were
confident of meeting their targets, there had been year on year improvements in availability
and much progress had been made over the last 15 years to increase the availability,
affordability and quality of childcare in Scotland.

We are already well along the road to improving quality in the sector, so it was interesting that
the BBC report chose not to recognise and celebrate the improvements that have taken place.
It would be nice to have an explanation as to why the BBC ignored more positive stories such as
that in Nursery World June 30th this year regarding the impact The Ba Childhood Practice
qualification on the sector. I think they owe an apology to all the professionals in the sector
(the vast majority women) that have pulled up their sleeves and put their own families through
stress to achieve their BA Childhood Practice degrees and improve the quality of provision.


- 220 -

Yet another incident relates to a BBC investigation into the NHS in Scotland. This time the reporter was
accused of the using bogus figures in a scare story where the BBC claimed bed occupancy rates were as high
as 133% in some hospitals as beds were borrowed from other wards. As the article here reports
Responding to the claims from the BBC that patients were being put at risk, Mr Neil said he
was concerned about "some of the wilder claims" from the broadcaster. He added: "Some of
the figures quoted by the BBC are just quite frankly not true and do not reflect the information
provided by the boards." Mr Neil cited the example of Inverclyde Hospital in Greenock, which
the broadcaster had claimed had an occupancy rate of 133%. However official figures from
Greater Glasgow and Clyde health Board showed the real figure to be 35% lower. Highlighting
the improbability of the BBC claims, the health minister said; "If there had been a hundred and
thirty three per cent occupancy rate, that would have meant that at midnight when these
things are calculated, there would have been thirty three patients admitted to hospital sitting
on chairs and trolleys.

Interestingly this article also reports that when the SNP came to power in 2007, the Freedom of Information
requests to NHS boards from the BBC increased by 700% (as reported here in detail), fuelling speculation
that the broadcaster was fishing for 'bad' news stories in an attempt at undermining confidence in both the
SNP administration and the Scottish health service.

This article in the BBC News website screams Why Paris doesn't want a Scottish Yes. Yet when you read the
article fully, for historical reasons it focuses on a small town in France (Aubigny) where the mayor states
"Emotionally I would say most people in Aubigny are for it. But it is a complicated subject, and there are
many factors to take into account. So we don't feel in a position to pronounce," he says. "It is up to the
Scottish to decide." Nothing wrong with that is there? This seems pretty pro-independence but
acknowledges the decision rests with the people in Scotland. Well, apparently this comment has been
interpreted by the author as His reserve on the issue is tacit acknowledgement that full-blown independence
for Scotland may not tally with France's modern-day convictions and priorities. Wait, what? How can the
mayors alleged reserve, in the same breath as saying most people in Aubigny are for it suddenly mean
the complete opposite to what he just said?

And only after this rather lengthy discussion on Aubigny does the author touch upon feelings in Paris by
quoting... no, not the French government, or any French politicians but a single French political scientist.
Does his comments and views justify the headlines in this article, given many will simply see the headlines
and not read the article itself?

Another example is how the BBC changed figures and diagrams on its website from showing Scotland to
being a net contributor to the UK to being a net beneficiary (subsidised, really) (see here, here). In the
original article it showed Scotland boosted UK GDP to the tune of 282.50 per head. With Scotland part of
the UK, the figure per-head was 21,577.22. However if Scotland became independent it showed the rUK
GDP would drop to 21,294.72. However within 24 hours the BBC analysis was amended to show Scotland
not as a net contributor to UK GDP, but as a net beneficiary.


According to the new figures, with UK GDP with Scotland is 21,287 but without Scotland it improved 117,
to 21,404. The change means the BBC has wiped almost 400 per head from Scotlands GDP.

- 221 -

It would appear that this change was achieved by manipulating the export figures. Scotland's exports,
including oil and gas were worth 98.1bn yet the BBC reported only 16.9bn. Now how on earth did they
lose 83bn from the Scottish economy? Very dubiously in fact. Firstly, they excluded the 58.3bn that
accounts for exports to the rest of the UK, implying that in an independent Scotland this market would
disappear overnight.

Secondly, the oil and gas revenues were excluded as there is no agreement between Holyrood and
Westminster on their allocation according to the BBC. By stating this they are suggesting that Scotland
might get none of the oil and gas revenue at all, which is clearly ludicrous and even the most ardent, lying
unionist (for example Alasdair Darling, Gordon Brown or David Cameron) have not made such a ridiculous
claim.

Even then, this leave 25.9bn, still 9bn higher than the BBC's figure. As the article here ponders, the only
figure matching 16.9bn is the highly selective manufactured exports category in 2010 (not even the latest
figures), which excludes services as well as exports to rUK and oil/gas revenue. What the BBC has done here
isnt just careless, its deceptive since in order to gauge the reality of Scotlands finances you clearly need to
look at exports as if the country was already independent, in which case the rest of the UK would be an
export market as well, radically shifting the balance. And obviously you need to include ALL of Scotlands
exports, not just an arbitrary selection of them.


A further example here, this time of selective editing where a representative of Friends of the Earth Scotland
had his dialogue cut midway through a sentence to make it appear he as saying that the Scottish government
was making Scotland a harder place to do business. While we'll never know exactly what he said after that
(though given the Green Party are pro-independence and it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume Friends of
the earth are too), it was clear that he was in mid-sentence when he was cut off.

The news about the new and massive Clair oil field was reported recently in this BBC News article. However,
what is worth noticing is that the first part of the article (the one most visitors are likely to read) states that
the development would produce about 640m barrels of oil over the next 40 years. Yet further on (where
visitors are less likely to read) they report that Oil industry experts have described it as a "monster" field
containing an estimated eight billion barrels of oil and some analysts believe oil produced there could see the
Atlantic overtake the North Sea as the UK's biggest oil-producing region. Why did they report initially that
the oil field would produce 640m barrels of oil when further on they quote experts in the oil industry who
claim it will actually be more than 12 times as large. Is this sloppy journalism or a deliberate attempt to talk
down the size of the field?

A minor, and very subtle, image used by the BBC is similar in how the BBC uses a distorted map of the UK
that shows Scotland as being much smaller than it actually is (see last document). The BBC have used the
following image on a number of articles (see here for example):



Note how the UK flag dominates the image and is significantly larger than the Scottish flag. Furthermore, the
Scottish flag doesnt look in very good shape, with the tattered edge. Subtle but negative nonetheless.
- 222 -


The BBC broadcast the program "Scotland Votes" recently and was described in this Herald review as
"the nightmare you'd have if you'd spent the day at a UKIP rally eating cheese, then bounced
on a trampoline for 50 minutes before turning in. In this awful dreamscape we saw the Union
Jack being cut to shreds, Land of Hope and Glory drowned out by the thumping drums of
Braveheart, Scots refusing to support the England team, and radioactive monsters devouring
English cities. I speak of radioactive monsters for two reasons: that is how Alex Salmond was
portrayed here - as Tartan Godzilla - and because the BBC have produced a childish programme
so why shouldn't my response refer to cartoons? Ostensibly, Scotland Votes is about how
independence would affect the rest of the UK but really it's an attack on Scotland for having the
cheek to consider leaving. We're portrayed as ungrateful children who can't possibly grasp
what independence means and, if we take our baw and go home, it's the rUK who'll suffer."
There is more and it's worth reading the whole article to appreciate it.

You may have heard of the protests that have been occurring outside the BBC Scotland offices on Pacific
Quay in Glasgow, or you may not have given the BBC themselves are unremarkably quiet on the matter. The
lack of reporting was in my last document so I wont go into that but what will be mentioned here is that the
peaceful and legitimate protest was described by Labour MP Jim Murphy as The nationalists' attempts to
bully broadcasters and boycott businesses is the last thing the independence debate needs. (see here). Now
why would one of Better Togethers campaigners state that? Perhaps because he knows, along with every
other unionist in the Better Together camp, that the bias is true and that they know its intended to help
their campaign? And so any criticism of that bias is met with accusations of bullying (without any hint of
irony I might add).

Another subject already discussed above is the comments made by Sir Ian Wood regarding how much oil is
left in the North Sea (his recent figures dropped around 30% from his previous figures). But its how it has
been reported by the BBC thats relevant here. As discussed in this article:
Fresh from its decision to give headline coverage to Sir Ian Wood after he launched an attack
on the Scottish Government over its estimate of the amount of oil remaining in the North Sea,
the BBC has given coverage to yet another similar claim.

Melfort Campbell, who once chaired a commission into the future of North Sea oil, has claimed
companies will be "hard pushed" to extract 15bn barrels from the sector. Mr Campbell's claim
is the basis for a BBC article, headlined 'Further warning over North Sea oil extraction figures'.

Campbell is also a former Chairman of pro-Union organisation CBI Scotland whose parent - the
London based CBI - briefly registered as an official supporter of the anti-independence Better
Together campaign. The registration was deemed void after CBI Chief John Cridland said it had
been made in error.

The decision to promote claims which challenge Scottish Government, and industry, estimates
relating to North Sea Oil, are in contrast to those statements which back the Scottish
Government. On the same day the corporation headlined the Melfort Campbell claims, the BBC
also sought to suppress a statement from Sir Donald Mackay in which the respected economist
challenged comments from Sir Ian Wood. Sir Donalds intervention was eventually appended to
the end of the Melfort Campbell article.

A similar editorial decision witnessed a report from think-tank N-56, which challenged UK
Government oil estimates, given a low order of ranking on the BBC website before disappearing
altogether within a matter of hours. By contrast Sir Ian Wood's claims were heavily promoted
by the BBC across all platforms, including TV, radio and online.

BBC attempts to undermine the Scottish Government over the issue of oil followed recent
reports of a huge oil find to the West of Shetland. The Clair Ridge story has dominated social
media with rumours that the phase 3 part of the project will yield significant oil reserves.
- 223 -


In a promotional video released by BP this year, the oil giant described the Clair Ridge field as
"massive". A recent unannounced visit to Shetland by UK Prime Minister David Cameron
fuelled speculation that the 1600 round trip from London was related to the new oil discovery.

Well, at least this has finally changed as this article reports "BBC ends Sir Ian Wood oil-challenge blackout
following Newsnet Scotland complaint" "Following a near two-day refusal to report statements from a
leading industry body and academics, the corporation has bowed to pressure and published a report
containing comments in support of the Scottish Government."

And as mentioned in the last document, there is an inherent bias against Scottish sportsmen and women
who are British when winning and Scottish when losing. While it can be amusing to see, it does become
tiring, especially when the BBC are frequently guilty of it:


But the final question on this subject of bias within the BBC has to be why are they not impartial? What have
they to gain by being biased against Scottish independence and for the union? Perhaps this Guardian article
by former Director General John Birt might provide a clue Scottish independence would have a devastating
impact on the BBC. A yes vote would leave the new public broadcaster on both sides of the border reeling
from budget cuts. [...]The BBC, like other national institutions, would lose 10% of its income. It's worth
noting that the BBC spends only a fraction of that 10% actually in Scotland.

- 224 -

But then it doesnt look like John Birt could be the
smartest cookie in the jar, given his statement here.

Both John Birt AND Better Together conveniently
forgetting that Scottish viewers already pay to
receive BBC services through the TV licence fee
ooops!




Vote No Borders Grassroot Campaign
This grass-roots, Tory-funded pro-union website continues to campaign for a No vote. This article here,
however, from the man who has campaigned with the group No Borders (as opposed to Vote No Borders)
that states:
The yes movement has grown into something quite extraordinary the breadth and diversity
of groups is significant. On the No side, grassroots activism is rather lacking, so they have to
buy it. You can imagine the surprise of the real No Borders activist when the no campaign
rolled out Vote No Borders, a supposedly grassroots group making the ordinary persons case
for the Union.

This was greeted with unconstrained glee by the BBC and others, and we were treated to
endless footage of some lasses singing a rather schmaltzy ballad and enthusing about the
strength of the UK. BBC coverage in particular was completely uncritical but thankfully theres
some pretty sharp online journalism going on in the #indyref debate, and it was quickly pointed
out that this grassroots campaign was being run from London, by a Tory donor, starting out
on an initial budget of 140,000 since put to good use producing depressing video clips in
which people talk about how feart they are about the risks of independence, of losing pensions
and going back to a stone-age economy if King Alex gets his way. I dont doubt the sincerity of
these people. I feel for them, because I think theyve been misled. Pensions, healthcare and
stability are all at great risk in austerity-driven UK, with no indication of a change in tack any
time soon. Things reached a new low when one of Vote No Borders cinema adverts claimed
that Scottish parents seeking treatment for their sick children at Great Ormond Street Hospital
would have to join the long line of foreigners. This was immediately refuted by Great Ormond
Street and the advert was pulled.

Anyway. Beyond the questions of Vote No Borders dubious grassroots credentials and gloomy
message, theres the rather glaring issue of their name. Unlike the real No Borders, they only
object to one border Scotlands. The UKs border, with its harsh and punitive controls, is not a
problem for them.

You hear this argument a lot from unionist commentators. Scottish nationalism is their ideal
bogeyman the terrible separatists with their saltires and border posts, trying to split apart
our harmonious Great Britain. The fact that this wild stereotype does not remotely reflect
reality does not seem to bother them.

- 225 -

Even more frustrating, perhaps, is that while that nationalism is being decried and words like
balkanisation and ethnic tension thrown around, the British nationalism that underlies their
arguments is barely ever mentioned.


STV/ITV
Even STV isnt immune from presenting news stories
as detrimental against independence even when
theyre not.





Meanwhile ITV ran with the headline that a Political punter could make 1m if Scotland votes No. Sounds
impressive, eh? As if the person is on a sure bet? Well, turns out that he placed a bet for 800,000 and stood
to win 197,333 on top of his stake, not quite the 1m claimed. In fact, as this article points out Its risking
800,000 of money that you already had to try to make a profit of than a quarter of that, or very roughly ONE
SIXTH of 1m. But then it doesnt sound as impressive and pro-union as the original headline though...


Sky News
After the second debate with Alex Salmond and Alasdair Darling, Sky News interviewed one single pundit
who, rather than being impartial, was instead (as explained here):
Uber Blairite Greg Poynton, the Labour leadership's candidate of choice in its attempts to
block a UNITE backed successor to Trident loving, Iraq War supporting, Zionist apologist, and
now absolute joke, Major Eric Joyce (The Guardian explains). Sky News' "neutral" expert
Poynton had to withdraw from the Falkirk contest earlier this year , having been caught red
handed paying for folks to join the Labour Party out of his own rather deep pocket. The very
thing he, Ed Milliband and Jim Murphy, to name but three, had, without evidence, accused
UNITE of doing. Poynton is the husband of Trident loving Gemma Doyle, MP for West
Dumbartonshire, Labour's Depute Shadow Defence Secretary no 2 to Jim Murphy in Millibands
cabinet - until Jimbo got the heave two months ago for being too much of a Zionist for Ed.


The Truth Team
This team from Labour were discussed in detail in the last document so I wont go into details here, other
than to say that this article here also examines the claims of this truth team.


Scotsman
The Scotsman never fails to deliver on their rampant unionist bias and we have a few here.

- 226 -

Labour claim 1m may lose jobs after independence as this article goes onto explain, the Scotsman seems
to have plucked a number representing 40% of all jobs in Scotland from an equally dubious statement from
Johann Lamont where she claimed nearly one million jobs in Scotland are linked to the UK and we know a
number of these will be put at risk by the SNPs obsession. Now, this is a leap from not only from number of
nearly a million in total to 1 million may lose their job.

Oh, wait a minute, its obvious now - by claiming Labour stated such a ludicrous number the Scotsman is
secretly an independence supporting paper that sought to make Labour look ridiculous...? Perhaps not,
perhaps incompetence in all parties involved is a more realistic explanation.


The Times
This Wings Over Scotland article illustrates how a Times article downplayed the volume of shale gas deposits
when comparing it to English shale gas deposits. While it is small in comparison, it fails to appreciate that
what is there could supply Scotlands consumption for up to 320 years.

Another Times article mentioned in the same piece above referred to an independent Scotlands deficit of 6
per cent as being not dissimilar to the UK deficit of 11 per cent. As the Wings Over Scotland article points
out, Scotland could almost halve its annual deficit by voting Yes, even assuming it was to take on a large
share of UK debt.


Daily Express
As reported here, note how the
headline claims Cameron has
pledged 1 billion, yet the true-ish
figure of 500 million is further on.
And of course there is no mention
anywhere of the fact that according
to Deputy First Minister Nicola
Sturgeon, the money consists of
just 15m a year for the first five
years, with future years funding
contingent on a review at the end
of the first five year period. (see
BBC News)



- 227 -

More from the Daily Express (hypocritical pension
scares seem to be their favourite).





The Sunday Express tried to criticise the Wee Blue Book by Wings Over Scotland. However, not ones to shy
from criticism (they pretty much hit it straight on unlike pretty much any unionist publication), Wings Over
Scotland highlighted here the nonsense that the Sunday Express wrote about their publication, and
reproduced here in full to highlight the absurdity and bias of the unionist campaign (plus, the nonsense the
Sunday Express published was so comprehensively demolished by Wings Over Scotland, once again):
Despite having extensively reported almost every other document published about the
referendum debate (such as Sir Tom Hunters almost-impenetrable digital-only effort), the
press saw nothing at all newsworthy about a 72-page book thats been downloaded over
400,000 times online and which a small team of complete amateurs had managed to fund,
print and distribute more than 250,000 physical copies of in a matter of days, with demand
still far outstripping supply. But it turned out we were being a little unfair.

Because an alert reader pointed out today that wed actually missed a feature in last
weekends Scottish Sunday Express one penned by its actual honest-to-goodness editor, no
less. And said reader was kind enough to send it to us.
- 228 -

A book of errors is a new gospel
Ben Borland

IT USED to be only Jehovahs Witnesses who would turn up at your door and attempt to
convert you.

Now, sadly, it seems that thousands of people are at it. All over Scotland, a new breed
of zealot is rushing around, clutching leaflets and other literature based on halfbaked
theories, trying to persuade others to share their faith.

Yes. Its sad that people engage actively and enthusiastically with politics.

Yet these modern-day evangelists are not religious - in fact, most are probably
atheist/humanist/Jedi knight. Rather they are independence supporters, many of whom
view it as their mission in life to win over new believers.

They leap out of bed in the morning with a messianic zeal, eager to persuade
undecided or even - the Holy Grail - No voters to put their tick in the Yes box come
September 18.

After each successful conversion, these political preachers rush to Twitter and
Facebook to boast about their achievement - although I wonder how many folk have
agreed with them merely to get some peace.

Most also turn to the Internet to back up their assertions about independence, despite
the fact that online research can prove anything from the existence of aliens to the
staging of 9/11 with giant mirrors.

However, the main weapon in their armoury is not the Scottish Governments white
paper on independence, or serious contributions from free-thinking nationalists such as
Jim Sillars or Dennis Canavan. It is a wee blue book.

Hurray! (waves)

The Wee Blue Book has been produced by the website Wings Over Scotland, a
controversial and outspoken politics blog that was even disowned by Yes Scotland a few
months ago.

It is run by a former video game journalist called Stuart Campbell, a Scot who has lived in
Bath for many years.

Wings Over Scotland is very good at mobilising its followers and highlighting online
blunders by Unionists such as last week pointing out a celebratory champagne
breakfast planned by Scottish Conservatives in Dumfries on the morning of September
19.

Shucks.

HOWEVER, Wings Over Scotland is not a newsgathering operation. Mr Campbell who
styles himself Reverend does not interview politicians, economists or business people
and does not attend press conferences or debates at Westminster or Holyrood.

Well, theyre a long way from Bath. But we werent aware that there was a shortage of
outlets interviewing politicians, economists or businesspeople. That angle seems to be
covered more than adequately already. (Also, didnt you say we werent religious?)
- 229 -


The website admits as much, describing its output as largely commentary and analysis
- and yet a significant number of people appear to be using this one mans personal
opinion to decide how to vote in the referendum.

No, what theyre using are the facts. Were just the messenger. Its a quite appalling and
condescending slur on half the population of Scotland to suggest that theyd vote Yes just
because some idiot with a website told them to. People change their minds on the basis of
evidence, and we provide sources for all of ours so that people can check it for themselves.
Its a crazy idea, newspapers might want to try it out sometime.

I downloaded a free copy of The Wee Blue Book last week and, while its breezy,
knockabout style is easy to follow, it contains several glaring mistakes and
contradictions.

For example, there is an admission that Scotland receives more UK public spending
(64.5billion in 2011/12) than we generate in tax (57billion in 2011/12). But in the very
same chapter, the book claims that Scotland subsidises the UK by billions of pounds
every year.

Thats not a contradiction at all. We explain it very clearly in the book Scotland contributes
more than its proportionate share to the UKs coffers, and the extra spending is in fact debt
taken out by Westminster in Scotlands name, which Scotland has to pay back. Indeed,
Scotland has to pay back a disproportionately high share of UK debt, so it gets hit twice and
then the UK uses the resulting financial damage to suggest that Scotland is too poor to look
after itself. Cunning.

Its perfectly possible (indeed, almost universal) for one partner to contribute more to the
household finances than the other, yet for the family as a whole still to be in debt.

It also states: The No campaigns most repeated scare story is that an independent
Scotland wouldnt be able to keep the UK pound. This is a categorical lie.
Well, yes, it would be if anybody at Westminster had ever said Scotland couldnt keep the
pound - the issue at stake is whether there would be a currency union, an option that has
been ruled out by all three main UK parties.

Um, no. Nice try, but the No campaign most certainly HAS said that Scotland couldnt keep
the pound AT ALL, absolutely explicitly, a great many times. We conveniently documented
some of them less than a fortnight ago. (That evidence thing again.)

The book also borrows the SNPs current scare story du jour and warns that if the NHS
in England were to be fully privatised, it would wipe out the devolved health budget in
Scotland if being the key word. The health budget in England is, in fact, ringfenced
and has been rising year on year.

Except that it hasnt. As it happened wed disproved that claim the very same day, with the
assistance of the Telegraph - a publication which we think even the Express would struggle to
describe as a hotbed of separatist zealotry and Jedi knights.

ANOTHER ludicrous assertion is the claim that modern-day Scotland is a country entirely
without military enemies. Eh? Does Rev Campbell really think that al Qaeda or Isis
distinguishes between Scotland and the rest of the UK? And if we are to be a member of
Nato, then surely we will have the same common enemies as the rest of our allies?

- 230 -

Military enemies, you dimwit. The words there for a reason. Al-Qaeda and Isis are, at best,
paramilitary. They have no air force, no navy, no divisions, no battalions, no tanks, no
helicopters and no warships. Theyre well-equipped terrorists, and you cant beat terrorists
with armies. (Not that the UK ever learns the lesson and stops trying.)

And lots of countries are NATO members without attracting the anger of terrorists in the way
the UK does. It was, after all, the former head of MI5, not us, who said that UK foreign policy
not NATOs, specifically the UKs substantially increased the risk of terrorist attack. If
Scotland doesnt share UK foreign policy, it doesnt have to share the same enemies, even if
its in NATO.

I could go on, but I think I hear somebody at the door. Ah yes, its Uncle Archie with his
copy of The Wee Blue Book, here to attempt another conversion.
What was it Billy Connolly said was the best way to get rid of Jehovahs Witnesses? I am
stark naked, and I am opening the door in five, four, three

Blah blah. So there isnt in fact a single glaring mistake thats been identified by the article,
nor a contradiction either. But still, its flattering that they sent their top man for the job.
Even if thats not, in the Expresss case, a very high bar to clear.


Scottish Sun
This article here reports how the
Scottish Sun decided to run a
double-page spread claiming Alex
Salmond has no Plan B, despite
plans B, C, D, etc being available in
the White Paper. You have to ask
why they didnt devote this double-
spread to actually reporting plans B,
C, D, etc instead of the usual
scaremongering, which sounded
suspiciously similar to Better
Togethers screams of Wheres
Plan B?



Another article here discusses how the Scottish Sun claims that the First Minister has finally admitted that
independence wont be a walk in the park, with whisky and oil on tap. However, as the article points out,
the First Minister has said nothing of the sort and instead stated that whisky and oil would not be on tap in
some kind of utopian independent Scotland:
So we have to wonder what the heck theyve been doing for the last 14 months.

This is a great opportunity, a historic opportunity. If we vote Yes, then weve got a
platform to mobilise our natural and human resources to build a very special society here
in Scotland.

Will everything be, you know, flowing with whisky and oil and will everything be
perfect? No, it wont all be perfect [and I] daresay well make a few mistakes along the
way. (STV, June 2013)

Too long ago? How about a more recent example?
We know that tackling these issues isnt straightforward building a better country
isnt be the work of a day. Nothing is going to be handed to us on a plate.
- 231 -

Independence isnt about waking up one day with three taps labelled whisky, oil and
water.

Its about working hard, and taking the right decisions, so that over time we can build a
fairer and more prosperous country. (Speech in Liverpool for the Financial Times, June
2014)

Something in between, perhaps?
Alex Salmond has said Scottish independence would not solve all the countrys
problems.

He told an audience at the Mitchell Library theatre in -Glasgow that independence
would not lead to homes being fitted with three taps, for oil, whisky and water.

He said: Ive never argued that. I suspect well never have no problems, but Im certain
we can do better than we are doing now. (Public interview with James Naughtie in
Glasgow, reported in the Herald, January 2014)

All emphases are ours. But this stuff isnt (just) cheap, snarky point-scoring about the
stupefying incompetence of other journalists. Its about the people of Scotland being fed a
completely false narrative about a dishonest, shifty First Minister who promises the Earth and
refuses to acknowledge any possible problems until forced.

Yet as weve just seen, the exact opposite is true. The FM has never pledged that an
independent Scotland would be a magical land of milk and honey. He constantly points out
that oil and whisky wont paper over every crack, that there will be bumps in the road, that
Scots will have to work hard to create the country we want.

And yet the entire media still feeds the electorate a completely different, utterly untrue story,
designed to erode trust in the countrys leader so that it can then trumpet any polls showing
that erosion (as the Suns sister paper The Times does today, getting excited about Salmonds
trust rating plunging from 36% to a shocking, er, 35%).

Was that really so difficult, First Minister?, bleats the Suns editorial piously. Well, no, it
probably wasnt. It didnt seem to be difficult when he did it in June 2013. It wasnt difficult
when he did it again in January 2014, or once more in June 2014.

So we cant imagine that there was anything particularly tricky about repeating it yet again, in
almost exactly the same words, in August 2014. The only challenging bit, we suspect, is not
punching the cloth-eared clowns who didnt hear it the first three times.

Sunday Herald
Even the only newspaper to editorially support independence isn't immune from the subtle pro-unionist
writing style. It's not possible to know for sure why that is but perhaps it's simply old habits die hard, or
journalists writing for multiple newspapers.

Thankfully, there is only one (subtle) example though and it relates to the publisher a very prominent pro-
independence website, which the unionist campaigners and media have tried to blacken the name of. In an
edition of the Sunday Herald, there were 2 features, one with Stuart Campbell (he of Wings Over Scotland)
and Professor Adam Tomkins, an unashamed and staunch unionist. As this article points out (written by
Stuart Campbell himself), the Sunday Herald article was analysed and the following could be determined:

WORDS OF QUOTATIONS FROM INTERVIEWS (One-word or two-word responses excluded)
Tomkins: 459
Campbell: 229
- 232 -


WORDS OF QUOTATIONS ABOUT THE REFERENDUM/POLITICS
Tomkins: 415 (90%)
Campbell: 0 (0%)

WORDS OF QUOTATIONS DEFENDING SELF AGAINST ACCUSATIONS
Tomkins: 0 (0%)
Campbell: 157 (69%)

It's interesting to note that Prof Tomkins was quoted more often, and only he was quoted on the
referendum, while Campbell wasn't quoted once on the referendum and instead all quotes used were
regarding him having to defend himself against various accusations. Make of that what you will.


Armed Forces Day
This is an interesting event that was arranged by the Labour-Tory coalition running Stirling Council to
celebrate the armed forces, this coincided with the Bannockburn Live event which marked the 700
th

anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn where Scotland repelled forces from England and became
independent.

Now the question has to be asked, how did both events come to be organised on the same weekend? Well,
the 700
th
anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn had been know for, well 699 years, pretty after the battle
had finished. The date had also been know for, well 700 years obviously, so the date for the Bannockburn
event couldnt have been any other date.

However, Armed Forces day can be held anywhere and at any time. The festival was only in its sixth year on
Saturday and Sunday, and while its always been held on the last Saturday in June there was no particular
reason to choose Stirling out of all the cities in the UK. Its only been three years since Scotland had a turn
(Edinburgh in 2011), and Northern Ireland still hasnt had one. So when the Labour-Tory coalition running
Stirling Council decided to apply, knowing full well that the date would clash with Bannockburn Live, and the
UK government decided to award them the event rather than any of the other four bids, it doesnt seem too
hard to ascertain who caused the conflict or why indeed, UK defence secretary Phillip Hammond explicitly
said at the time that it would help underline the strength of the union, and remind us in a very graphic
way that we are stronger together. (see here)

How the media reported the attendance of these events was also telling (see here), with Armed Forces Day
exaggerated attendance (35,000 despite photos and eye witnesses claiming around a tenth of that attended)
and almost no reporting whatsoever of the Bannockburn Live event, which had been sold out (10,000
tickets).

As an aside, one of our favourite Scottish Labour MPs, Ian Davidson (he who wanted to bayonet
independence supporters after a No vote and wanted to strip the Scottish parliament of all its powers)
criticised commemorations on the 700th anniversary of the ancient battle, which led to Scotland achieving
its independence, were being held mainly to celebrate the murder of hundreds of thousands of English
people, despite the actual numbers not being hundreds of thousands but tens of thousands belonging to an
invading army (see here).

But of course, the UK government would never think of commemorating any battles or wars that resulted in
the death of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even tens of millions of death, like the First World
War, eh? Or is it a case of its OK for the UK government because those enemies were German and the
Germans arent our friends? Oops!


Glasgow Commonwealth Games
- 233 -

The Commonwealth games had been a great success in Glasgow and its saddening that not only should they
be referred to in this document but that there is enough material to create their own section.

It had been agreed by both sides that the games should remain politically neutral and that they shouldnt be
used in the campaign for or against independence. However, it didnt take long before this agreement was
ignored by the unionists, including Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council who ordered anyone who was
wearing a Yes badge had to remove them before entering the opening ceremony at Glasgow Green (see the
Scotsman) and who had ejected a woman from a Swimming event for holding a saltire with Yes written on it
(see Scotsman).

While it is true that political banners are not allowed
and it can be argued that the Yes flag should not
have been allowed on those grounds, it is the
hypocrisy that is most disappointing. The rules also
state that only flags of countries competing are
allowed yet union jacks were seen flying in many
events the UK was not competing in any event, it
was the individual nations, and so at this particularly
sensitive time, a union jack would have been seen as
a pro-union symbol, especially as there no other
grounds to have it.



Another incident relating again to the opening ceremony centred on the colour of smoke that the Red
Arrows would trail above the stadium. Given the hosting country was Scotland (not the UK since all union
countries were competing separately) the Scottish government requested that blue and white smoke be
trailed to echo the Saltire flag. However, this request was denied by the MoD who claimed that the Red
Arrows only ever trailed red, white and blue smoke (see Daily Mail). However, this was quickly disproved
when the following images of the Red Arrows were found (see here):



- 234 -


And most strikingly of all, the BBC websites report of the opening
of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 contains the lines: Within
minutes of the end of the official ceremony, the Red Arrows flew
over the Queen and other assembled dignitaries at the Mound,
trailing blue and white smoke the colours of Scotlands Saltire
flag. - See BBC News

Another article here reports Fallon claims over Red Arrows Games
fly-past called into question Claims that a request for a blue and
white smoke trail, by the Games organisers, had been overruled at
the eleventh hour by the Mod, were swiftly denied by Westminster.
In a statement today, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said the air
display team "always used red, white and blue".



So a refusal to use the colours of the Scottish flag was backed up by a blatant lie. This was not the only
incident of an attempt to "Britify" the Scottish Commonwealth Games, with unidentified people handing out
thousands of flags to spectators in streets near the venues with Saltires on one side and Union Jacks on the
other.



As Craig Murray wrote here:
In my 55 years of life, I had never until yesterday seen a flag which was a saltire on one side
and a union jack on the other. Yet last night thousands of them were distributed free at the
Commonwealth Games opening ceremony. I have been told they are being given out at the
swimming today, and possibly at other venues too. Such flags do not normally exist. They had
to be specially commissioned, and somebody had to pay for them. Who paid for them? Is it
public money? [...]In the context of the referendum, only a hardened liar could claim that these
unique flags were commissioned without a view to the campaign. This is enormous hypocrisy
by the unionists, who have been bombarding the media for weeks with warnings to Yes
supporters not to politicise the Commonwealth Games. [...]Nobody can possibly argue that,
at this time, a Union Jack combined with a Saltire is not an image strongly associated with a
cause or association. So the rules are being quite deliberately broken, and somebody is funding
that breach and doing it on a massive scale. It is vital that we know: who is paying for these
flags? Actually I am not sure why union jacks are allowed in at all. The rules are very clear. If
you try to take in a Palestinian flag or a Dutch flag it will be confiscated.

Better Together had subsequently denied that they were involved in these flasg. However, they had been
previously seen handing out the exact same 2 sided flags at the Dumfries Show on 2
nd
August:

- 235 -



The UK flag has no legitimate presence at the games (except for on the flags of New Zealand, Australia etc).
The UK is not a participating nation Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland all compete under their
own flags and with their own anthems. (England were not even using God Save The Queen as they do at
football and rugby, in order to emphasise the fact.)

An article on the BBC website contradicts itself in the space of two paragraphs over whether the Union Jack
is in fact allowed within Games arenas at all: When the BBC asked the organisers of Glasgow 2014 if
spectators could wave a standard Union Flag, they said they could. Although they added that the flag size
policy would be applied. You are not allowed, however, to bring the flag of a country not competing in the
Games

Both of those cant be true. The Union Jack is the flag of the United Kingdom, which is not a competing
nation. But in either case an earlier passage makes clear that
Some flags will not be allowed to fly. Political flags.

Both sides of the independence debate have agreed not to use Glasgow 2014 for political gain anyway.
But even if you wanted to, well, its against the rules.

Glasgow 2014 Venue Regulation 6.18 states that no flags are allowed to enter a venue or the vicinity
of any Games venue if they are normally associated with causes, affiliations or organisations.

Just weeks from the independence referendum, a flag combining the Saltire and Union Jack is every bit as
political, if not more so, that one which combined the Saltire and the flag of either Palestine or Israel.

The UKs non-participant flag had even been brought onto the field of competition. The England cycling team
kit inexplicably includes helmets with the Union Jack, rather than the Cross of St George, on them:



This Britishness only works one way. The Spotlight, a newsletter supporting British Swimming athletes and
events this week ran a feature wishing good luck to the swimmers of Team England only.
- 236 -




The Herald here has a similar article:
"That fact did not prevent organisers telling the BBC beforehand that there would be no
objection to Union flags being waved. It did not hinder the distribution (and waving) of curious
double-sided Saltire/Union flags which, though apparently not sanctioned by Better Together,
just happened to further the "affiliation" the organisation exists to preserve. That many Scots
wouldn't thank you for such a souvenir was not considered relevant.

No-one objected to red, white and blue at a Glasgow Green "Live Zone" event, meanwhile, but
security guards ordered the removal of Yes badges, reportedly, because the objects were
deemed to represent "protest". Those officious individuals, plainly under orders, should have
been around when John Maclean was staging anti-war rallies on the Green. Glasgow's
cherished parkland has a history where free speech is concerned.[...]

For form's sake we really should keep score. The Red Arrows lie; the Tollcross incident; the two-
faced flags; that bit of censorship on Glasgow Green: these acts of petty propaganda and
small-minded authoritarianism can't be pinned on Yes campaigners. Only two of the four can
even be traced to the Games organisers and their terms and conditions. Flags don't matter
much to me, but this sort of thing could make me change my mind.

The contrast with the 2012 Olympics remains entertaining still. Which Unionist politician didn't
use those games to spread the gospel of Better Together at every opportunity and assail
anyone who dared to disagree? Then as now, they were dashed unsporting."

Other anti-Scottish incidents at the Commonwealth Games include:


Even sprint king Allan Wells blasted No campaign leader Alastair Darling yesterday over his clumsy bid to
make political gain from Team Scotlands gold glory. Olympic legend Wells hit out as the Better Together boss
used our first-day medal haul to argue for keeping the Union. Former Chancellor Mr Darling insisted the total
won by the home nations showed we can do an awful lot as the UK. see the Scottish Sun

- 237 -

Yet another incident to arise from mis-reporting (lying?) in the mainstream media was alleged comments
Usain Bolt reported by the Times (as reported here). They had claimed that the world 100m record holder as
saying the Glasgow Games were a bit shit and that he thought the Olympics were better. However, Bolt
quickly responded after seeing the report stating on Twitter Im waking up to this nonsense.. journalist
please dont create lies to make headlines. Was this printed just to make sure that those in Scotland didnt
get too above themselves, putting on what was turning out to be a very a successful games? Instead were
they try to ridicule them by claiming they were a bit shit and the Olympics were better (organised by
Scotlands "much bigger and more competent brother" England) and attributing those comments to the
most famous man at those games?

Another sad incident regarding how the English media were reporting the games in the run-up to them was a
The Telegraph article that English athletes could get booed at Commonwealth Games. This incident was
reported in the Guardian though they were questioning why it was only the English edition of the Telegraph
that carried the story and why it was not printed in the Scottish edition. The point of the Guardian article was
that there was no proof that any athletes were in fact concerned about being booed, with only a mysterious
insider mentioned who confided that a "small number" of athletes had raised the subject of possible
booing and had been told not to react to it.

This article here also discusses the political content of the Commonwealth Games and this article discusses
the almost total absence of any BBC Scotland commentators in the games.

And what about the claims that Scotland was "better together" in the UK regarding training facilities for
atheletes i.e. that Scottish athletes benefit from being in the UK for training facilities? Apart fromt he obvious
agrument why Scotland DOESN'T have any of the necessary facilities, it turns out that it does for the majority
of the athletes competing in the Commonwealth Games :

"Majority of Team Scotland winners trained with home funds

THE majority of Team Scotland's medal winners during the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth
Games were home-trained with funding coming from the national agency north of the Border.

As athletes and fans bask in the glory of an unprecedented medal haul over the 11 days,
breakdowns of the complex world of how Scotland's elite sportsmen and women fund their way
to the top shows only 19 of the 59 podium winners are part of UK Sports' World Class
Programme." - see the Herald

And finally, there is the sheer hypocrisy of being warned not to use the Commonwealth Games for political
purposes (which Scotland funded entirely) when the UK government themselves used the Olympics for
political purposes (which the Scottish tax payer contributed towards):

- 238 -






- 239 -

Opinion Polls
Opinion polls continue to show a slow climb in support for independence but none still show any majority
support for it. Strangely the polls differ greatly from one another and hugely from informal online polls,
which are often 80%+ for independence. While online polls are informal and can be skewed there is
circumstantial evidence that official polls may be skewed too towards the unionists.

While there is no smoking gun regarding the fixing of polls, please consider the following before taking them
at face value (be warned, this might be wandering into "tinfoil hat" territory).

YouGov, which consistently reports lower
support for independence than other polls,
was co-founded by Nadhim Zahawi, now Tory
MP for Stratford Upon Haven.




There are also rumours that the chief executive of Ipsos Mori (Ben Page), which also publishes many polls
and was responsible for the audience for the first debate between Alex Salmond and Alasdair Darling, is a
personal friend of David Cameron but I've been unable to confirm a source for this.

Moreover, the UK government has a huge sum of money on referendum polls the results of which have been
remain secret under section 35(1a) of the Freedom of Information Act (the Herald). This article in the
Scotsman reports that 300,000 had been spent. However, the Channel 4 reporter Cathy Newman published
more recently that the real figure was 1 million:



To spend taxpayers money on polls that are only revealed to the unionist side provides them with a unfair
advantage since it was the UK government (thereby the UK tax payer) and not the official unionist
campaign Better Together who paid for the polls they should be shared with both sides of the debate. But as
- 240 -

weve seen before, the UK government has failed to remain impartial and is using its resources (and your
taxes) to campaign for the union.

Alistair Carmichael claimed that You know the rules as well as I do on publication of polling information, if
you publish any of it you publish all of it. Weve published none of it, we will continue to do so. That was work
that was done to inform Government policy. (see The Scotsman). However, as reported here, the rules are
not what Mr Carmichael claims they are. What the British Polling Council stipulates as a condition of
membership is that if you release the result of any particular question, you have to release all of the data for
that one question within 48 hours. What you DONT have to do is release the results for any other questions
you asked in that poll. If you asked the referendum question and also asked people if they thought Alistair
Carmichael looked like Bungle from Rainbow in an ill-fitting suit, you DONT have to release the results from
that question just because you released the ones from the referendum question. Alistair Carmichael is either
deliberately not telling the truth and his comments were actually made before a Holyrood committee, so
thatd be quite a serious matter or hes a bumbling oaf who doesnt have the remotest clue what hes
doing.

But you have to ask, what is it in these polls that they are reluctant to share? Could it be they consistently
show a majority support for independence? And if the details were published under the Freedom of
Information act, the government could not explicitly change the results without being discovered and
causing furore.

However, by influencing polls commissioned by other parties from a distance (and without a written trail of
evidence), the UK government and other unionists can maintain a distance of plausible deniability. But why
would the unionists want to show they are leading when in fact they are losing? This is a double-edged
sword since by declaring youre winning, your own side could become complacent by not bothering to vote
given the apparent overwhelming support for your campaign and making the opposition (Yes campaign)
work harder to achieve their aims. On the other hand, it can also deflate and depress the opposition into
thinking they are losing and dissuade undecided voters and even No voters to changing to Yes as theyd be
moving to the apparent losing side. On balance, it probably works best for a side that is already losing,
perhaps slightly, to make it appear that its winning.

It also allows them to tar the minority which wild claims, such as calling them Nazis, facists, communists
(yes, there is a contradiction there but it doesnt seem to bother them), with some of these coming from the
most senior members of the Labour party and Better Together. If it was known that Yes was winning in an
attempt to invigorate their own supporters, they would have difficulty labelling the majority of Scotland as
Nazis since itd be clearly untrue and theyd risk antagonising the very people they would be looking to
attract back to the unionist side. And by calling independence supporters Nazis, they again hope to deter any
undecideds and No voters from joining the Yes campaign, which they try to portray as being full of Nazis.

There is a good article here on psychological warfare and whether Westminster are using it in the
referendum. While this might sound a little paranoid, ask yourself these questions:
1. Why are the unionists fighting so hard to keep a country they argue is subsidised in the union?
2. What have they got to gain personally and what has the UK to gain by keeping Scotland in the union?
(I hope both questions have already been answered in this and the previous document)
3. With the entire British apparatus at their disposal, including the secret services and the civil service
departments (who are already willing to publish discredited and partisan documents), why
WOULDNT the government use them to fight for what they regard as the future of their country
(UK)? After all, they suppressed the McCrone report in the 1970s under the Official Secrets Act, an
act designed to protect the security of the country.

And as this article reminds us The conservative controlled mainstream polls showed a massive victory for
Labour at the 2011 Scottish General Election.



- 241 -

But perhaps this is all paranoia? Surely the UK government wouldnt be so underhand? Perhaps. And while
this article Files prove that MI5 spied on SNP in the Scotsman is discussing what happened a long time ago
(1950s), you have to wonder what well find out in another 50 years about this referendum.

And while more to do with electoral fraud than
opinion poll fraud, unionists have been caught
boasting about trying to commit electoral fraud...



Note that Callum Munroe had
recently removed "living in London"
from his Twitter profile and
apparently did so while in London:





- 242 -

Threats Against the Campaigns
In the last document the threats against the No campaign were discussed and how nothing ever seemed to
come of them no arrests in particular which is concerning for the apparent violent threat a campaign office
in Edinburgh allegedly received (but which the CCTV seems not to have caught). When anything remotely
seen as intimidating towards the unionist campaign occurs, Better Together scream hysterically that Alex
Salmond should "control his troops" implying he has direct control over these individuals, assuming any of
these events had actually occurred and were not simply red flag distractions.

For example, as discussed in this Daily mail article, when Harry Potter author Rowling gave 1 million to
Darlings No campaign, internet trolls so-called cybernats called her a bitch, provoking outrage. Surely
he cant blame Salmond for that? He goes close. Its up to the people at the head of the campaign to set the
tone. Its a degree of unpleasantness that is profoundly un-Scottish. Its as if hes describing the Project
Fear campaign itself.



Another example reported here was an article published in the Daily Record (see here) that claimed how a
Labour activist from England (Harry Doyle who was mentioned previously for repeating the same old tired
lies about healthcare arrangements being at risk in an independent Scotland) got a little bit of extremely
mild stick on Twitter after announcing he was on his way to Scotland to canvass for Better Together (funny
how BT need to ship people from England for their grassroots campaign), and how he WORRIED that he
might meet a hostile reception at the railway station (although of course, and happily, he didnt).

Yet when 2 Yes canvassers (one an elderly lady) were harassed by former Labour councillor for East Kilbride
Alan Scott, there was nothing reported in the mainstream media. Worse, one of the canvassers involved
contacted the head of the Better Together campaign, Blair McDougall, several times to complain about the
incident, he was met with complete silence. No condemnation or promise to investigate, absolutely nothing.
Was that an implicit approval of Alan Scotts behaviour? That other unionists should intimidate Yes
canvassers in the same manner?

However, when members of the Yes campaign are actively targeted, the Better Together campaign seem
very silent on denouncing those acts, which is not surprising given the aggressive language espoused by the
highest levels in the unionist camp (Darling in particular is partial to using terms associated with violence).
Several examples above and beyond what was mentioned in the last document include:
- 243 -

Police probe threats sent to Jim Sillars see The Scotsman and The Courier
Also note how little this was reported in the mainstream media as discussed here and how that
media would not be calling on Alasdair Darling to denounce this is the same way they called on Alex
Salmond to denounce dubious acts allegedly perpetrated by pro-independence supporters. The
article also points out the abusive tone of the No campaign's literature and debating style, from
Alasdair Darling down to the supporters walking the streets.
I was so stunned Yes campaigner says she was racially abused in Kirkcaldy The Courier
Yes campaigners attacked by mob outside Tynecastle Edinburgh Evening News
Yes campaigner Dad's fury as son narrowly avoids chair thrown from balcony by No supporter see
Daily Record

This article in the Huffington Post discusses the recent attacks on Yes campaigners and the lack of any
substantial media coverage compared to the egg-throwing incident that occurred to Jim Murphy.

And while the Guardian reports that Scotland referendum sides told to keep campaigns civil and peaceful
by police chiefs, as usual it took a website not in the mainstream media to report exactly what the police
chiefs had said (original source):
SCOTTISH POLICE FEDERATION
5 Woodside Place, Glasgow, G3 7QF

MEDIA RELEASE

The Scottish Police Federation represents all police officers in the ranks of constable, sergeant,
inspector and chief inspector, police cadets and special constables, over 18,500 people, 98% of all
police officers in Scotland.

To: News Editor
Date: 1 September 2014
Subject: Independence Referendum

In response to the suggestion of absolute carnage in and around polling stations on the 18th Sept
Brian Docherty, Chairman of the Scottish Police Federation said;

The independence debate has been robust but overwhelmingly good natured and it would prove a
disservice to those who have participated in it thus far to suggest that with 17 days to go, Scotland is
about to disintegrate into absolute carnage on the back of making the most important decision in the
countrys history.

Politicians and supporters of whichever point of view need to be mindful of the potential impact of
intemperate, inflammatory and exaggerated language, lest they be seen to seek to create a self
fulfilling prophecy

ENDS

Now think about which side exactly has been using intemperate, inflammatory and exaggerated language?

Shared History
Jim Sillars has written a very passionate article here about history being invoked to maintain the union. While
its worth reading in its entirety, heres a good excerpt:
It is true that in 1707 the Scottish state joined the English state as it -expanded its commercial
reach, and, bit by bit, conquered many areas of the globe to create an empire and -become a
world superpower, as shown on the map painted red that hung on the wall of my primary
school, way back in the mists of time. My teacher used to say that what we saw on that map
belonged to us.

- 244 -

But did it belong to us working- class children, and our parents? Was it so successful for the
people in these islands that now, in the 21st Century, we must be influenced by its previous
existence, continue to glow in its supposed achievements to the point where we set aside the
stark issues that face us today 250,000 Scottish children living in poverty, 157,000 families on
the housing waiting lists, 50,000 families in Edinburgh below the poverty line, workers
bargaining power so weakened in the labour market that they are on zero hours contracts,
food banks for those who have no money and no food, including the 22,000 Scottish children
fed by them last year? These are legitimate questions.

As this article written for undecided voters explains:
Charles Moore, former editor of The Daily Telegraph and The Spectator, who added his Old
Etonian-Oxbridge weight to the debate. Writing in defence of the status quo, the official
biographer and admirer of Margaret Thatcher gave us his thoughts recently. Now, you can
imagine Moore, the embodiment of the English intellectual establishment, composing his essay
at home in a splendid country pile in that green and pleasant land. Sitting at a mahogany desk
in his oak-panelled office, his thoughts come pouring out on the screen and you wait for his
patrician wisdom with bated breath

The kilt, the tartan, Balmoral, the novels of Walter Scott almost every famous emblem
of Scottish self-consciousness arose from the defeat of Scottish independence, not its
assertion. They were distinctively Scottish elements to help compose the new
Britishness.

So there it is. When the Scots became uppity 300 years ago, the English offered a few placatory
morsels, even creating the tartan and the kilt for them a sense of identity so they might feel
worthy in their own right. Is there anything more patronising?

Meanwhile this article here addresses in particular the views of Simon Schama, a British historian that others
would consider as an English historian, and claims that:

In pursuit of his argument we are homogeneous Britishers Schama cites our peoples shared
involvement in the two world wars. It is all the more unacceptable then to read accounts of
those times, and not just by past historians, where British is blithely replaced by English and
Britain with England so cancelling out the sacrifices of Scots men and women with the stroke of
a pen.

In his FT piece Schama condemns Scots re-writing history to glorify Robert the Bruce
creating a heroic figure behind which Yes voters will rally forth in September 18th. If Schama
was more familiar with Scotland and Scottish history he would know that we are well aware of
conflicting allegiances of the Bruces and others during the period of the Wars of Independence
when opportunism and the accumulation of land and establishment of family dynasties took
precedence over loyalty to any country or nation-state. It may come as a surprise to Schama
that the name of Bruce is far from universally regarded in Scotland where his drive for self-
aggrandisement and vacillating allegiances has placed him far behind the much more revered
figure of William Wallace.

This Scotsman article discusses why the UK union is past its sell-by date and among the many interesting
comments states that:
Throughout the 17th century the Scots resisted overtures to agree to a union of incorporation,
so it is striking that in 1707 they overlooked other options and agreed to exactly that. Their
decision can be put down to a cocktail of political ineptitude in Scotland and bribery, economic
threats and commercial promises from England. Yet to argue that the Union was the last
recourse of an impoverished nation is quite wrong.

- 245 -

Considerable earnings from outgoing investment to Scandinavia and Germany, buoyant French
trade, as well as shipping, tramp trading and inward investment in infrastructure from the
Netherlands all point towards a viable independent economy. And, pertinently to current
considerations over currency, Scotland so successfully employed an informal currency union by
weighting the Scots pound to sterling, it facilitated an excellent economic transition in 1707.

Yet a bill in the House of Lords in 1713 to dissolve the Union, supported by many Scots lords
who had earlier voted for the treaty, failed by only four votes. If the basic objective was to
secure peace and stability for the island of Great Britain, then there can be little argument that
the 1707 Union failed in the short to medium term. Three military risings followed, as did
rioting over Westminsters taxes. The automatic association of the union with stability and
certainty for Scotland is simply not borne out by history.

Another article here describes how within a few years the English reneged on an agreement regarding the
Malt tax and how there was an attempt barely 6 years after the union to repeal it:
The extent of Scots discontent with some of the practical aspects of Union was soon apparent
and in the early summer of 1713 there was a serious effort to bring the still infant Union to an
end. The catalyst for this was the proposal to extend the Malt Tax to Scotland in a manner that
the Scots insisted was an infringement of the terms of the treaty of Union. The 14th article had
specified that the Scots would not be subject to tax on malt (important, of course, for whisky
production) during the War of Spanish Succession. It was also conceived to be unfair as it was
an additional duty that Scotland was well known to be in no condition to bear.

Yet another article here explains the real history behind the Darien Scheme and how it was in fact a wealthy
Scotland, betrayed by a few bankrupt Lairds, that helped to bail out a bankrupt England.

This article here discusses the Highland Clearances, described as ethnic cleansing:
The Highland Clearances constitute one of the saddest tragedies that has ever come on a
people, and one of the most astounding of all the successes of landlord capitalism in Western
Europe, such a triumph over workers and peasants in a country as has rarely been achieved
with such ease, cruelty and cynicism.

This Financial Times article explains why The glorious Anglo-Scottish union belongs to a past era

Many supporters on both sides of the debate like to use analogies to describe the union and how ridiculous
the other side is being by using that analogy (I addressed the analogy that the union is a marriage in my last
document). However, I think this analogy published here on Facebook is perhaps a more fitting one for the
current arrangement of Scotland within the UK:
You are in a business relationship and your partner is draining your resources, not putting into
the partnership in terms of investment, hard work or intellect. You feel you are continually
propping them up.... one day he says "Look mate I think I want to leave you, I think I would be
better off on my own" What would you say? Most likely your response would be Thats great
pal ... I will miss you (lie) thanks for the good times ... I hope we can remain friends" You would
skip off smiling, relieved and looking forward to a brighter future with the monkey of your
back!

That makes perfect sense but what if the reverse was the case:
You have a valuable partner with lots of personal assets that he gives freely to the company.
He gives but he doesnt demand much and generally gives you the control to run the business
and spend the money. You enjoy the benefits of his assets it keeps your business accounts
balance sheet buoyant. You like him well enough (even enjoying occasional holidays to visit him
its a real bonnie place)
You sometimes wake up in a sweat at night, at the thought of him ever deciding to leave the
business and take his assets with them.

- 246 -

One day the nightmare becomes a reality he says "I am sorry pal but I think we should split up
the business. I am looking at the books and I feel I am getting a raw deal. I know that we get on
well enough but I feel like I am treated like the poor partner, my opinion doesn't seem to
matter. At business meetings I feel I cant get support for any of my ideas as your family are all
on the team and my vote means nothing! I have worked out I will be better of on my own. Sorry
I am leaving. "

What might your response be then?
1. Dont leave us you cry I think we are better together" It doesnt work he is heading
towards the door.
2. You try everything to entice them to stay even promise them things will be better, I will
give you more powers"
3. Thats not working lets try the emotional one ... "How can you leave me after all the great
things we have done together" We are like family He smiles at you kindly but his hand is
on the door handle.
4. You say Wait I will get my glamorous and famous friends to plead with you to stay He
gives you a wry look What he says Come on that is never going to work? They dont
know me, anything about my personal situation, our business relationship or how it affects
me or my family. In fact they have often been critical of me! Sorry that is just silly
nonsense!
5. As he steps over the threshold you go for the last ditch effort scare tactics. You hit his
confidence first You will never make it on your own.. You need me" You are too wee!
Its a big world out there and you need me to represent you There are a lot of big scary
people out there, who will protect you?
6. He shakes his head sadly at you as he begins to close the door he ears you choking in
pettiness Well go if you want too .. but dont expect any help from me .... In fact I will not
even be willing to do business deals with you ... watch this you will fall on your face and if
you want back in you can forget it!"

Does any of this sound even slightly familiar?


See here for full comment



- 247 -

What Happens If You Vote No?

While the unionist campaign tries to portray voting No
as the status quo (which was counter-argued in my last
document) and voting Yes as full of moral hazards and
risks, this article here brilliantly explains why this is
absolute nonsense. It explains so well why voting No is
just as morally hazardous most of it has been
reproduced below:



One thing that almost all of my friends who tell me they intend to vote No in September have
in common is that they wish that this referendum campaign had never happened. They dont
see the need for it. They think it is needlessly sowing doubt, division and uncertainty at a time
when nobody really wanted the debate to happen. They wish the whole damn thing would go
away and be forgotten.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with that. I am sure Alex Salmond does too. After all, he
didnt expect the Labour Party in Great Britain and in Scotland to collapse quite so
comprehensively as they did in 2010 and 2011, and thus make possible the election of a
majority SNP administration at Holyrood that was bound trapped even by history and
manifesto commitments into calling a referendum that was not at the time of their choosing.

Where I take issue with my friends, who are still my friends I hasten to add, is in their imagining
that a No vote somehow cancels the uncertainty and division. That life can ever again be like
this never happened. I think that to imagine some kind of return to normality is not only
deluded, I think it is a positively dangerous complacency about the way things have already,
irrevocably changed. And more, how things will change after a No vote, as well as after a Yes.

Part of this change is positive, of course, on line and in the meeting halls and pubs and clubs,
the Yes campaign in all of its participatory variety has revealed and unleashed a new and
painfully hopeful democratic culture in this country on a scale and of a quality of thought and
debate that I never would have expected. Im sure that my No voting friends dont really want
all that to disappear and be forgotten

It has also raised, less comfortably, the spectre of the crying need genuine reform of the
creaking, rotten edifice of the British State, and has revealed many less than attractive
elements of its defensive, secretive, mendacious, culture of self-interested pessimism which Im
sure that all of us, whatever side were on, would rather not have seen revealed so pervasively
in institutions that once held almost universal affection if not allegiance.

In any case, despite the devout wish of many in the BBC and the Labour Party, to name but
two, that this whole question had never been raised,, the status quo, as Ive said before, may
well be on the ballot paper. But it is not on the cards. A wish for a return to normal is a wish for
a stability that is already in the past.

You cant go home when its not there any more. Indeed, I would argue that a No vote will
change the terms of that stability quite as radically as a Yes vote. A No vote is just as much of
a vote for change. It is not only Yes voters who should be called on to look into a crystal ball
and imagine a future that is radically not the same

Before my No voting friends dismiss that as a paradox, may I ask them to consider the
following.

- 248 -

Every vile piece of Westminster legislation that has attacked the poor and dismantled the
Welfare State, every policy that has ensured that it is only the poor who have paid the price of
the recession caused by the greed of the rich, every act of economic and social vandalism it
has been the comfortable posture of the well meaning voters of Scotland that none of these
things have been your fault. That you didnt vote for them.

Well, you wont be able to say that any more.

Up until September the 18th, we have all been able to hide behind all that being someone elses
fault. Either way the vote goes, Yes or No, that comfortable position has already been
shattered. Either we vote to take responsibility for our own economics , our own wealth
distribution, our own decisions to make war or peaceor we are voting to mandate away
control over all of these matters to Westminster forever.

Either way, we will be responsible.

If a Yes voter has to take on board the moral hazard of whatever happens for good or ill in an
independent Scotland, a No voter must equally accept moral responsibility for having given
Westminster permanent permission to do whatever it likes forever. No questions asked.

Moral Hazard works both ways.

Whatever austerity measures are coming down the line, all those policies that werent your
fault before September 18th? After September the 18th, they will be your fault. No. Sorry. Every
single one of them will be your fault. This is the trap that history has set you. And I understand
your discomfort. I understand your wanting to wish all this away. But you cant. Youre stuck
along with the rest of us.

Except of course, were going to be really, really annoying about it. Were going to make you
feel bad. We will be unbearable. Every single day, well be reminding you. When the Tories
make a formal or informal pact with UKIP and win the election in 2015, despite having no seats
in Scotland? Your fault. When there is a vote to leave the EU and Scotland votes to stay but we
have to leave because middle England votes Yes? Your fault.

Sorry. Thats the way its going to be. In fact, I confidently predict that at dinner parties in
Scotland in 2016 it will be impossible to find anyone who will admit to having voted No, so
complex and disruptive and chaotic will be the consequences, so omnipresent will the border
question be in every single dispute about everything. It will feel very bad to have actually voted
for all that.

But my sympathy will fail me pretty quickly. Because your No vote or your failure to vote will
have signified that it in your view it is better for Scotland to suffer neo-conservative
governments it didnt vote for than to take responsibility for its own affairs. You will have voted
for Scotland, politically speaking, to cease to exist. So kind of hell mend you. Sorry.

Now, hold onis that fair? We cant be expected to have thought all that through before it
happens!

WellThink about it now. Alex Salmond, though he is deemed to be the source and fount of all
evil, is not the only begetter of this referendum. David Cameron agreed to it too. Now why do
you think he did that? Because he is a friend to democracy, perhaps? Surely only a very small
minority of No voters believe that. No. You know and I know that Cameron agreed to the
referendum in order to call Scotlands bluff. To settle and silence the Scottish question for a
generation.

- 249 -

(That wont work, obviously, but thats an argument for later)

Cameron only did that because he was confident of a No vote, of course. But what have the
Tories, and others in the British establishment to gain from a No vote?

I think they know that if we take independence off the table, if we remove, voluntarily, that
bargaining chip from future negotiation, then there wont ever need to be any negotiations
ever again. Everything will be in their gift. For a generation. And having voted for that once, we
will have thrown away any electoral influence over what happens next.

Everything we have gained since devolution in terms of the painfully slow emergence into
democracy we are still undergoing has been predicated on the or else of independence. Does
anyone in the No Camp seriously expect a prize for loyalty when we remove the best card weve
got from our hand? One or two of you can expect knighthoods, maybe, but what can the
ordinary No voter really expect as a reward? from those people?

The Yes camp are constantly being asked about what kind of negotiations we can expect after
we reject the United Kingdom on currency, NATO, oil, Trident and the rest? Well, what kind
of negotiations do you expect when youve said to other side; whatever you want to do is fine
with us?

There I go againbeing divisivetalking about the other side.

Well, take a listen to the mutterings of the backbenchers from those English and Welsh
constituencies who havent had the bargaining position weve had, that bargaining position
youre going to vote so happily to throw away, and see how long all those promises to protect
the Barnett formula and add meaningful powers to Holyrood last.

David Cameron wasnt offering us a choice between different forms of democracy. He was
offering us the choice between shutting up and fucking off. And fucking off might well have its
difficulties, but we should be in no doubt that shutting up is exactly what is demanded of us if
we dont have the guts to fuck off.

A replacement for Trident? You dont want that? Shut Up. A slashing of consequential health
spending as privatisation of the NHS in England and Wales speeds up? You dont like that
either? Shut up.

You voted for it.

Before September the 18th, nice left leaning folk in Scotland chatting about the Welfare State
and the decline of local government and the miners and the poll tax and the sale of council
housing and the destruction of our industries at dinner parties could say in their comfortable,
pre-democratic way:

Oh well, its terrible. But its not our fault. Were not responsible. We didnt vote for that.
No more. After September the 18th, we in Scotland will be responsible for whatever happens to
us. Our choice is whether or not we want democracy to go along with the responsibility.

Right now, thanks to the referendum, however uncomfortably or prematurely, our future is,
temporarily, in our own hands. A No vote is not a place to hide from that future. It is just a vote
to have no influence over that future after we deliver a mandate to whoever wins in
Westminster elections that we cant influence to do whatever they like with it.

- 250 -

I hope youre comfortable with that, folks. Because if you win, I promise to devote every waking
moment to reminding you what the hell you just did, even if there are none of you at dinner
parties in a years time who will admit to it any more than youd admit now to being a Tory.

Everything has changed. Everyone has to face the reality of that. Our only choice in September
18th is: Do we make the way we change subject to democratic control within Scotland, or do
we leave the management of that change to whomever somebody else votes for.

Because, my brothers and my sisters, as George Bush once said, democracy, with all of the
adult responsibilities that implies, is coming soon to a place near you. For the first time in
history, for 15 hours in September, Scotland will be a democratic country, with its people
responsible for themselves.

Putting your head in the sand of a No vote wont make it go away.


Another article to echo those sentiments can be found here and again are worth reproducing here:

The myth that a No vote is a vote to keep things the way they are is one of the most powerful
and dangerous weapons wielded by the anti-independence campaign. The reality is far worse,
for all sorts of reasons.

Some are cold hard facts: the financial trap waiting for the Scottish Government in the form of
more powers that arent powers at all, but huge burdens which will cripple the Scottish
budget. But what Arnotts piece outlines is something much more insidious.

A No vote in the referendum will rip away forever a straw that Scots have clung to for 300
years the pretence of being a nation, bound only by an abstract political technicality. There
has never in history been a democratic choice by the people of Scotland to surrender their
sovereignty and be subsumed into another nation, so Scots have been able to pretend that they
still inhabit a distinct and distinctive country.

On September 19th, if Scotland has voted No, that illusion will be at an end. We will have
stated, freely and voluntarily, that our country is the United Kingdom, and that we all submit to
its rule. There can be no more complaints that weve suffered a democratic deficit by voting for
one party and getting another as the government, because well have said loudly and clearly
that were just a region of the body politic concerned and we therefore accept whatever the
whole of it wants.

If we had any dignity at all, a No vote would be followed by the disbandment of all Scottish
national sporting teams, the reinstatement of God Save The Queen as the official Scottish
national anthem at all occasions, and Holyrood reverting back to the title of Scottish
Executive rather than Scottish Government, to reflect its proper status as a regional council. If
were the UK, we should start acting like the UK.

(The office of First Minister should perhaps also be renamed the Mayor Of Scotland.)

Shown the open door, well have refused to embark on adult life and instead chosen to remain
eternally attached to the apron strings. Westminster will be able to say my house, my rules,
safe in the knowledge that we have no credible threat left to offer. It can help itself to our
resources and hand them out wherever it likes, because well have meekly given it permission in
perpetuity.

- 251 -

Scotland was not extinguished in 1707, whatever the UK government might claim, because
there was no democratic legitimacy in the sale of a country by a handful of lords. But it will be
extinguished this year, once and for all, if it chooses that path.

Another article here discusses the Shame of No
I was asked recently what my reaction would be to a No Vote.

The reality, no matter how I look at the various responses, theres only one that will fit.

Id be ashamed of my country; Id be ashamed of my people.

The reasoning is simple; with a majority voice my country will proclaim to the world at large
that it is No nation of proud Scots, but has been bred into becoming a nation of wee,
cowering, timourous beasties.

It will proclaim from every polling station in our land that it has No self belief, No self worth
and No aspiration.

Ill feel that way, and Ill believe it, because of one thing above all; its what the NO Campaign
have told us. It doesnt matter what you call them, those paid and indentured lackeys who are
trying to spread fear amongst us. Better Together, Vote No Borders, No Thanks, theyre all
the same, backed by London or City interests, funded by Tory donors and peers.

Ill feel ashamed because the NO campaign has continually demanded certainties from those
whod choose a better direction - and lets face it any direction we choose is better than one
forced or foisted upon us from afar. Ill feel ashamed because these people have the power,
right now, to provide the certainties they demand of the positive message.

Im already ashamed, not of my nation, not of the Scots, but of what David Cameron, chief of
the nay-sayers has done with what he declares is his country. He alone, as de-facto leader of
the negative message, has the power to inject certainty. He alone can direct that the questions
be asked that remove the doubt. He alone can demand that when the time comes that England
and an independent Scotland assume their rightful places within the EU, within NATO and
continue being party to any other treaties to which were currently obligated; unless, of course,
we choose differently.

He and he alone is responsible for driving much of the lack of information, the lack of
credibility, the direction of the media reporting that has been so convoluted and biased as to
leave many Scots bewildered.

Yet, he is not entirely responsible for their bewilderment. For in the end, although they might be
confused by his threats, innuendoes, predictions of cataclysm and doom, they and they alone
will bear the responsibility for the true disaster that will transpire afterwards because they
did not take on the responsibility of discovering the truth behind all the misinformation. The
Truth is out there. They should have taken the time and sought out the answers for themselves.

They will be responsible, because on September 18th, for the first time in their lives, each and
every Scot will wake up with the responsibility for our own future, and it will be up to each and
every Scot to decide what to do with that responsibility.

For those that vote NO because of vested interest; for the Lords, Ladies, CBEs and OBEs, or
those that need the British State for a meal-ticket, those chiefest amongst the current nay-
sayers, in a way I can respect their NO vote, they are after all working diligently to preserve
their entitlements. For that which the British State can bestow can also remove. Theyre
nothing other than the paid lackeys of a London establishment that darent even engage
- 252 -

publically in our debate, a debate which wouldnt even exist without London controlled media.
They may not acknowledge their position as such, they may be genuinely confused, but I doubt
it.

I will be ashamed because, should there be a NO vote, so many of my countrys people will have
bought into such a negative message, such a song devoid of hope and aspiration that I can only
imagine theyve forgotten what it means to be Scots. In a dependent Scotland a dirge will be
top of the pops.

Ill still defend your right to your views, to that NO vote, should you choose to cast it, should
you select to abdicate your sovereignty on the day it is given to you, even as Im ashamed you
saw the need to mark that particular box.

You see, the reason for my feelings wont be immediately apparent on the 18th, but on the
days, weeks, months and years afterwards.

Its during that subsequent time that Scotland will display the results of having its soft proud
underbelly eviscerated. Those who have driven this movement, this retention of new-found
rights that will come on the 18th, if they watch them evaporate that night, you should believe
that the hopes and aspirations they carry for their country will pour from their souls as well.

When you do that to the collective spirit of a nation, theres only one result, and its not a good
one.

I can guarantee, that therell be a dearth of folks to proudly proclaim they voted NO in the
years to come, theyll not sit with their children and grandchildren, theyll not tell them how
hard they worked to secure their futures, how the cross on the box was only the last small step
in centuries long struggle, a struggle that for many of them lasted an entire lifetime.

Actually, as I think on it, you dont need me to be ashamed for you, because the next time an
English government, for with over 80% of the seats in the Commons, thats what it is, an
English government; the next time one of them foists something on you or yours that you
despise, I know youll look back ruefully, and youll wish youd acted differently on that day. I
know that then though, youll not proclaim what you did on that day; that you were either a
wee timourous, cowering beastie, or bribed.

Ultimately, the 18th is a day for us to decide our future and that afterwards we will be in the
enviable position of being able to make our own choices ad infinitum. That ability to access
your representatives, to have your rights protected, to decide a constitution, to choose who to
treat and ally with, its called freedom. To have it filtered by another parliament in another
country where you have naught but the tiniest of voices, its called servitude.

Servitude; willing servitude is a cause for shame.

Yet another article on this subject worth republishing (apologies for the long paragraphs but the original was
written with very long sentences):
Dear No Voters,

I think its finally time for me to say this. Ive been mealy-mouthed and temperate for a while,
but Im actually going to come out and say it now, because I no more respect your right to
defend the United Kingdom than I do your right to defend elitism or religious bigotry, or
anything else that is patently, blatantly wrong.

If you are planning to vote No to the chance of governing yourselves, if you think that all
women and all men are equal only if it benefits your wallet, if you believe in even attempting to
- 253 -

defend privilege by birth, if you believe in sitting back and watching while the Tories
systematically dismantle the NHS, if you give any kind of credit to the pledges of a Labour party
and a Liberal party who jumped into bed with the Tories in roughly the time it takes the
average human being to blink, if you believe nuclear weapons can be in any way justified, and
that its fine to tell the rest of the world they cant have them, but you of course can, if you
think that once the yoke of paying for the upkeep of this obscene armoury is removed, we
somehow wont be a million times better off both financially and ethically, if you think that you
will no longer be British because, despite being born on the island that for millennia has been
called Britannia, you are not part of the pathetic remnants of a long-dead empire that still
covers part of Ireland and which insists that people on the island of Ireland identify themselves
as British, if you believe that a Westminster-centred media is telling you the truth about how
wealthy your country really is, if you believe any of this laughable, fear-motivated propaganda
campaign that would have made Josef Goebbels goggle in disbelief, if you believe Ireland can
have open borders with the UK but Scotland cant, if you want to justify Scotland repeatedly
refusing Tories only for them to get into power to make laws for you and your children anyway,
if you take seriously the words of three political parties who have betrayed you time and time
again, if you think that a Conservative or UKIP-dominated government will have any kind of
mandate to offer you more powers when you have already refused more powers and are
rendered politically impotent after a NO vote, and even as there is growing opinion down south
that Scotland must pay a heavy price regardless of whether it votes NO or not, if you think
Scotland wont be totally crucified in the event of a NO victory next month, if you wave a flag
that claims to speak for Britain but doesnt even mention Wales, despite retaining the red
saltire of a country whose citizens fought and died to break away from the UK nearly a century
ago, if you want your kids to be subjects and not citizens, of a monarch who is somehow
allowed to be called Elizabeth II even when your entire country didnt even have an Elizabeth I,
if you think that your hatred of one person should affect the future of five million people, if you
think this referendum is all Alex Salmonds doing when the people of Scotland gave him the
mandate to hold it in the first place, and a huge percentage of Scots openly give up their free
time to actively support it on a daily basis, if you listen to a Lets Stay Together campaign that
sends you letters signed by bleating millionaires, and which is fronted by the son-in-law of the
Duke of Westminster, one of the richest men in Europe and a Scottish landowner who stands to
lose millions in Land Tax in the event of a YES vote, if you think that a Scottish parliament that
was specifically designed by its Labour founders to resist an SNP government is democratic, if
you think the powers of that parliament cant be revoked in a heartbeat, if you believe
campaign literature that constantly quotes the Tory-founded and wildly pro-business IFS, if you
think the Financial Times was joking about Westminster deliberately lying about our oil
bonanza, if you think Forbes Magazine was merely kidding when it stated that no-one can stop
us from using the pound, if you think Gibraltar, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey can use
the pound but Scotland somehow cant, if you think that other countries who welcomed
independence wouldnt have given their right arms for the oil we have when they were starting
out, if you think we wont become a trade and exports and renewable energy powerhouse in
spite of our almost-perfect situation and geographical location to do just that, if you think little
countries cant do it when the Top Ten Richest Countries in Europe and the Top Ten Richest
Countries in the World are undeniable testaments to the contrary year after year, if you believe
that getting a democratic say in what actually happens to your own country is anything but a
good thing, if you imagine that the socialist movement once known as the Labour Party still
actually exists despite having had its heart ripped out by a war criminal twenty years ago, if
you think a nation of world-famous inventors, entrepreneurs and engineers cant govern
themselves when the rest of planet Earth can, if you imagine that a nation of five million people
and a nation of fifty-six million people can be united fairly on anything other than a federal
basis, if you believe in an honours system that increasingly seems to resemble the Sex
Offenders register, if you think that foreign wars in which our young men and women have
been, can be and will be sent to needlessly die in dust-covered countries thousands of miles
away are justified, if you think a political system in which only two sitting prime ministers have
ever even set foot on the Shetland Islands, 34 years apart, can be defended, if you hand your
- 254 -

pay packets into your neighbours, for them to give you a percentage of it back, if you
voluntarily keep your neighbours stockpile of weapons in your own house, if you believe you
are not entitled to the pound your forefathers sweated, worked and died for over three
hundred years for, if you think that, even if we somehow had to give up the pound we wont
have to give up, we couldnt deal with a currency change when weve all spent decades trying
to persuade people to accept Scottish notes in England anyway, if you believe the words of
people who tell you constantly that you cant do it, if you think a massive inferiority complex is
good for you, if you call an entire nation with a world-famous culture and identity wanting to
govern itself separatism, if you dont do things because youre just too scared to do them, if
you support unilateral military action over the international law a hundred million people died
to gift to you, if you vote for a relationship that is so unbalanced and unfair that you are
actually threatened and intimidated for even entertaining the thought of upping sticks and
leaving it, if you think you are somehow economically better off with a financial capital that is
hundreds of miles away in another country, if you believe in a union borne out of corruption
and intimidation, and against the wills of the people of England and Scotland, if you uphold the
rights of financial terrorists to do as they please while the poorest in society suffer for it and
bail them out with their own money, if you think that these ridiculous bailouts are even
necessary in the first place after seeing Iceland telling the corporate criminals to get lost and
now reaping the rewards by prospering as the eighth richest country in Europe, even while we
get treated to more and more foodbanks, library closures and hospitals shutting down, if you
are seriously planning to defend before the entire planet an unelected upper chamber with 92
hereditary peers, whose archaic rules have been out of date for centuries and whose 775
members earn 300 a day just for turning up, if you believe that a political system which denies
office to Catholics is anything other than totally abhorrent, if you treat the most negative, fear-
driven and insulting political campaign in modern history with anything other than the total
contempt it so richly deserves, if you think that an entire nation rising to its feet before the
world, only to whimper Sorry! We cant do it! before sitting mutely and meekly back down
again will somehow not become a global laughingstock, if you honestly think you wont spend
the rest of your lives woefully trying to defend yourselves to the people who come after you and
who demand to know why, if you live your lives obeying the instincts of fear and cheerless
pessimism over the instincts of hope and possibility, if you are planning to defend any or all of
this bullshit while the world watches you doing it, then I dont question your political beliefs, I
dont question your motivations and I dont even question your consciences. I actually question
your fucking sanity.

There have been many misconceptions in this debate; the biggest one, however, is that it is we
YES voters who somehow have to defend our arguments. We dont. We dont have to defend
them. Youre the ones who should be defending your beliefs. If you dont believe in basic human
rights, if you dont believe in democracy, if you choose to uphold privilege and royalty over
equality and justice, then its time for you to start defending your beliefs, because I for one will
never, ever, ever stop attacking them. Whether you win in September, or whether you lose, I
will attack your beliefs before the eyes of the world, and I will go on attacking them relentlessly
and pitilessly, either for the rest of your life, or for the rest of mine. I will attack them when you
wake up, I will attack them when you go to bed, I will attack them in your dreams and I will
attack them in your nightmares, I will attack them in writing and I will attack them in voice, I
will attack them at Christmas and I will attack them on your birthday, I will attack them from
the streets and I will attack them from my home, I will attack them in the spring and I will
attack them in the fall, I will attack them with glee and I will attack them with rage, I will attack
them in print and I will attack them in public, I will attack them until I die and I will ensure that
others will go on attacking them after Im gone, I will attack them and attack them and go on
attacking them until you cover your ears and snivel in wretched despair. I will tell the entire
world what you believed, and exactly what you tried to deny to your own posterity; I will holler
it to the heavens until I have no voice left to screech with, I will set it down in print so that every
single one of the unborn billions that come after us can marvel at it. I will tear your pathetic
excuses for arguments all the new ones they could ever have torn and I will pour scorn upon
- 255 -

you and your miserable beliefs until the breath leaves my body. Do you understand what that
means? Do you?

It means that youve already lost.

Yours derisively,
McB

And a comment written by an anonymous Guardian correspondent:
For anyone planning to vote No in September, you have to be completely certain, beyond any
doubt, that you are comfortable with the direction the UK is headed. You have to accept that
the wider UK political landscape is being shaped by the far right, and that the mainstream
parties (ostensibly the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats) are being inexorably
pulled ever rightwards in the scramble for votes.

You have to be comfortable with the marginalisation and victimisation of the poor, with the
dismantling of the Welfare State, the widening of wealth inequality between rich and poor, and
the continuing erosion of workers rights. You have to accept that nuclear weapons and aircraft
carriers are more important to you than education, healthcare and welfare for the elderly and
vulnerable in society.

You have to accept that, even if you do care about these things, your vote at Westminster will
make no difference to the outcome. If you accept all these things unquestioningly; if you can
reconcile your personal politics with what awaits a No vote; if you can consider all of these
issues and conclude that a Westminster government can deliver the kind of society you believe
in; then by all means vote No.

But if you sleepwalk into this referendum, without making any effort to consider the case for
Yes; if you squander this incredible opportunity to transform our politics, reclaim democracy,
and build a society we can once again be proud of; then I can only hope that, when the full
calamity of your decision is revealed to you, you can come to terms with your choice.

This article here imagines the future scenarios for both Yes and No wins and while it is speculative, it is
certainly not outside the realms of possibility and appears quite a realistic view of what is likely to happen.
Its worth reading in full but in particular, if Scotland votes No,

The movement for more powers for Scotland stalls after the Tories leave the devolution
commission. At Westminster, the Tories argue that a NO vote is an endorsement of
Westminster but acknowledge that change is needed. They say that any change must include a
change to the Barnet formula. [...] A proposal goes through the House of Commons proposing
the Scottish NHS is amalgamated with the English and Welsh NHS to create one UK-wide
NHS.[...]

[And if Scotland votes Yes] after initial soul-searching, the Labour party realises that it needs to
reform to have any future. Their UK model is no longer fit for purpose so mechanism are
enacted to separate Scottish Labour from the UK party, leaving the Scottish Labour party
autonomous. This change is grasped by progressives within Labour both North and South of the
border. This opportunity resulted in both Scotland Labour and UK Labour being brought back
onto a direction that better reflects the make-up of the party as a whole. With new-found
confidence, a progressive Labour party win a sizable majority at the poignant General Election
of 2016, the last UK General election that will involve Scotland.

Yet another full article, this time from the Guardian that asks Scots voting no to independence would be an
astonishing act of self-harm. England is dysfunctional, corrupt and vastly unequal. Who on earth would want
to be tied to such a country?
- 256 -

Imagine the question posed the other way round. An independent nation is asked to decide
whether to surrender its sovereignty to a larger union. It would be allowed a measure of
autonomy, but key aspects of its governance would be handed to another nation. It would be
used as a military base by the dominant power and yoked to an economy over which it had no
control.

It would have to be bloody desperate. Only a nation in which the institutions of governance had
collapsed, which had been ruined economically, which was threatened by invasion or civil war
or famine might contemplate this drastic step. Most nations faced even with such catastrophes
choose to retain their independence in fact, will fight to preserve it rather than surrender to
a dominant foreign power.

So what would you say about a country that sacrificed its sovereignty without collapse or
compulsion; that had no obvious enemies, a basically sound economy and a broadly functional
democracy, yet chose to swap it for remote governance by the hereditary elite of another
nation, beholden to a corrupt financial centre?

What would you say about a country that exchanged an economy based on enterprise and
distribution for one based on speculation and rent? That chose obeisance to a government that
spies on its own citizens, uses the planet as its dustbin, governs on behalf of a transnational
elite that owes loyalty to no nation, cedes public services to corporations, forces terminally ill
people to work and cant be trusted with a box of fireworks, let alone a fleet of nuclear
submarines? You would conclude that it had lost its senses.

So whats the difference? How is the argument altered by the fact that Scotland is considering
whether to gain independence rather than whether to lose it? Its not. Those who would vote
no now, a new poll suggests, a rapidly diminishing majority could be suffering from system
justification.

System justification is defined as the process by which existing social arrangements are
legitimised, even at the expense of personal and group interest. It consists of a desire to
defend the status quo, regardless of its impacts. It has been demonstrated in a large body of
experimental work, which has produced the following surprising results.

System justification becomes stronger when social and economic inequality is more extreme.
This is because people try to rationalise their disadvantage by seeking legitimate reasons for
their position. In some cases disadvantaged people are more likely than the privileged to
support the status quo. One study found that US citizens on low incomes were more likely than
those on high incomes to believe that economic inequality is legitimate and necessary.
It explains why women in experimental studies pay themselves less than men, why people in
low-status jobs believe their work is worth less than those in high-status jobs, even when
theyre performing the same task, and why people accept domination by another group. It
might help to explain why so many people in Scotland are inclined to vote no.

The fears the no campaigners have worked so hard to stoke are by comparison with what the
Scots are being asked to lose mere shadows. As Adam Ramsay points out in his treatise Forty-
Two Reasons to Support Scottish Independence, there are plenty of nations smaller than
Scotland that possess their own currencies and thrive. Most of the worlds prosperous nations
are small: there are no inherent disadvantages to downsizing.

Remaining in the UK carries as much risk and uncertainty as leaving. Englands housing bubble
could blow at any time. We might leave the European Union. Some of the most determined no
campaigners would take us out: witness Ukips intention to stage a pro-union rally in
Glasgow on 12 September. The union in question, of course, is the UK, not Europe. This reminds
us of a crashing contradiction in the politics of such groups: if our membership of the EU
- 257 -

represents an appalling and intolerable loss of sovereignty, why is the far greater loss Scotland
is being asked to accept deemed tolerable and necessary.

The Scots are told they will have no control over their own currency if they leave the UK. But
they have none today. The monetary policy committee is based in London and bows to the
banks. The pounds strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote,
reflects the interests of the City.
To vote no is to choose to live under a political system that sustains one of the rich worlds
highest levels of inequality and deprivation. This is a system in which all major parties are
complicit, which offers no obvious exit from a model that privileges neoliberal economics over
other aspirations. It treats the natural world, civic life, equality, public health and effective
public services as dispensable luxuries, and the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor as non-
negotiable.

Its lack of a codified constitution permits numberless abuses of power. It has failed to reform
the House of Lords, royal prerogative, campaign finance and first-past-the-post voting (another
triumph for the no brigade). It is dominated by media owned by tax exiles, who, instructing
their editors from their distant chateaux, play the patriotism card at every opportunity. The
concerns of swing voters in marginal constituencies outweigh those of the majority; the
concerns of corporations with no lasting stake in the country outweigh everything. Broken,
corrupt, dysfunctional, retentive: you want to be part of this?

Independence, as more Scots are beginning to see, offers people an opportunity to rewrite the
political rules. To create a written constitution, the very process of which is engaging and
transformative. To build an economy of benefit to everyone. To promote cohesion, social
justice, the defence of the living planet and an end to wars of choice.

To deny this to yourself, to remain subject to the whims of a distant and uncaring elite, to
succumb to the bleak, deferential negativity of the no campaign, to accept other peoples
myths in place of your own story: that would be an astonishing act of self-repudiation and self-
harm. Consider yourselves independent and work backwards from there; then ask why you
would sacrifice that freedom.

Even the Herald has something to say about how a vote for the union is certainly not a vote for the status
quo.:
"To hear it told, there's a national shortage. Nervous voters are asked to make a leap into the
forbidding dark without so much as a few flimsy parachutes of facts.

So the No side would have it, at any rate. Yet where the future is concerned they don't stock
many facts themselves because that is not, it seems, their job. Will David Cameron and Nick
Clegg be offering another coalition if we vote No? Will Scotland remain in membership of the
European Union beyond 2017? Which coalition deeds - which deeds specifically - will be undone
if Ed Miliband wins office?

No one is asking for long-range forecasts. Next year, the year after: those would do. The inquiry
under the heading "information" is simplicity itself: what happens if we vote No? A few rough
guesses might be sufficient. Scottish voters are sophisticated enough to work through the
permutations.

Instead, Unionist crystal balls have become a little cloudy this summer. Even the brave claim
that we are better together with Britain thanks to "strength" and "stability" doesn't do well
under scrutiny. Which Britain? The one that bears the stamp of Mr Cameron, or the one on
which Mr Miliband would like to impress himself? Are they one and the same? Are they close
copies of the Britain in which we live now? Any clues?

- 258 -

It amounts to a bit of an oversight. If no one should dare to vote Yes without an arsenal of facts
to cover every eventuality for the next few decades - such is the customary demand - then No
campaigners should be eager, not to say proud, to fight an information war. Yet each time the
invitation has been extended, No Thanks has been the answer.

All of a sudden, things have changed, supposedly. All of a sudden, guarantees are flying
around. By sheer coincidence, by a mere fluke, leaders of the Westminster parties yesterday
chose the eve of a TV debate between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling to make a solemn
promise, a pledge good for all electoral eventualities. Parties that saw no need to offer
Scotland anything much until the referendum was upon them are in the words and bonds
business.

There are promises, in short, of more powers. First, note the plurals. Tories, Labour and the
Liberal Democrats each have something different in mind. So which would be your reward for
voting No? We'll come to that.

There are several rounds to this beauty contest. First you have to reject independence. Then
you have to decide that two of the three definitions of "more powers" aren't worth your
attention. Then you have to vote for the party with the offer you might be looking for. Then you
have to hope your tribunes can either win a general election, or maintain the grand pledge
amid the horse-trading and bad faith of coalition negotiations. It really is that simple.

Well, not so simple. You also have to stop thinking from now until September 18. Your mind has
to be cleansed of unworthy thoughts, thoughts such as "If Mr Cameron is now making noises
akin to a devo-max deal, why did he insist, with acquiescence of the other two, that such a deal
should on no account be on the ballot paper?" If the opinion polls were accurate, "more
powers" was the dearest wish of the greatest number of Scots. Yet the Prime Minister wouldn't
have it.

Now the Three Amigos, with Mr Cameron at their head, produce a declaration worth almost as
much as the paper it is written on, stating that "we support a strong Scottish Parliament in a
strong United Kingdom and we support the further strengthening of the parliament's powers".
This, it seems, means "fiscal responsibility and social security".

They can give you no more information than that. Where your future is concerned, they're short
on facts. They are short on agreement, indeed, as to what might be best for Scotland, its
parliament, or relations with the rest of the United Kingdom. "Powers" has a lovely ring, even if
the word points to the tiny flaw in all those polls demonstrating the popularity of devo-max.

It transpired that a fair number of those voicing support for the proposition didn't know which
powers they meant, or which powers were already devolved to Edinburgh. Once, Unionists
loved to point out these supposed facts. Now, given the risks posed by the straight choice Mr
Cameron himself demanded, the very vagueness of devo-max is part of its attraction.

What's (slightly) fascinating is the way in which the Unionist camp uses the phrase "more
powers". The nature of the powers is all but irrelevant: the three men can't agree, and have no
intention of attempting to agree on that. Only the fact-free incantation counts. You will be
guaranteed "more powers", of some unspecified description, and surely that's good enough?
The powers themselves needn't matter, only the fact that there will be more of them. Probably.

If any of this counts as factual information of the kind so often demanded of the Yes campaign,
the bar is set lower than anyone realised. Would Mr Cameron support Mr Miliband's scheme if
Labour happens to win a UK general election? In a finely-balanced Westminster would Labour
vote through a Tory scheme that ran counter to its own proposals? Are we supposed to just put
such thoughts from our minds and take a punt on the word "more"?
- 259 -


There's little point in saying that all of this fails to satisfy a claim for a properly representative
parliament with all the powers it might need to do the job. The men from Westminster
understand that perfectly well. The idea is to render Scotland quiescent and preserve the
essence of its present relationship with the UK. There is no serious joint attempt to analyse that
relationship - hence the lack of agreement - or improve governance. The declaration is a
gesture, a spoiler, a distraction.

You could draw conclusions from that sort of fact. "Fiscal responsibility and social security"
might sound nicely vague amid a referendum campaign. How do changes in those areas - any
changes - sit with Westminster's aspirations for a unified tax and benefit systems? What
becomes of the universal credit abomination? What kind of devolution is it that involves
chipping some bits and pieces from central government's responsibilities without a thought for
wider UK consequences?

There is little evidence of logic in any of this. The three party leaders might have asked
themselves about the powers that should not be granted to Edinburgh, for example, rather
than fiddling around with the unspecified measures that might be doled out one day. Instead,
they are content to rely on the supposedly hypnotic effect of the word "powers". They might as
well be waving shiny trinkets in front of the voters.

That would be the general idea, of course: trust us and we'll give you something for your
trouble. After all, it's a fact, isn't it, that these are three deeply trustworthy men who never
break their words?"




My last document tried to portray the future that Scotland could look forward to with staying in the union by
referring to many statistics that show, even today, the union is not worth staying in (poverty levels
increasing, more austerity measures and budget cuts, etc). Additional shameful statistics that do not make
Britain great nor Scotland and the UK Better Together include:

- 260 -

"UK child death rate among worst in western Europe, say experts" (see here)

Wages Will Not Have Fallen So Sharply Since The Victorian Era see Huffington Post
Scotland sees dramatic rise of in-work poverty Statistics released by the Scottish Government
yesterday showed that over half (52 per cent) of working-age adults in poverty were in in-work
poverty a category which refers to individuals living in households where at least one member is
working either full- or part-time. The number of children living in poverty who were in households
in employment has also risen in the latest year, with 110,000 youngsters in Scotland living in in-work
poverty in 2012-13." see The Scotsman
"Do you think Britain is a fair country? Britain is the fourth most unequal country in the world. We
come after Mexico, the US and Israel." see here

Welfare cuts and pressures on household budgets is driving people to the brink of homelessness, a
leading UK charity has warned. Shelter, a charity that campaigns against homelessness, says it can
no longer keep up demand for its helpline after calls increased by 20% since 2011. As a result, almost
a third of phone calls go unanswered. see RT.com
Young people bear brunt of Britain's economic woes Young people in Britain saw their incomes fall
almost twice as much as older people in the five years after the financial crisis, according to a report
published by a leading think tank on Tuesday. New research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)
showed median household income fell 13 percent, taking inflation into account, for 22-30 year-olds
between the 2007-08 and 2012-13 financial years, compared with 7 percent for people aged between
31 and 59. see Reuters
- 261 -

"Many British people will never afford an acceptable minimum living standard" " There is no clearer
guide to what the general public considers to be the true nature and cost of a basic, no-frills human
existence in the world's sixth richest economy than the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's minimum
income standard (MIS)." - see The Guardian
Lessons must be learned from the death of a Stevenage diabetic who could not afford electricity to
keep his insulin cool after his benefits were stopped. Former soldier David Clapson died aged 59 at his
home in Hillside from fatal diabetic keto-acidosis, which the NHS calls a dangerous complication of
diabetes caused by a lack of insulin. His jobseekers allowance of approximately 70 a week on
which his family says he was reliant had been suspended three weeks before on June 28, for missing
meetings. According to his family, Mr Clapson was found alone, penniless and starving a short
distance from a pile of printed CVs, with nothing to his name but 3.44, six tea bags, a tin of soup and
an out-of-date tin of sardines. The coroner found that David a former BT engineer of 16 years, who
had served two years in Northern Ireland with the Royal Corps of Signals during The Troubles had
nothing in his stomach when he died. - The Stevenage Advertiser
"The Hunger Games: Mother of five feels pinch of poverty. Big-hearted Julie set up food bank. Now
Benefit KO means she uses it" - see Scottish Sun and here (this has full text of article)
Universal Credit has the hallmarks of another IT failure Charities, housing associations and
consultancies have warned that the Department for Work and Pensions 2.2bn Universal Credit
programme has all the hallmarks of another public sector IT disaster. see Computer Weekly
Starving children have asked for school holiday meals from food bank HUNGRY children have been
given emergency food packages during the school summer holidays, it was revealed yesterday.
Nearly 90 youngsters on free school meals turned up at Glasgows Greater Maryhill Food Bank over a
seven-day window at the start of August. see Daily Record
Workers in the UK have fewest public holidays in Europe firms are allowed to include the public
holidays as part of the statutory 28 days, so workers in the UK actually have fewer holidays than the
rest of Europe. see Daily Mail
HMRC has shrunk from 104,000 staff in 2004 to just over half that number in 2014. Your PCS
Branch Executive Committee recommends that members support Yes Scotland. - See here
"Poverty in Scotland increases . Poverty in Scotland has risen by 110,000 in one year, with 820,000
people across the country struggling to get by, figures have revealed" - see Evening Times
Sanctions against those on sickness benefit up 350 per cent in Government crackdown Soaring
numbers of sick or disabled people are being punished by having their benefits taken away in a
Government crackdown that experts say is pushing the most vulnerable in society to destitution.
see the Independent
Tory councillor 'laments closure of workhouses' in meeting about mental health services see the
Independent
Malnutrition soars by more than 70% since Coalition came to power See Daily Mirror
Rickets returns as poor families find healthy diets unaffordable The Guardian
UK Childcare costs second highest of Top 20 OECD Countries The research, from the Scottish
Parliament Information Centre, finds that families in the UK spend 27 per cent of their income on
childcare. This is more than double the percentage of income spent in many other small independent
countries - families in Sweden spend 5 per cent of income on childcare, while in Finland the figure is 8
per cent, France is 10 per cent and Norway is 11 per cent. see here
Employment tribunal fees a victory for bad bosses, says TUC see The Guardian
Benefit changes could prevent disabled from studying, warns University of Bolton. HUNDREDS of
disabled students could be prevented from studying for a degree if changes to benefits go ahead,
university bosses have warned. see Bolton News (but obviously applicable across the UK)
100,000 Scots enter poverty in a single year. More than one hundred thousand Scots have entered
poverty in just a single year, according to statistics showing an alarming jump in deprivation. Some
820,000 Scots were found to be living in poverty in 2012/13 up more than 13 per cent on the year
before. The Telegraph
Starting salaries stagnant across the UK and wages may fall see The Guardian
- 262 -

Doncaster care workers set to intensify strike in fight for living wage. Fifty carers for disabled began
action nearly seven weeks ago after firm took over NHS service and reduced pay by up to 35% see
The Guardian
'No one should die penniless and alone': the victims of Britain's harsh welfare sanctions. David
Clapson was found dead last year after his benefits were stopped on the grounds that he wasn't
taking the search for work seriously. He had an empty stomach, and just 3.44 to his name. Now
thousands of other claimants are being left in similarly dire straits by tough new welfare sanctions
see The Guardian
Food poverty: Experts issue malnutrition health warning The Faculty of Public Health said
conditions like rickets were becoming more apparent because people could not afford quality food in
their diet. BBC News
Our skinny, malnourished kids long for new school term - so they can be fed - see Daily Mirror
Almost a Million Scots too Poor for Proper Housing And a quarter of a million people do not have a
proper diet, while a further 350,000 children live in homes that stay cold in the winter because
heating is too expensive see International Business Times
This Government has thrown the poor and vulnerable on the scrapheap The Independent
Why are UK rail fares so expensive? The Independent
1 in 3 households in Glasgow have no working parents see here
"Deeply elitist UK locks out diversity at top" - BBC News
Shock survey shows poverty in Scotland is getting worse see here
Mass Eviction Of London Homeless As Police Swoop again In Operation Encompass see Streets
Kitchen

There is one article in the Daily Record that I thought so powerful that I had to highlight instead of it being
buried in amongst the headlines above. This illustrates, so very clearly and more than many of the articles
above and below, why Scotland is NOT better together protected with the UKs broad shoulders:

Poverty in Scotland has more than doubled in 30 years - despite the economy doubling in size
And close to one million people - almost a fifth of the population - are in inadequate housing, while
more than 250,000 adults and children are not properly fed.

The stark findings come in a Poverty and Social Exclusion in the United Kingdom survey, funded by the
Economic and Social Research Council.

And academics say the results are proof that the Westminster Coalition Governments austerity policies
have failed.

How, in any sense of reality, can the millionaires (who have personal vested interests) in the union that are
funding or running the various unionist campaigns claim that Scotland is better in the UK? Seriously? Even
though the economy has doubled in the past 30 years, so has poverty? Where has all this wealth gone? Why
are children and adults not being properly fed and have to rely on foodbanks? It is a disgraceful legacy of the
union and in particular of Labour policies, given they have been in control of many of the local councils that
cover some of the most deprived areas in Europe AND Labour were in power for 13 of the past 17 years.


- 263 -





- 264 -





And while nowhere in the same league is the levels of poverty and hardship seen in Scotland, if you're a
football fan you may be surprised to hear that FIFA are once again questioning the special privilege that
Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales has in international football. In the event of a No vote, the
Scottish national team may be barred from international football and FIFA may insist on a UK football team
instead (see RIA)

- 265 -

Meanwhile, here's how the other half (1% actually) lived:
Tory summer party drew super-rich supporters with total wealth of 11bn Almost 450 attendees
at 2013 bash at Old Billingsgate Market sat at tables costing up to 12,000 each to rub shoulders
with PM and cabinet ministers the Guardian
UK Establishment Closes Ranks as Organised Child Sex Abuse Network Leads Back to No. 10 see
here
"Rich getting richer as everyone else is getting poorer, Government's own figures reveal [...] Before
taxes and benefits the richest fifth of households had an average income of 81,300 in 2012-13,
almost 15 times greater than the poorest fifth who had an average income of 5,500. And the richest
fifth of households saw their income grow by 940 between 2011/12 and 2012/13, while the
disposable income of all the other groups fell by around 250, with the poorest households
experiencing the sharpest fall of 381. see Daily Mirror
Prince Charles pockets extra 238,000 thanks to the Government tax cut for the rich See Daily
Mirror
Rolls-Royce sees record 33% boost in luxury car sales see BBC News
Plenty more statistics regarding the UK economy and poverty can be found here



And what about policy changes that the current UK government (and very likely to be the next UK
government after the UK general election in 2015) have implemented or are planning?
"Britain's first secret trial: this way lies trouble" - see The Guardian
Tory 'head bangers' have won on human rights, says Nick Clegg. Nick Clegg has launched an attack
on Conservative plans to limit the power of the European Court of Human Rights. BBC News
"Conservatives promise to scrap Human Rights Act after next election" - The Guardian
UK is first country to face UN inquiry into disability rights violations - see Disability News

Voters Believe Welfare State Will Be Gone In A Generation, According To ComRes Poll See
Huffington Post
"Almost 500,000 public sector jobs face axe as blunder by Danny Alexander reveals scale of
Government cuts" - Daily Record "Up to 50,000 of the jobs will disappear from Scotland - one in 10
public sector jobs north of the Border. Thousands of teachers, nurses, health and council staff will be
- 266 -

ordered to take pay cuts under the plans to be announced today. They will be told to work fewer
hours if they want to keep their jobs."
"New Government cuts could see a million state jobs go" - The Telegraph (so the 500,000 mentioned
in the Daily Record above are just half of the total, which would result in approximately 100,000
states jobs lost in Scotland)
"Will a No vote mean bye-bye Barnett?" "rejecting independence means a green light for the savage
cuts in UK government spending. The brunt of these will only be felt in Scotland in the years after the
Referendum. By themselves, these cuts will be enough to choke off any possibility of future spending
to deliver the kinds of policies that Scots clearly want - like better child care. But in addition to these
eye-watering cuts, devastating though they will be, awaits another, even more serious financial
consequence of a 'No' vote - the dismantling of the Barnett Formula. It's estimated this will cost Scots
4 billion pounds annually. It's taken for granted in England that the Barnett Formula is a way of
feather-bedding Scottish subsidy junkies. How has it been allowed to happen, the outraged English
Establishment thunders, that in Scotland students, the elderly and those needing medical treatment
or care get a better deal than their equivalents south of the border?" - the Herald
Higher taxes are coming after the general election get used to it. There is a huge budget gap still
to be filled and the Coalition has set a bad precedent see the Telegraph
"DWP blames cancer patient for her illness" - see here
Tory MP Priti Patel sparks backlash after claiming independence debate is great opportunity to slash
spending in Scotland see Daily Record. Note that Priti Patel is now a Treasury Minister (see
Independent) and is as right-wing as they come.
Benefits blow: Study reveals that cruel Con-Dem cuts will slash 100m off sick and disabled Scots
see Daily Record
State pension service could be privatised under DWP plans. Department for Work and Pensions
considers privatisation as part of search for savings as budget shrinks by a third see The Guardain
Radical Tory tax plan spells the end of national insurance The source acknowledged fears that
pensioners, who do not pay national insurance, could view the reform as a covert way of making
them pay the charge. the Independent
Childcare experts dismayed by plans to cut funding for childcare that does not promote
"fundamental British values"Childcare experts have reacted with dismay to new measures
announced by the education secretary to withhold state funding for nurseries that fail to promote
"fundamental British values". see The Guardian
Emergency surveillance law to be brought in with cross-party support. Move has been prompted by
a judicial review claim in the high court that current practice is unlawful see the Guardian
Unprecedented new powers in surveillance bill, campaigners warn. Prime minister insists fast-track
legislation will do no more than confirm existing powers, but privacy groups say otherwise see The
Guardian
Spending watchdog accuses DWP of hiding universal credit's failings Parliament's public spending
watchdog has today accused ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions of hiding the
failings of the coalition's troubled universal credit scheme. The Guardian
People stripped of benefits could be charged for challenging decision. Critics argue that proposal in
leaked document from Department for Work and Pensions would hit poorest people in the country
see The Guardian
George Osborne warns of more cuts and austerity in 'year of hard truths. Chancellor targets 25bn
of savings in welfare budget, and says he will start with housing benefit for under-25s See The
Guardian
Iain Duncan Smith targets poor pensioners with plans to scrap free bus passes and winter fuel
allowance See Daily Mirror
David Cameron Says Austerity And 'Leaner State' Should Be 'Permanent' Huffington Post

And just in case you were wondering what relevance your human rights are and why you should be bothered
that the Tories are looking to scrap the legislation that protects them, see below (and reported here):

- 267 -



And what about foodbanks? As reported here apparently independence supporters have been wrong all
along, seeing their massive increase as something to be criticised and should in fact be embraced and
celebrated . In fact as Better Together Aberdeenshire said Far from being a sign of failure they are an
enriching example of human compassion, faith and social cohesion



- 268 -

The publisher, Scottish Conservative activist
Stewart Whyte (a reminder who Labour are
in cohorts with in this campaign) also
tweeted in confirmation of the spirit of the
message.



While Scottish Tory MP David Mundell seems to take great
delight in opening a foodbank in Peeblesshire, one of many
that are a direct result of his own partys policies.


Those nasty evil Cybernats are terrible! Complaining about the rise of foodbanks and poverty levels and
trying to change the country so they can be reduced or eradicated! The foodbanks should be celebrated!

But if youre thinking, hang on, maybe theyre not so bad, maybe they supply a demand for peole who can't
prioritise spending? If you believe that, try watching this interview of a foodbank worker who mentions at
one point (at around 11 min) how a mother walked with her three children from Shettleston to the foodbank
in Maryhill, a journey of seven and a half miles, just to feed herself and her children because they hadnt
eaten since the previous Friday due to benefit sanctions (it was a Tuesday as the foodbank was closed at the
weekend and a bank holiday Monday).

Another point mentioned in the video is how Glasgow City Council charges these foodbanks in Glasgow full
commercial rent (also see here). Labour-run Glasgow City Council are not exactly doing their bit to help the
poor in their city, are they? But then given that Glasgow has some of the worst levels of poverty in the
Western world, it's no surprise.

"Food bank is expanding as hunger bites " "PEOPLE visiting a north Glasgow food bank are so desperate they
are pulling off lids and eating with their fingers in the centre" - See Evening Times

- 269 -






'Heartless and callous' Tories block 3m European Union fund to feed the hungry and poor see The Mirror

- 270 -

The author of this article describes how he witnessed a shoplifter being caught trying to steal a loaf of bread
and that:
I had just witnessed sunk in: the man had been trying to steal food. He was trying to steal
food. This is where austerity has led us. This is where we have been dragged to by a political
establishment utterly without mercy and with not the slightest scrap of humanity. He also
goes on to say This is truly and finally a broken Britain. While people across the country are
stealing bread or visiting food banks in such hunger that they will rip open a tin of beans and
eat them on the spot with their fingers, our political masters and their coterie of lobbyists went
through 8,082 bottles of champagne last year. If you are thinking of voting no in September,
this is the country you are voting for a country where the poor are made to suffer for the
mistakes of the rich. If you are thinking of voting no in September, this will be the political
system that you are validating.

Another article on foodbanks. Its difficult selecting certain passages for highlighting and you should read the
whole article, but here is something to read, even if you don't read the whole article:
We live in a state that mystifies and vilifies the poor whilst still claiming to help them. We
relegate them to the sidelines of our society, happy to ignore the surrounding poverty providing
we still get Jeremy Kyle, Benefits Street, and more outrage courtesy of White Dee and The
Daily Mail. These have become the poverty-tinted eyes that we view our society with. Whilst a
percentage of the population fight to make real, long lasting change and deliver social justice
across the country, there are many that are unaware of the true legacy of the way we view
people who are struggling. As a society we already accept the distorted view of those living in
full or in part on benefits that we are presented in the media, we accept them as
entertainment. Poverty in the UK has to all extents and purposes become normal.

Last week, Better Together Aberdeenshire and conservative History teacher Stewart Whyte
created a minor storm (days on and Im still seeing it pop up on Twitter) by claiming that Food
banks are not a sign of the UKs failure but of Scotland becoming a normal European country,
of religious faith and human compassion. Not only was this a completely ridiculous stupid
thing to say in the first place, but by thinking this way it leaves serious repercussions in the way
that we treat food banks as a society. By treating food banks and charity institutions as a
cultural norm, we begin to allow poverty to become a cultural norm.

At the start of this year I went to a food bank for the first time. Not for its services, but to try
and uncover what the day to day life there was actually like and whether or not these distorted
representations in the media were as close to the truth as we are led to believe. Its hard to
know what to expect when you walk through the doors for the first time. It wasnt a sad
looking place. It was a warehouse. A working warehouse. There were no Saatchi-esque Labour
Isnt Working queues out the door. There were just people needing help. There were people
willing to help.

No-one that walks into the food bank will be refused food. A member of the public can walk in,
and through filling out a form can receive a bag with three days worth of food, but not three
days worth of luxury eating. Each food parcel contains a small amount of pasta, rice, cereal,
some tea bags, sugar, soup, and when possible milk and sauces. Its enough to get by on if you
have to, but its nowhere near a balanced or healthy diet. People can top up these parcels with
fresh produce, but only when they have fresh produce to give. The majority of stock comes from
donations or through a scheme called Fareshare, an initiative that sources unwanted food in
bulk from supermarkets in an effort to reduce surplus wastage. One main problem that these
food banks face is the type of food people donate. Lying untouched on the shelves were bags of
flour, rolls of marzipan for baking, chocolate sprinkles. Its nobodys fault. People just dont
know what to donate.

Over my four months photographing and helping out where I could, I heard plenty of stories.
Stories that were heartwarming and stories that were horribly crushing. It never occurred to
- 271 -

me that people wouldnt even have the basics needed to cook a warm meal. Some emergency
accommodation will just have a kettle for the occupants. One visitor to the food bank had only
eaten eggs, boiled in a kettle, for days before his visit. I saw a childs eyes light up as he was
given a small bar of chocolate, seemingly the first hed lay his eyes on in months. I spoke to a
woman who had no choice but to go because her cancer treatment left her in a permanent
state of coldness, all her money being used trying to keep her warm. I saw the bedroom tax
being added as a reason for seeking help. The thing that struck me most was that one day it
could be me.

You probably have an idea in your mind about the kind of people that visit these places. That
idea will most likely be wrong. Chances are you know someone who needs help, who has
sought help, or doesnt even know they are eligible for help. In a submission to the Scottish
Parliament Welfare committee, the Trussell Trust reported that less than 5% of the people that
use their food banks are homeless, the majority are people from working families struggling to
make ends meet. They also reported between 2011 and 2013 that Scotland experienced a
faster growth of food banks opening with them than any other region in the United Kingdom.
17,348 of the people receiving assistance from them were children.


Costs to Scotland Benefiting England Only
What about those expensive (mainly infrastructure) projects that benefit England (mainly SE England) and
have no benefit to Scotland? Apart from those mentioned in the last document, there is now talk of creating
HS3, a high-speed rail link between Manchester and Leeds to create a "northern global powerhouse" (see
BBC News). Obviously the north stops at Manchester and nothing exists beyond there. How much? They say
7 billion but HS2 was originally costed between 15.8 billion and 17.4 billion yet is now expected to cost
from 43 billion (according to the Department for Transport) to 80 billion according to study by the
Institute of Economic Affairs (see here). Therefore, that 7 billion will probably end up being 20-40 billion,
9% of which will be paid by Scottish taxpayers i.e. 1.8 - 3.6 billion. But then given Scotland will be paying
anything upwards of 20-odd billion for various other England-only projects listed in my last document,
whats another 3 billion or so.

Interestingly, the unionists have been trying to claim there is a knock-on benefit to Scotland (something
along the lines of reducing train journeys from Scotland to London by 5 minutes or so). But as this article
reported, HS2 will actually be damaging for the Scottish economy above and beyond the billions Scotland
has to contribute:
Information released this week under a Freedom of Information request by BBC2s Newsnight
programme shows the Westminster Government have been misleading Scotland and several
English regions on the projects economic impact. Londons Department for Transport
previously pointed to selective extracts of a study by global accountancy firm KPMG which
stated the UK economy would gain by 15 billion a year and the greatest benefit would fall to
Greater London (2.8bn) and the West Midlands (1.5bn).

However, the full report has now been released against Westminsters wishes and it makes
clear that other regions will lose out substantially. The report that the No Campaign wanted to
keep secret clearly states that Aberdeens economy will lose out as a direct result of HS2 to the
tune of 220m a year and Dundee by a further 96m not as one off costs but every year
ongoing. This means that Scots will lose their jobs as a direct result of the contraction in the
North East economy resulting from this project.

As part of the Westminster system, Scotlands people represent 8.4% of the countrys
population but contributed 9.9% of the UKs taxation revenues in 2011/12. So we are paying at
least 7.92bn out of your taxes to a project that will rip at least 316 million GDP from the
economy of the East coast per year How does that make us better together?

- 272 -

HS2 was approved by the No Campaigns Alistair Darling in his capacity as Chancellor of the
Exchequer.

There is also a Crossrail extension to Hertfordshire being considered (see BBC News). The original Crossrail
project cost 14.8 billion (approx 1.5 billion from Scottish tax payers) but costs for the extension dont
appear to be available but given the number of stations appear to be similar to Crossrail (see here), it could
be expected to cost a similar amount.

On top of those projects in the pipeline theres a 1.3 TRILLION wish list from the London Mayor (see The
Standard and The Guardian), including an orbital railway costing 200 billion (no doubt double that for the
real figure). Given all these projects are regarded as nationally important, the finances from those come
straight from the UK Treasury meaning that tax payers in Scotland are contributing as well as those in
England (roughly 10% from Scotland). On the other hand, large scale projects in Scotland, such as the
Edinburgh Tram system and the new Forth Road Bridge all came from the Scottish block grant, not the UK
Treasury, meaning only Scots tax payers paid for them.

Some other figures to think about (theyre UK total costs so divide by 10 for the approximate cost to the
Scottish taxpayer):



In fact, London, the Dark Star as described by Alex Salmond and the giant suction machine as described
by Vince Cable, receives more than the lions share of subsidies from the UK government. It is London and
the south-east that are risking interest rates rises thanks to yet another property bubble, rises that will
damage the fragile economy in the rest of the UK. This video here is an interesting comparison between the
number of construction cranes across the UK excluding London, and the number within London itself. As the
video explains, construction cranes are an indication of a booming economy and not wanting to spoil it for
you but in 2014 there were 69 cranes outside London in the rest of the UK and 196 within London yes,
there were more than 2.8 times (74% of UK total) the number of cranes within London (population 13
million, 20% UK total) than in the rest of the UK (population 51 million).

Further expenditure in England that Scotland will be contributing to is listed here in this spreadsheet, along
with estimated costs for setting up Scottish government departments, which include savings of up to 57
BILLION before repaying UK debt (which Scotland wouldnt have to if the rUK refuses a currency union) and
before Boris Johnsons 1.3 trillion wish list is included. If you include both these then the savings are worth
over 300 billion to Scotland ALONE.

- 273 -



And this New Economics Foundation article questions whether there is Another crash around the corner?
Financialisation the ballooning of finance and its intrusion into every part of life led to the calamity of
2008. Since then, as Cuthbert demonstrates, remarkably little has been done to even restrain the process. A
brief dip, some efforts at repayment of debt by households and firms which led directly to the non-recovery
over 2009-12 and were straight back to where we were, prior to the crash. With the return to growth
starting to pile on the debt once more, were simply adding to future risks.

And of course, there is the UK debt, an amount that seems to be generally agreed currently at 1.4 trillion
(expected to be over 1.6 trillion in 2015), with 1 billion in interest alone being paid weekly. However, this
article in London Loves Business argues that UK national debt is actually 4,979.1bn


A No Vote Is Not The End
There is this belief from unionists that a No vote will end the struggle for independence. Whether the means
for seeking another referendum will be removed from Scotland remains to be seen, although several
prominent Labour party members have already indicated that powers should be removed from Scotland to
prevent it happening again.

However, even in the event of a No vote, the struggle WILL continue. Once you come to realise not only how
Scotland could be better under independence but also the lies and deceit the unionist politicians will resort
to, you will not move from Yes to No, it is almost always a one-way street from No to Yes and the support
can only continue to grow.

Once it is revealed how little, if any powers Scotland
will receive (even the most generous talked about,
but not promised, will be detrimental to Scotland,
not beneficial as explained above), once the lies from
the unionists become clearer and more widely
known, more will feel cheated and realise that they
should have voted for independence. The genie is
out of the bottle and hes not going back in ever
again.



Backlash After a No Vote
But perhaps the greatest concern will be the backlash from the population in the rest of the UK if Scotland
chooses to stay in the union. As described here, written by an Englishman living in England:
according to the IPPR Future of England survey 2014 a clear majority in England believe that
the Westminster establishment should punish the people of Scotland with huge funding cuts
should they vote against independence in the referendum. The mainstream media has
- 274 -

described this attitude as "the English" seeking a "heavy price" for the independence
referendum. The motivation behind this common English desire to have Scottish funding cut by
some 4 billion to bring per capita spending down to the UK average, is the pervasive media
narrative that the Scottish are a bunch of "subsidy junkies".

A brief look at the actual facts reveals that Scotland does indeed benefit from slightly higher
per capita government spending than the UK average, however Scotland also has a much
higher per capita GDP than the rest of the UK, thanks largely to the revenues from Scottish oil
and gas. Once the proceeds from oil and gas are added into the equation it turns out that tax
revenues in Scotland are nearly 20% higher than the UK average which would make slightly
higher public spending seem pretty fair.

Once the supply of North Sea oil begins to dwindle, Scotland also has huge renewable energy
potential, including some 25% of EU offshore wind potential, 25% of EU tidal potential, and
10% of EU hydroelectric potential.

These vast supplies of actual and potential energy reserves make Scotland a very wealthy
country indeed, however a great swathe of the English public seem to believe that the Scottish
people should be denied the benefits of all of this Scottish energy wealth so that it can be
distributed to the people of England instead.

One of the most absurd things about this English bitterness towards Scotland is the way that
they completely overlook the fact that government spending in London is much higher than the
levels of public spending in Scotland that the mainstream media have whipped them up into a
frenzy of bitterness and jealousy about.

The disparity in public spending between London and the rest of England is so enormous that
more than half of England's infrastructure budget is spent just in London and the South East. To
put this into perspective, the annual investment in transport infrastructure in the North East of
England is just 246 per person, while the annual amount in London is 4,895!

When the majority of English people demand that the level of Scotland's per capita government
spending is reduced to the UK average, what they are actually demanding is that the Scottish
public be denied the economic benefits of their own abundance of natural resources, so that
the benefits can be redistributed to England instead. In order to adopt this absurd "It's not fair
that Scotland gets more" position, they have to completely ignore the elephant in the room,
which is the vastly bigger disparity that exists between government spending in London,
compared with the rest of England.

Further articles on the feelings in both England and Wales include:
Cut public spending in Scotland if it stays in UK, poll told Almost half of voters in Wales think public
spending in Scotland should be cut if Scots vote to remain in the UK, according to a new survey. Forty
eight per cent of Welsh and 56% of English voters said this should follow any rejection of
independence. Public spending per head in Scotland was 10,327 in 2012-13, compared to the UK
average of 8,940. Professor Roger Scully of Cardiff University said the English were more keen to
play "hard-ball" with Scotland. BBC News
The English favour a hard line with Scotland whatever the result of the Independence Referendum
Cardiff University
If independence is rejected, large majorities of voters south of the Border support cutting Scottish
public spending to the UK average and banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws at
Westminster. By a [...] large margin of 56 per cent to 12 per cent, the English said Scottish public
spending should be cut to the UK average following a No vote. The Telegraph
English voters want the government to take a hard line against Scotland even if its residents vote
no to independence. Funding should be cut and Scottish MPs should no longer have a say over
- 275 -

English matters, according to a survey. The findings will unsettle parties in the pro-Union campaign,
who have promised a good deal for Scotland if it remains in the UK. The Times
Voters south of the Border want a cut to Scottish annual public spending of almost 1,400 per
person if there is a No vote. See The Herald
An English backlash against Scotlands demands for greater political power is looming, whatever the
outcome of the independence referendum. Even after a No vote, people south of the Border say
public spending in Scotland should be reduced to bring it into line with the UK average, which the SNP
has warned could see 4 billion removed from the Scottish budget. The English appear in no mood to
be particularly accommodating however Scots choose to vote in their independence referendum,
said researcher Professor Richard Wyn Jones, of Cardiff University. There is strong English support for
reducing levels of public spending in Scotland to the UK average a development that would lead to
savage cuts in public services north of the Border. The Scotsman
Here comes the love Scottish voters are about to be faced with a stark choice. They can choose to
take responsibility for their own affairs and manage the future with the security of a massive oil
bonanza behind them, or they can choose to run away from that responsibility and go crawling
meekly to a Westminster which will be under enormous pressure from voters to punish them
viciously, and can do so in the name of more devolution. see here
English resentment increases over Scots freebies See Scotsman
English say Scots will pay a heavy price for referendum see Herald
English voters want Scottish spending cut after no vote, survey shows the Guardian
Tickling Englands Tummy an interesting article here about the backlash from English (and Welsh)
voters over the funding from Scotland.
Tim runs the Tory website Conservative Home hes a leading figure in the Tory Party, if
you feel like checking and his mission for the last couple of years seems to have been to use
the electoral threat of UKIP on Europe and Immigration to push the Tories even further to the
right. Guess what? Tim thinks its our turn. Hate the poor? Hate the Disabled? Hate the
Foreign? Hate the Scots! He expects that well vote No. Then he expects us to be punished
for being so annoying as to have had the referendum at all. This is what he says:

If the battle for Scotland is nearly over, the battle for England might be about to begin.
Todays Future of England survey finds that most English voters want the UK to survive,
but they want the terms of the relationship to change. Most think Scottish MPs should be
prevented from voting on laws that apply only in England and also want Scotland to lose
its budget subsidy. The average Scot currently receives about 1,400 more than the
average English voter from the UK Treasury. Waless most disadvantaged communities
are particular losers from the current spending settlement.

He goes on to make his push for UKIP to push the Torieswho will then pish the other British
parties. As follows:

Until now the Conservatives havent felt it necessary to respond to the English
awakening. It is not, after all, in the interests of Mr Miliband or Mr Clegg to empower an
England leaning to the right. But I know a man who would benefit from tickling
Englands tummy. He smokes. He drinks pints. And hes called Nigel Farage. He does even
less well in Scotland than the Tories. Hes got nothing to lose by wrapping himself in the
St Georges cross and I predict he will.

Okay? Got that? First, he expects us to Vote No. Then, as a reward for our Loyalty to the
Family of UK plc, he wants and expects UKIP to push the other Westminster parties into a
competition as to who can stick it to the ungrateful, whiny, and worst of all
COWARDLYJocks the hardest.

- 276 -





Now think about this carefully do you think the UK government, whatever party is in power, is going to
listen to a few million Scots wanting the funding to remain, or a few tens of millions of English (who almost
always determine which party is in power in the UK)? Remember that Scotland already contributes more per
head than it receives. What the voters in England and Wales are saying is that they want the amount that
Scotland receives from its already generous contribution to the UK reduced even further that more money
is kept by Westminster for use in England (and presumably Wales). That sounds like a great deal, eh?

Now ask yourself this and answer honestly with poverty levels so high and life expectancy so low is many
parts of Scotland, do you think that Westminster care about those living in Scotland or about the resources
in Scotland?

And as this article puts quite forcefully and eloquently:
Food Banks, Poll Tax, Mass Unemployment, De-Industrialisation, privatisation of Public Assets,
Child Poverty, Poor Health, Reduced Life Expectancy, Zero Hour Contracts, Minimal Wages,
Austerity, Benefit Cuts, Historic Levels of Inequality, Ruled by Unelected Governments and the
House of Lords, Trident, Rising Fuel Costs, Dropping Living Standards, Rising Food Prices,
Bankers Bonuses, Westminster Corruption, Illegal Wars, Housing Shortages, Lower Pensions,
Increasing Retirement Age, Asset Stripping, Stealing the Wealth from Scotland Natural
Resources, and not to forget 1.6 Trillion of debt, and the list goes on if we stick together as the
BritNat inspired fantasy family of nations.

On the other hand, should we decide to leave this Tory contrived pulling and sharing equal
partnership, the unimaginative and desperate unionists in a fit of petulance, threaten the
people of Scotland with all manner of dire consequences and scare stories such as no currency
union and no access to UK markets, not to mention the forces of darkness descending upon us,
should we have the temerity to dare go against the unionists vitriolic demand that we do as we
are told and vote no.
But here is the rub that throws the better together tosh right out the stairheid windae..

- 277 -

Why would we be better together with unionists who have denigrated, bullied, and harassed
the people they claim to share brotherhood with? Would a good neighbour threaten you in
regards to your money, security, health, and education if you chose to move away, or would
they wish you well and lend a helping hand?

As Derek Bateman wrote here:
I am content that we have exposed the threadbare, shrill, self-serving bilge of British
nationalist Blighty and its stop-at-nothing manipulation of the truth.

For many thousands of us, there is no going back. The discontent that has worried away for
decades and helped deliver devolution has grown arms and legs and is an unpredictable
monster demanding to be fed. No more will we smile benignly at sleekit promises from the Jim
Murphys, Margaret Currans and Johann Lamonts in the belief that, whatever their
shortcomings, their heart was in the right place. We now know that isnt true. Their heart lies in
London with financiers, landowners and mercenaries where they work hand-in-glove with
Tories, UKIP and the BNP to thwart the advance of social justice in Scotland. They prefer Tories
in Westminster to Labour in Scotland.

This unveiling of the reality of Labours motives will continue after any No vote. The entire onus
will switch to Labour. Their Tory pals will disappear as will Darling. Labour will be left with the
rotting corpse of a system they championed, their own arguments devouring them as the cuts
bite, Westminster fails to deliver and the SNP carries on in government.

There is no stopping us now. Plans are already being laid for the post-referendum Scotland, win
or lose. And they dont include a lasting reverence to payroll politicians and malleable
journalists whose malign grip has held back the kind of reforms and public information that can
change lives.

And as written here:
Irrespective of how the vote in September goes, the Union is already dead. The independence
campaign has forced Westminster to reveal just how they really view Scotland, the UKs
recalcitrant northern province. Were a land which they dont want to become foreign, but with
every statement they make they reveal that Scotland is already foreign to them and always has
been. The Scottish view of the Union an equal partnership of kingdoms is not Westminsters
view. Scotland compares itself with Denmark or Finland, other small northern European
countries. Westminster compares Scotland with Yorkshire. Scotlands view is a foreign view,
one to be slapped down, patronised and dismissed.

Scotland has watched and learned. What weve learned will not be unlearned.[...]

Weve learned that the Unionist ProudScots are proud of a regional identity. For them
Scottishness can only flourish when it is subordinate to a British identity. So they keep making a
point of telling us how proud and patriotic they are. Theyre proud of a shrivelled Scottish fruit
on a sickly British tree, the ethnic kail in a Great British vegetable patch overrun by slugs. Proud
Scots suffer the pride of over-compensation, the pride of the emotionally insecure. But when
youre secure in your identity you dont need to tell people how proud you are of it. You just live
it instead. When you act on your identity, there is no need to proclaim it because its self-
evident.


Another article here pretty much sums up what to expect in the event of a No vote in 5 points:
1. Another Tory Government
2. Huge Cuts No Matter Who We Vote For (i.e. Labour or Tory)
3. More Powers at a Cost
4. Tax Rises, or Worse Public Services
- 278 -

5. Scotland Will Become Really Boring and Depressing -

And finally, a little animated video of what could happen if you vote No see here





- 279 -





- 280 -

What Happens If You Vote Yes



Scotland represents just 8.3% of the UK population, it has the following share of UK resources -
32% Land area
61% Sea area
90% Surface fresh water
65% North Sea natural gas production
96.5% North Sea crude oil production
47% Open cast coal production
81% Coal reserves at sites not yet in production
62% Timber production (green tonnes)
46% Total forest area (hectares)
92% Hydro electric production
40% Wind, wave, solar production
60% Fish Landings (total by Scottish vessels)
55% Fish Landings (total from Scottish waters)
30% Beef herd (breeding stock)
20% Sheep herd (breeding flock)
9% Dairy herd
10% Pig herd
15% Cereal holdings (hectares)
20% potato holdings (hectares)

All with 8.3% of the population. There are very few countries in the WORLD that rival Scotland's resources
per head and in such rich diversity. We absolutely, unequivocally can be an extremely successful
independent country.

It was argued in the last document that independence actually could be good for the general health of
Scotlands population. This article in the Scotsman continues with this view that Independence could be
very positive for peoples health if it left them feeling they had more control over their lives, according to
Scotlands former top doctor Sir Harry Burns. Burns, who stepped down as chief medical officer for Scotland
earlier this year, also told how he feared for the NHS in England, where ministers have made very different
decisions to Scotland.. This article here makes the same argument that a Yes vote could benefit nation's
health, as does this article in the Scotsman again Hands up for a healthier Scotland, which argues that by
enshrining the NHS in the new Scottish constitution and therefore protecting it, that it can help the Scottish
population improve its general health. Perhaps Scotland can finally address the poor health and low life
expectancy after independence.
- 281 -


Scotlands referendum is our ONE chance to stop The Glasgow Effect as discussed in the last document,
there is a genuine condition, whose cause has not been determined, where living in Glasgow can reduce life
expectancy, despite all known influences being accounted for. It was argued in the last document that one of
the influences not accounted for could be the lack of control and hope many people feel in Scotland feel, and
in particular those 1 in 4 living in poverty in Glasgow. In this article, Dr Gwen Jones-Edwards writes:

It is an unacceptable fact that poorer people in Scotland have improved their life expectancy
more slowly than in any other Western country except for Poland. Health status in Glasgow is
exceptionally poor: only 50% of men living in the Shettleston ward can expect to reach their
65th birthday, but the effect is pervasive, so that any person living in Glasgow can expect a
shorter lifespan than a person living elsewhere. No such effect is to be found in similar post-
industrial cities such as Liverpool and Manchester, so what is it that causes such a health
inequality in Glasgow? Why is there such a gap?

The most obvious potential cause, smoking, can be ruled out of the list of direct causes, as
indeed can other causes, such as poor diet. The prevalence of smoking in Scotland is not
greater than in other countries; however, if you are from a poorer class in Scotland, not only
will you have a fourfold greater risk from dying of lung cancer (if you contract it) but you will
also be at a higher risk of dying from lung cancer even if you do not smoke! What, then, is the
factor which is causing such high morbidity and early death rates in central belt Scotland?

Two societal factors have a clear impact on your risk of early death, and these two factors are
poor housing and unemployment. Poor housing and unemployment tend to march together
with a general sense of hopelessness, and it is this hopelessness, and also lack of control over
ones destiny that is the most probable cause of what we know as the Glasgow effect.

Having a sense of control over your life makes for good health: it is the worker on the shop floor
who is most stressed, and not the managing director. In animal experiments it is possible to
demonstrate that rats who are able to control their access to food (by means of a lever), are far
less stressed than rats who have no control, even if the total amount of food delivered to the
two sets of rats is exactly the same. Chronic unemployment will increase your stress quite
massively, but your solutions to the predicament that you find yourself in will be fewer by
nature of your dependent situation.

Stress causes a release of hormones, including cortisol. This hormone is useful in acute
situations, such as infections, but when it is constantly poured out into the bloodstream it will
be very damaging. A chronically high level of cortisol will cause split arteries, will cause you to
develop diabetes as a result of changing the fat types within your body, and will cause you to
be less able to fight malignant cells, thus leading to more and nastier tumours. Perhaps it wont
be a surprise that stress causes a change in the way that brains work, but it might be more
surprising to learn that it changes the structure of brains. Stress causes a brain structure called
the hippocampus to shrink, and another, called the amygdala, to expand. This will cause a
person to be less able to regulate their emotions, and also to become more anxious and
aggressive, a state which will have a significant knock-on effect on the way a person will view
the world. It will also have a knock-on effect on how that person is able to parent a child, and
thus a vicious circle is perpetuated of persons who are stressed, have no control over their
environment, and who cannot teach effective coping strategies to their children.

A further highly damaging effect of chronic stress and raised cortisol is to be found on the
chromosomes. As we age, we slowly lose the telomeres, the end parts of our chromosomes,
and this is what causes the biological effects associated with ageing. When stress is chronic,
the telomeres shorten much more quickly, causing premature ageing. In large part this
explains the high incident of unpleasant disease that we see as a result of the Glasgow effect;
people suffering from this chromosomal damage are biologically older, and sadly there is a
- 282 -

long-term genetic loading for their children and grandchildren, which bodes badly for the
future. An improved health service will do little to help, because it is doing all it can; the only
solution is a full-scale investment in infrastructure and employment in central Scotland

The government in Westminster has a reprehensible part to play in all of this. The population of
Glasgow and central belt Scotland had come here to work, but closures in the heavy steel and
coal industries were instigated in the 1960s by the Labour government of the time,
demonstrating even then that Scotland was expendable. The closure policies continued under
Margaret Thatchers infamous Government, and by 1983 the number of unemployed in
Scotland had risen to 1.5 million. However, worse was to come with the closure of the mines,
the car industry, shipyards and steelworks, with the result that generations of Scotlands
workers have been unemployed.

The Conservative vote in Scotland did not survive Thatchers policies, but it did not matter
there were sufficient voters elsewhere to keep the party not only as a viable force, but also as a
party which has deeply coloured Labour party principles. In todays UK, we see large amounts
of investment directed towards the London city-state, with 80% of last years new UK jobs
being created within it. No real employment has ever come to Scotland, and meanwhile the
awful biological effects of unemployment continue unabated.

And for this disempowered, stressed, and chronically sick society, what hope? Not a great deal:
a vote for Labour will bring a cut to youth benefits, unless those affected attain qualifications.
Young people from deprived areas suffering from biological changes will be cast into an abyss
of dwindling hope: it will be very difficult for them to learn, and stopping their benefits will
serve only to increase their sense of hopelessness and their level of stress. Ultimately it can only
lead them to further exclusion, to an even further diminished ability to learn, and it will end in
their shorter lives.

But Westminster does not care, it has never cared, and it is not about to start caring now.

Scotland will be the wealthiest country ever to have gained its independence see here

Scotland should vote for independence to be 'beacon of social justice'. Leader of Welsh nationalists urges
Scots to 'reject poison of spiteful rightwing' Westminster rule and be model of an alternative to politics of
austerity see the Guardian

"Scottish independence: Yes vote 'will protect policing'" - BBC News. "Three former senior police officers
have said they believe independence would protect the Scottish force from what they described as the
"slashing" of police numbers south of the border."

"Police face 'a hammering' if Scotland votes No, say former officers" - STV News. "The record number of
police in Scotland will be put at risk if the country votes to stay in the UK next month, a former senior officer
has claimed."

"No vote on independence will put number of Scottish police at risk says former senior officer" - Daily
Record. "The record number of police in Scotland will be put at risk if the country votes to stay in the UK next
month, a former senior officer has claimed. Allan Burnett, who was director of intelligence at Strathclyde
Police and was also assistant chief constable in charge of counter-terrorism in Scotland, warned of the impact
of a No vote on policing north of the border."

NHS to be protected by a Written Constitution see here

Scotland's leading children's campaigner backs Yes vote as best way to tackle inequality Anne Houston,
the newly-retired chief executive of Children 1st has been a driving force behind the development of child
safety and welfare in Scotland over a distinguished 40 year career. She said: I am in no doubt that by taking
- 283 -

control of our own decisions and meeting our own priorities with independence we have a much better
chance of giving our children the protection and support they deserve. Ms Houston, who stepped down from
the leading childrens charity in July after more than seven years at the helm, is not a member of any political
party. Her journey to Yes has been shaped by long personal experience in the frontline of child protection.
Explaining her decision to back Yes, she said: There are already too many families in Scotland living in
poverty. The current retrograde welfare reforms being driven from Westminster are hitting those in low paid
employment or with disabilities. Vulnerable families and their children are being made more vulnerable. It is
unacceptable that one in every five of Scotlands children is living in poverty a rising figure. For me the
decision is about the difference independence would make to our control over the things that matter most to
us. Many of our priorities are patently different from those driven by Westminster. see here

Scotlands 3.5 billion independence dividend The main areas which lead to savings are nuclear weapons
and defence, the London civil service, border services, tax administration, security services and the House of
Commons and Lords. Together these areas can save Scotland between 3 to 4 billion over a parliament. This
is a substantial saving, the equivalent of 600-800 for every person in Scotland. This is a far larger saving
than any estimated set-up costs of an independent administration.

Independence will generate a 109,000,000,000 asset windfall for Scotland An independent Scotland will
inherit a fair share of the UKs 1.3 trillion assets. This is of huge significance. These assets will generate a
huge economic windfall for the people of Scotland of 109 billion. It will make Scotland far wealthier and
allow us to reshape our institutions towards priorities that suit Scotland.

A Yes vote can be a happy event for England If Scotland plumps for independence, there would be a
huge opportunity for England as well as Scotland. England would have the chance to reinvent itself. [...]
Scottish voters have the chance to give England, as well as Scotland, a completely fresh start. The referendum
is not only about Scotland's future; it is about the future of England, and the rest of the UK. If Scotland
becomes independent, we shall have an obvious and realistic opportunity to start anew, and embark on the
building of a new and far better society. The same applies to England in almost equal measure, and this is too
easily forgotten. see the Herald

I refuse to believe we are incapable of making our own minds up here and now. That we are somehow
incapable of forming an opinion based on our own circumstances and experiences. I refuse to believe that
people are blind to the systemic problems, poverty and need all around them or that they are unwilling to do
something about it to put Scotland on the road to becoming that country we all want it to be. I do believe
that there are those who have been guilty of deliberately undermining the public confidence in their own
ability to make that decision or those changes. Guilty of deliberately sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt
amongst their own electorate. see here

Supporting the above view is another comment made here:
You sell a narrative through your tame media. The narrative becomes popular, a runaway
train with only one final catastrophic stop social division. The narrative itself has done no end
of damage to relations on these islands, not terminal as yet, but pretty severe and it will have
one of two very severe outcomes dependent on Septembers result. Having blurted out the
threat of repercussions in event of a NO win, I think theyve covered severe outcome number
one by themselves really. A Scotland which will be punished for having the audacity to ask, Is
this as good as it gets?

Outcome number two however will be what happens if NO loses? What happens when the rUK
public dont see the sky fall in on Scotland? What happens when they see the real diplomats
and sensible folk holding considered serious negotiations? What happens when Scotland is fast
tracked into the EU, or when we do whatever is expedient over currency simply because we
always could, because we have the resources to underwrite what will become one of the
hardest currencies on the planet? What happens when the rUK tax payer is asked to make up
the 10% hole in budget/taxes which Scotland leaves behind and possibly fit the bill for our
share of the debt run up in the UKs name (dependent on how well negotiations work out)?
- 284 -


Itll start with a lot of grumpy and deeply confused people asking their media and their
politicians some pointed questions. Itll end with who knows? But at a guess, Id say a lot of
well known faces will find themselves jobless in the near future.

If Scotland goes, it will be in everyones interest to have a velvet divorce, as the separation of the Czech
Republic and Slovakia was described. A nasty and messy separation would damage both sides. London will
want early certainty, and for Scotland to be an EU member alongside the rest of the UK. The result on 18
September may rewrite history, but not geography. We will all still share the same island. Their mess will be
ours, both sides of the border. So we will all have an interest not to make a mess. - Chris Huhne, former
Conservative Minister, The Guardian

There has been some cynicism regarding the timetable from the referendum date to independence (18
months) as if trying to belittle the whole exercise of the referendum. While it is fully expected some
resources will be shared beyond March 2016, there is no reason to believe that independence from a legal,
taxation and economic standpoint cannot be achieved by March 2016. This view is supported, ironically, by
the very same legal expert that the UK government had hired to try and prove that it couldn't be done in that
timescale, as reported in this Daily Record article ("Legal expert says Scotland could become an independent
country within 18 months of yes vote"). Nevertheless, any doubt in the timetable of independence is hardly a
reason to vote No.

As someone had commented elsewhere:
To say that we are British and that we always have been and always will be is not entirely
true. Whether we will remain British or part of the United Kingdom is a question that will be
answered in due course. However, to say that Scots have always been British is not the case.

Scotland was an independent country long before Britain ever existed (and before even England
existed) and will be again whether it is in September or at some other point in the future. I was
never asked if I wanted to British and if you know your history then you will know that neither
has any Scot ever been asked the question, Do you want to be British? When the Act of Union
was signed it was against the will of the people and it was done as a result of a few Nobles
being blackmailed by the English because those Nobles had bankrupted themselves during the
failed 'Darien Scheme' in which they attempted to set up colony called 'Caledonia' on the
Isthmus of Panama. The English Parliament warned the Nobles that if they did not sign the Act
of Union a trade embargo would be implemented preventing Scotland from trading with
England or any other nation within the vast British Empire. Those Nobles put their own
financial interests before the interests of the people of Scotland as they signed away our
independence. There were riots the length and breadth of Scotland and the authorities had to
declare Marshal Law. In a few weeks time the people of Scotland will be asked for the first time
in our history if we want to be Scottish or a Northern Region of England.

In February 2013 the Westminster Parliament published a Public Paper which discussed the
implications of the Scottish Independence Referendum. In that Public Paper they asserted that
Scotland ceased to exists immediately after the Act of Union was signed in 1707 and that
England simply expanded to incorporate Scotland thus declaring for all the world that Scotland
is not a nation but is in 'International Law' a Northern Region of England and I quote:

An alternative view is that as a matter of international law England continued, albeit under a
new name and regardless of the position in domestic law, and was simply enlarged to
incorporate Scotland.

It is not necessary to decide between these two views of the union of 1707. Whether or not
England was also extinguished by the union, Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of
international law, by merger into either an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely
- 285 -

new state. (Westminster Government Paper on Scottish Independence: Annex A, Opinion,
Section 35 February 2013)

When I walk into the voting booth on the 18th of September 2014 I intend to send a message
to Westminster that I am Scottish and that Scotland is a 'Nation' and not a Northern Region of
England. I sincerely hope that the majority of people voting in that referendum do the same.


One of the arguments to come from unionists is a rather inane one and is along the lines of all politicians
are corrupt liars, what difference does it make or whats to stop Scottish politicians becoming as corrupt as
Westminster. It is the epitome of the No campaign - lets not try to change anything because it might not
work, no matter how broken things are right now. Leaving aside the obvious flaw in the argument i.e.
keeping politicians within kicking distance is a heck of a motivation to do a good job, this article here
explains:
there is also the fact that the Scottish Parliament works in such a way that it is literally
impossible for corruption to develop to the levels that are found in the bricks at Westminster. A
bold claim? Not really: there are three very simple reasons and three very good case studies to
consider.

Simple reason 1: are publicly available for all to see

There is a searchable online database of MSPs expenses claims
(http://www.scottish.parliament.uk Expenses /msps/12455.aspx) which have strict rules about
what can and cant be claimed as expenses. Unlike Westminster, the rules are applied to their
full extent (see case studies below). Remember all the fuss when the Telegraph revealed that
large numbers of Westminster MPs had been claiming duck ponds and pornography on
expenses paid by public money? That can literally never happen in the Scottish Parliament.

Simple reason 2: The parliamentary code of conduct is actually enforced

The Code of Conduct (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/code-of-conduct-for-
msps.aspx) is a strict set of rules that determine how MSPs should behave while serving in
office. Of particular interest are the sections on paid advocacy and declaration of interests.
Remember all those Westminster scandals when Ministers were paid by lobby groups to force
through favourable legislation? Cant happen in Scotland. Remember when the UK Government
privatised the NHS while more than half of them have commercial interests that will benefit
from the privatisation? Impossible in Scotland, due to a) having a sensible code of conduct, and
b) actually enforcing the behavioural standards expected of public servants.

Simple reason 3: Legislation has to pass through 3 rounds of committees in between
Parliamentary readings before it is passed

The proportional voting system in the Scottish Parliament acts as an immediate check on
governments. In Westminster, if the Government wants something to happen it will be forced
through regardless there are many examples of this in recent years, although most recently
the Labour party has voted with the Tories on nearly every major issue. Ive already written
about how unlikely another majority government in Holyrood is. Any minority or coalition
Government in Scotland is will automatically produce better legislation than any Westminster
Government simply because compromises will need to [be] made to pass anything, meaning a
pluralist input is taken on each issue. Even if the largest party wants to do something, the
smaller parties and individual independent MSPs still get a say in the laws that are passed, and
get to add their own influence. This sort of constructive co-operation between parties is
anathema to Westminsters medieval confrontational style, but completely natural and normal
for most other countries.

- 286 -

On top of the proportional makeup of the Parliament, the committee structure means that
even with the present majority Scottish Government, each piece of legislation is properly
scrutinised by all parties before the whole Parliament votes. Again this is just the same as any
other comparable country, but completely unlike Westminster.

There are even case studies here of Scottish politicians who had to resign over various allegations, including
First Minister Henry McLeish no less, Wendy Alexander and David McLetchie (Im not sure if these examples
highlight that everyone caught belonged were Labour or Conservative, or the examples were carefully or
accidentally selected). As the article continues:

To put all of this in context: Henry McLeish resigned over something that happened before the
Scottish Parliament even existed. Wendy Alexander wrongly declared a 950 donation. David
McLetchie handed in the wrong taxi receipts. This is the level of corruption that has been
stopped in the Scottish Parliament i.e. negligible. The system simply does not allow someone
to defraud public money with impunity.

In contrast, Westminster has untold levels of corruption: the MPs expenses scandal of 2009 is
still ongoing. Disgraced politicians leave Westminster only to return as unelected Lords the
public has no way to get them out of public office permanently. Of 850 Lords, more than 40 are
currently not sitting in the Lords due to criminal convictions yet there is no way to depose
them!

Something else to contemplate while David Cameron has claimed he wont resign if Scotland votes Yes, he
may not have a choice Rebel MPs plot instant revolt against Cameron, if Yes campaign win The
Independent. So you could be doing the rest of a UK a favour by voting Yes! And remember, if Scotland
chooses to stay within the UK, David Cameron, leader of the Conservative and Unionist party will style
himself as saviour of the union, just in time for the next UK general election in May next year. That surely
can only help him win the next election?

And for those unionists that claim Scotland is simply part of one large homogenous UK family, that were all
the same really, that England hasnt lurched to the right, everyone has, etc Scotland isn't different, it's
Britain that's bizarre Britain is in a state of self denial, sitting at the bottom of European league tables, but
convinced it still rules the waves. The aspirations of the SNP may seem ambitious, but all they are really
proposing is to be a normal European country. see here

And I think it goes without saying that out of the 220-odd countries and territories to have become
independent from the British Empire throughout its long history:



- 287 -



Finally, while supporters of independence keep going on about how the referendum is not a vote for Alex
Salmond or the SNP, nor is a No vote a vote for David Cameron (although it would benefit him greatly
coming into the UK general election next year), there is STILL a continual assault on the independence
campaign from unionists including Better Together, that it is about one man and his party. While I will
continue to argue that this is completely wrong and the desperate attempts of campaign that has no morals
or integrity, Ill risk encouraging this argument by citing this article What have the SNP ever done for us?:

Im voting no because I really hate that Alex Salmond and the SNP, what have they ever done
for us anyway?

Heres a few wee things
Re-introduced free higher education by scrapping fees and the 2,300 graduate
endowment.
Increased funding for college bursaries to support more than 42,000 students.
358 new schools have been built or refurbished, meaning that over 130,000 pupils have
been taken out of dilapidated and substandard school buildings.
Theyve put 1,105 more police on Scotlands streets, helping drive recorded crime down to
its lowest level for 37 years.
Used 46 million seized from criminals to invest in community projects for 600,000 Scottish
kids.
Provided more free nursery education, benefitting 100,000 pre-school Scots.
- 288 -

Reformed the laws on sexual offences to make it easier to prosecute people for serious
sexual attacks.
Increased funding for Victim Support Scotland and our victim notification scheme is
helping people affected by crime.
Provided parents with more information on dangerous paedophiles to protect children in
local communities.
A record 39 new renewable projects since coming to power and pioneering climate change
legislation.
Scotland is on track to produce nearly a third of our electricity this year from clean green
renewable sources. And aiming for 80 per cent by 2020.
A 10 million Saltire prize for marine energy innovation has made Scotland a focal point
for research and deployment of marine renewable technology.
Reduced the carbon footprint of the rail network by delivering 218 miles of new electrified
track across the country.
Recycling is at its highest level ever under the SNP Government.
There will be NO new nuclear power stations in Scotland with the SNP.
They helped 250,000 people expand their learning with Individual Learning Accounts to
pay for training courses.
Frozen council tax for the past 5 years, saving the average family more than 300.
24,000 affordable houses since coming into office thats an average of 117 new houses
every week creating jobs in the construction sector.
Protected spending in the NHS with an extra 1.2 billion over the last four years to
safeguard frontline services.
Spent 840 million to build the new South Glasgow Hospital.
Abolished prescription charges, saving people with long-term illnesses an average of more
than 180 and scrapped charges at all NHS-run hospital car parks.
Criminals are being locked up for longer with prison sentences at their longest for a
decade.
Violent crime is down by just under a third, and offences involving a firearm by almost
half.
Tackling Scotlands drug problem through the national drugs commission, and 20 per cent
more funding to help people recover from addiction.
Slashed or abolished business rates for around 80,000 small shops and local employers,
protecting jobs in tough times and matched the English business rates poundage, giving
Scottish business a 200 million competitive advantage.
Committed to providing at least 25,000 modern apprenticeships this year
Found an extra 2.3 billion for jobs and public services by cutting back on waste and
bureaucracy in Government, breaking the target of 1.5% efficiency savings.
Helped ensure that four out of five contracts for work in the public sector go to small
businesses and our Scottish Investment Fund helps some of the best grassroots business
projects get up and running.
More GP practices are open in the evenings and at weekends.
Helped to ensure infection in Scottish hospitals is now at an all time low through
independent inspections, tripling the funding, hiring 1,000 more cleaners, introducing a
new staff uniform and dress code and a zero tolerance approach to non-compliance with
hand hygience policies.
Made sure our older generation is properly cared for by increasing payments for free
personal and nursing care for the first time since it was introduced.
Plus more!
What a bunch of absolute b******s eh!

- 289 -



And there is also this article The Scottish Parliament's proven track record see here






- 290 -

Finally...

Our current political situation is not normal. Normality is not normal. It doesnt exist yet. We
have to argue as if. That as if is both the strength and weakness of our position. But people
in Scotland are beginning to look at how things areas being rather peculiar

The No campaign have been reduced, more or less, to repeated variations on a theme of if it
aint broke, dont fix it or why take the risk of change? or dont rock the boat.

We can say : Tell them that at the Food Bank!

Or Look at the level of child poverty in wealthy Scotland

Or Look at our disabled people being subjected to the agenda of austerity plus terrorism
regime currently run by the now hateful and privatised government departments charged with
their welfare.

But what guarantee is there that any of that would be better with independence? is the
question No voters ask.

And Yes voters should answer: WE are the guarantee. YOU are the guarantee. If, WE, the
Scottish electorate elected then re-elected a government that did this to our people, then hell
mend us. But do you really think we would do that? The point is not WHAT we would choose,
but the fact that WE would have the choice. And if it we found that a government wasnt to our
choice any more, we could vote against the cruelty and incompetence and hatred were doing
all this to usand, unlike now, it would make a difference. It would matter what we did and
what we chose. The government would actually change. Right now, we cant do anything
except complain about it in the pub. We want to make sure that our opinions count. We want
to make sure that YOUR opinions count. Come with us!

The only real argument the No side have got is that democratic choice like that is too
dangerous for us. The real powers in the world will punish wee Scotland if we insist on our self
determination. In terms of trade, the EU, the currencyall thata newly independent Scotland
will find itself more less at war with the rest of the world, they say..and wed lose.

Underlying almost all of Project Fear is this very specific injunction that we mustnt vote
against Britain, we mustnt vote against the neighbours because otherwise they might
hurt us.

This seems to be a very negative opinion to hold of the character of the neighbours if you
really think that their response to our self-determination and adulthood will be one of
vengeance and spite. Apparently its not the nationalists who have a low opinion of our
cousins. It doesnt make much a positive case for the Union! Yes voters have much more faith
that the rest of the UK and the rest of the world will behave pragmatically. (see here)

If Yes is the opposite of No whats the opposite of independence?

If we are better together, why are we not already better together?

Im voting Yes in the referendum, because when nothing is for certain I think the possibility of better is better
than the fear of worse

''We believe that if one accepts that Scotland is a real country, and that democracy is the best (least worst)
form of government, then, within that definition v a Yes vote is logically the inescapable choice to make. We
are, perhaps unreasonably, bewildered, frankly, that anyone thinks differently. To vote No on September the
- 291 -

18th you have to contend either that Scotland does NOT constitute a polity or that democracy is too good for
it.''

This article here sums up quite nicely the contradictions in the unionist campaign
Were too wee and poor for our economic collapse to have any significant impact on the rest
of the UK, but were too big a financial risk for them to enter into a currency union with us. We
cant have a currency union because we might raise taxes differently, but if we vote No we are
going to be offered all sorts of lovely new tax raising powers. Were being asked to believe all
these propositions are true. But they cant all be true. Were coming to realise that none are
true.

Try asking a supporter of the union, perhaps someone from the Better Together campaign, what they see for
Scotland's future if there is a No vote.

For lack of any other place to write this you may have heard of the website Wings Over Scotland
(wingsoverscotland.com). It was mentioned in my last document as a great source of information that you
wont get in the mainstream media. The Yes Campaign appeared to distance itself from Wings Over Scotland
due to the author of the website calling Scottish Conservative MSP Alex Johnstone scum because of
Johnstones own despicable comments about the Weirs (lottery winners who have donated large sums of
money to the Yes campaign). This article here explains why it was wrong for Yes Scotland to distance itself
from the Wings website and its main author Rev Stuart Campbell. This website is unashamedly pro-
independence, it doesnt pretend to be otherwise. However, it does not publish any pro-independence
articles but almost exclusively examines articles and claims from the unionist media and campaign and rips
their veracity apart. And it does this brilliantly (and almost single-handedly), backed up with cold, hard facts.
This website is doing the job that the journalists in the mainstream media SHOULD be doing but dont
because theyre biased towards unionism, whether through choice or having been ordered to from above.
Do not accept any criticism about this website from the mainstream media but instead visit
wingsoverscotland.com and judge for yourself.



- 292 -
















- 293 -





- 294 -



- 295 -



- 296 -





- 297 -

Female Views on Independence
Given that women appear more reluctant to vote for independence than men, many articles have now been
published , written by women for women. For example, a womans view on independence can be read here
(Frances has lived in and around Glasgow all her life, now in her mid-fifties she wanted to share her reasons
for voting Yes in the referendum)

Further articles include
Why Women Should Vote Yes
Coming Home to an Independent Scotland! Maryann Gallagher
"I'm English and I'm Voting Yes - Clare Ferguson"
Women for Independence website
Why Scotland must vote Yes - the case for women
Top 5 Reasons Women Should Vote #Yes
For Fairness & Social Justice! Anne-marie Monaghan
Sturgeon to outline one opportunity for women voters in Leith




Further Reading
The following are articles are similar to this document in that they contain many reasons for voting for
independence. Some are lists of reasons, others stories about personal journeys from moving from voting No
to voting yes. Given the large numbers of reasons listed in each article (some of which will have been
mentioned above but not all), links to the articles have been provided for you to read the articles themselves
in their entirety please do so as they all contain very interesting reading and the excerpts below are only
intended as highlights:

A list of References for any undecided or No voters who are looking for more information (originally
published on Facebook here).
Armed Forces: http://ow.ly/uo6X7
Economy: http://ow.ly/uo6Yb
Education: http://ow.ly/uo6Zc
European Union: http://ow.ly/uo6ZV
Immigration: http://ow.ly/uo71z
International Organisations: http://ow.ly/uo72H
NHS: http://ow.ly/uo73u
- 298 -

Pensions: http://ow.ly/uo75X
Tax: http://ow.ly/uo777
Welfare: http://ow.ly/uo75g
Business and Investment - http://ow.ly/yxYL0
Debt and Taxes - http://ow.ly/yy5sL
Energy - http://ow.ly/yy6d8
Government and Policy - http://ow.ly/yyby0
Parting Ways - http://ow.ly/yylkl
Trade, Agriculture and Fishing - http://ow.ly/yytDX
The Myths: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4PoQbgUiA
The Fundamentals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6GsEKrCvgw
The Economics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W8cKHcZn60
The Potential: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6xuNrAeQgQ
Even more economics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqe-8CLPk60


Personal Stories
Many, many people chose to share their stories about why theyre voting for independence. Many of them
would not regard themselves as SNP voters, or nationalists, and some were No voters before becoming Yes
voters. They are worth reading in their entirety but Ive selected a few choice sections from each story:

Jenni Flett: Lets Fight For Whats Important To Us As the years went on I began feeling that the UK
government was increasingly out of touch, full of blundering idiots and entirely London-centric. Through
this I started to see what my friends dad meant. He saw strength in a nation, and as I grew older I witnessed
that strength in the communities I lived in, in my family and in myself. We have a rich, cultural background.
We are a country of great thinkers, scientists, entrepreneurs and champions of social change.

Dr Tom Webster, Historian: An Opportunity To Build A Better Society My perception changed once I read
more, listened more and had more conversations with other activist friends. While there is, for some, a
different, more inclusive civic nationalism as opposed to the ethnic nationalism I abhor, I discovered that
there were also conversations and activities related to a much broader understanding of independence.
This was not just independence from Westminster but seeing the referendum as part of a process, looking to
ask what independence can be, whether that is independence from corporate influence, independence
from landed interests, independence from the nostalgia for empire that took us into the wars I opposed and
made us willing to act as a parking lot for NATOs nuclear weapons that Id always seen as a moral wrong and
a waste of money.

I'm English and I'm Voting Yes - Clare Ferguson Aside from a list of 7 reasons she is voting for
independence, Clare states I have loved Scotland all these years and I love its people. To which extent I am
happily settled and live here with my young family. Unfortunately my wee ones are not of voting age. For
them and for the betterment of Scotland on September 18th, I will be voting YES.

Saying YES, the English Way! - "Born and raised in the Southern part of England, I have lived in Scotland for
more than four years now while completing a Politics degree. [...]At the root of all the arguments over
various policy paths that an independent Scotland could pursue, I believe that first, we must drastically alter
the current political structure as we know it in order to bring about real, sustainable change. I am confident
that Scotland can sort out its own, unique issues, and I just wish that more people who I talk to in Scotland
would also feel that confidence. I am incredibly excited about the opportunities that a Yes vote could bring
for the people of Scotland, but maybe more importantly, I believe that the effects of a Yes vote on England
and the rest of the UK can eventually be positive."

Scotland's leading historian makes up his mind: it's Yes to independence - "The Scottish parliament has
demonstrated competent government and it represents a Scottish people who are wedded to a social
democratic agenda and the kind of political values which sustained and were embedded in the welfare state
- 299 -

of the late 1940s and 1950s. It is the Scots who have succeeded most in preserving the British idea of fairness
and compassion in terms of state support and intervention. Ironically, it is England, since the 1980s, which
has embarked on a separate journey."

'I've lost my fear of Scottish independence' A former Labour Party researcher at Holyrood has given her
support to the Yes campaign and is hopeful that more members of her old party will join her. Pauline Ward
from Clydebank was content with a devolved Scottish Parliament until concluding that an independent
Scotland would not have illegally invaded Iraq in 2003.

Scottish independence: Former pro-union voters explain why they changed their minds to the Yes vote an
article in the Telegraph discussing a number of former No voters who now support independence.

Dr Brooke Magnanti I Want To Live In A Country Based On Hope For The Future

An Open Letter To An Unapproachable Prime Minister

I am Voting Yes This September 18
th
My Reasons for Voting YES by Steven Morgan, Self Employed
Small Business Owner

Letter to a wee ginger dug from an ordinary gran - Our Scottish Parliament is doing well, I think it is
generally considered, with the powers they have devolved. The responsibilities of the Scottish Government
include health, education, justice, rural affairs, housing and the environment in fact fewer powers than
some individual states in the USA or Lnder in Germany. The current Scottish government have actually
carried out their election pledges from the funds allotted by London. Their priorities have been to freeze
council tax, to provide free care for the elderly with free prescriptions for all. All health care is free, a fully
public service, at the same time the NHS Scotlands budget is protected to pay health care workers their full
entitlement to pay increases. To provide free higher education for our students, while widening nursery care
provision as far as they can and the provision of green energy is ongoing and new research opens up
possibilities all the time. Many other positive initiatives have been enacted to make Scotland better, with the
powers available.

A letter to a wee ginger dug from a wee orange lamb I am working for myself and Im hearing of bloody
Alex Salmond and his nationalist separatist party, wanting to dismantle my beloved union. The Union I was
raised with, the Union I would have fought for. I was angry. Who the hell did he think he was? [...]When one
of my good friends, who Id admired and respected, told me he was voting Yes. I scoffed at him. He was a
Rangers man, an ex squaddy and an Orangeman! How could he possibly vote yes? I argued the case as I
knew it. I found myself with a vastly inferior knowledge of the debate. He spoke of things Id never heard of.
The McCrone report, the fact Scotland had already won a referendum and been cheated out of it. He even
said Scotland subsidised the rest of the UK. I headed straight for the Better Together Facebook page to
gather a rebuttal to his preposterous claims.

I spent weeks with Del Rashid, Damien Davies and others on the site, and I reaffirmed my decision to vote
No. And I laughed when those daft yessers made wild allegations of bias in the media and how the page was
censored. Then there was a post about the Weirs and how the Yes Camp were funded by a lucky rich couple.
For a split second a name appeared on the comments: Ian Taylor. It was gone as soon as Id read it. The
person then complained of comments being removed, this time I didnt laugh. I slowly typed the name and
watched as Better Together removed my comment almost instantaneously. Who the bloody hell was Ian
Taylor?

I typed the name and Better Together into my web browser and the first result that popped up was National
Collective with Dirty Money? The Tory Millionaire Bankrolling Better Together.

I read the article. Then another and another and another. I think I actually became a bit addicted. I started
looking at many sites and even the dreaded Wings site. How could all this information be here and Id not
read any of it in my papers or seen it on the news? Were they right? Was the media biased?
- 300 -


The more I read, the more frustrated I became. I found myself mentioning bits and pieces to my brother
whilst on the phone in the evenings. I put down the phone one night after yet another conversation, being
told I was speaking rubbish and being mocked exactly as I had mocked before. I heard myself saying, well
youve not got a vote anyway. I froze with the realisation I didnt want him to vote No, I didnt want a No
vote. I was going to vote Yes because all those silly reasons Id had for voting No were just not good enough.
We were keeping our Queen, we were going to have a stable economy, we could do it without another drop
of oil in the North Sea and we could get a Labour Government again. Independence wasnt unusual or
wrong. It was normal and just. [...]

For the first time in my life Ive not got the wool over my eyes. I can see what a mess weve been in and see
that it never needed to happen. The debt we have wouldnt be, if only wed had that oil fund. Wars I
watched friends die in never needed to happen if only our politicians had the balls to say no to Bush. The
NHS that saved my babies life is being dismantled by rich benefactors who not only get to make the decision
but know we cant do anything about who gets to make it. I see now that not only can we never use Trident,
but it doesnt deter anyone it wastes billions.

We cant change any of what has happened so far. But we can change what the future holds for us. I believe
the best way to predict that future is to build it ourselves

A letter to a wee ginger dug (A guest post by David Kelly) I am not a nationalist. I have no issues with my
nationality. Scotland may not have been a sovereign nation for over 300 years, but I know I am Scottish. Like
many of us I have worked all over the world, and everywhere that brawn as well as brains are required to
build things I hear Scottish accents. We know who we are. [...]If I am not a Nationalist, what am I? I
consider myself an Internationalist. [...]The DWP employs 3250 investigators looking for 1.2bn of benefit
fraud. HMRC employs 300 investigators looking for 70bn of tax evasion. The Trident replacement project to
renew Britains First Strike nuclear capability will cost 100bn pounds.

Oh look, theres a unicorn (A guest post by Maggie Craig) The Union of 1707 was a forced marriage and
while some individual Scots over the centuries since then may have benefited from it, I believe it has done
huge damage to our collective self-belief and self-esteem. Weve always been the junior partner. One of the
great joys of living in early 21st century Scotland is seeing how much that self-belief and self-esteem has and
is being reclaimed. One of the great heartbreaks is seeing how many families in this much-vaunted most
successful union of all time are dependent on food banks. Then theres the wasteland or maybe the new
shopping malls where our industrial base used to be. One aircraft carrier with no aeroplanes doesnt make
up for that. Not much use against suicide bombers, either. [...]Of course there is some risk. Lifes a risk. None
of us knows whats going to happen tomorrow. Whether people vote yes or no, change will come. Thats the
way of the world. Id rather have change weve voted for than change imposed on us from a government we
didnt vote for.

Why voting No is a huge mistake The sniping, misinformation and borderline bigotry will no doubt ramp
up over the next few weeks and it will be easy to forget that this is not a decision about our history, our
patriotism, our military and sporting allegiances, the personalities of political figures or any other topics
which naturally inflame passions and obfuscate the real question. It is, pure and simply, a decision about the
best way to manage public money for the maximum benefit of all in this corner of the world. [...]Ive always
considered myself British. Scottish first, but still British. My pride in British achievements past, present and
future is undiminished Its just that Ive come to the realisation that these great British islands are just too
big and too diverse for a political union one-size-fits-all approach to work anymore. An independent
Scotland able to control its own policy and destiny would, in my opinion, make Britain (the Islands we share,
rather than a United Kingdom) greater. [...] No UK government could ever look after Scotlands best
interests without being criminally negligent, as this country and its 5.3 million people have quite different
needs from the 10 million people in London, the 44 million people in the rest of England, the 3.1 million
people in Wales or the 1.8 million people in Northern Ireland.

- 301 -

Tommy Sheridan on Independence love him or loath him, there is no denying that Tommy Sheridan is one
of the best speakers and debaters on Scottish independence (although he can be a bit shouty). He is
insightful, intelligent, persuasive and very passionate about independence and this video is well worth
watching.

Robin McAlpine of the Jimmy Reid Foundation & The Common Weal project, speaks on behalf of the YES
Campaign a more measured speaker than Tommy Sheridan but still just as powerful and persuasive. He
quotes many shocking statistics, some of which have been included elsewhere in this document and the last
one.

Moving to Yes - "When I enter the polling booth I will vote not as a Scot but as a person, a citizen, a worker, a
man, a son, a dad, an uncle and a friend. I will vote for change. I will vote for a decentralised system of
government that brings power and decisions closer to the people to make our political life more alive to
participation and less dependent on representation. I will vote to see local government revitalised and
empowered and to see bodies like community councils grow in confidence and responsibility. I will vote for
the taxes we contribute to be spent in the right place by the right people, within a system that values
subsidiary over centralised control and listens more broadly before making strategic and informed non-
headline driven decisions."

The Day It Became Truly Real No voters are not evil. Voting No is not evil. But voting No is voting to allow
evil to continue governing our lives. It is a vote that ensures every millionaire who received a tax break while
pensioners freeze to death in an oil-rich country had their pockets lined, in part, by us. It is a vote that
ensures every person who died within six months of losing their disability benefits was facilitated, in part, by
us. It is a vote that ensures that every bullet that takes an innocents life was paid for, in part, by us. Voting
no is hoping the thug who beat you into this life-threatening condition will show some sort of mercy on you.
Independence is not a panacea to cure all ills: it is CPR, a morphine injection, a shock from a defibrillator. A
fighting chance to bring our broken soul back from the brink of oblivion.

I Am Not a Nationalist but I Will Be Voting YES in the Independence Referendum - To me, voting Yes is not
anti-English. Wanting to change an unfair society and broken political system is not anti-English. This debate
has never been about England or even Scotlands relationship with England. It is not about separation or
divisiveness. This debate is only to decide whether the political union that Scotland has with the Westminster
should be dissolved.

Scotland is a small country which has needs that are different and unique compared to other parts of the
UK. Can a London based Parliament understand the nuances and quirks of the Scottish economy and psyche
better than a Scotland-based Parliament? Can a London based Parliament, which governs 63 million people
from differing regions, do a better job of managing Scotland than a Parliament that is based in Scotland? I
dont think it can and believe that Scotlands interests are best served by having an independent Parliament
that has full control over the nation.

Westminster politics has moved further and further right in the past 30 years. Added to the mix is UKIP,
another pro-business, neo-liberal party that further shifts the Parliament to the right. I would say that it is
now unequivocal that Westminster have fully embraced the neo-liberal ethos of profit over people. If we
compare this to the Scottish Parliament, then it is clear for all to see that Holyrood does have a social
conscious and is travelling a path that is far easier for me to stomach.

Posh Girl For Yes A very powerful video message for independence from a self-confessed posh firl who
sounds like Joanna Lumley

Schoolboy reveals why he switched from No to Yes for his own generation and his grans Ryan, 16, was a
committed No supporter and volunteered for the anti-independence campaign after being recruited by his
local MP, Labour Shadow Pensions Minister Gregg McClymont. He worked in their campaign office, handing
out leaflets and answering calls. But after studying the facts, he became convinced he had backed the wrong
side for himself, his school friends and his family.(Daily Record)
- 302 -


A comment made by Toomtabarf, to the article about patriotism written in the Scotman by John McTernan
(the comment is far better than the original article):
I am not a member of any political party, and I am not a "nationalist". I am a trade unionist, a
socialist who believes in democracy, and for all those reasons, I am voting YES. The United
kingdom is an artificial entity which has held Scotland back, leading to massive inequality and
deprivation. I am not prepared to wait for the workers of the world to unite, or for the left in
england to decide to act. I'm also not prepared to put up with a system which favours the
views of England, over the views of Scotland as a simple matter if mathematics - that ensures
that I do not live in a democracy.

Not only can folk in Scotland not elect their government (without England's passive
agreement), more importantly, they cannot vote the government out, and therefore hold it to
account. Time to play grown up politics in Scotland, and take control of our own destiny. That
has nothing to do with nationalism, and nothing to do with England. It's about a population
deciding what it thinks is the best thing to do for it's society.

We're already a nation - nationalism is ergo irrelevant. What we seek now is a state.






- 303 -






- 304 -


A letter to the Times, 17th Aug

Lists of Reasons
There are many lists of reasons and articles arguing for voting for independence that have been compiled,
and many of the facts in those lists and articles have been reproduced in this document. However, feel free
to read these lists and articles as they will have done a better job of explaining their points than I will have.

The Case Against #NO
50 reasons to Vote YES
40 reasons to support Scottish independence
48 Lies
The 10 Daftest Scare Stories From The No Campaign
Top 10 Unionist Myths DEBUNKED BANNED then RE-DEBUNKED
10 key economic facts that prove Scotland will be a wealthy independent nation
An Irish perspective on Scottish Independence given the similar comparisons between Scottish and Irish
independence (apart from the violent struggle), this is worth a read
11 Common Sense Reasons to Vote Yes
Ridiculous UKOK Claim of the Day debunking a claim from Better Together/UKOK/No Thanks (almost) a day
from the 14
th
April to the 23
rd
July. Its not clear why it stopped on the 23
rd
July but perhaps the author finally
went mad continually from frustration debunking the same nonsense (almost) every day.
Dear Undecided Scottish Voter - 12 points to think about before the independence referendum
Yes Scotland resources - a small booklet and some A5 crib sheets for hot-topics in the IndyRef debate
What does it mean to be Scottish? While Cameron, Obama, Putin and Netanyahu took to our television
screens to blame someone else for the bloodshed, Scotlands government released a statement of its own.
Humza Yousaf, Minister for External Affairs and a man Ive never heard of before and confess to know
nothing about, made me feel very proud to be Scottish. In the statement Yousaf spent little time
apportioning blame for the bloodshed (and the little he did was cast upon both sides) and focused instead on
the victims, offering refuge and sanctuary in Scotland for Palestinians and people displaced as a result of the
conflict in Gaza.
10 reasons why an independent Scotlands economy will be stronger without Westminster
IndyRef Answers a website with dozens, if not hundreds, of questions and answers relating to Scottish
independence
- 305 -

The A to Z of Independence - Sorting myth from fact As an antidote to the very many claims put forward
by those who would oppose Scotland and her people taking back all of the powers currently reserved to
Westminster, Paul T Kavanagh has compiled a humorous but informative A to Z that debunks many of the
wild assertions that have made their way into the 'Great Debate'.
The case for the British Union: don't believe a word in order for us to be 'Better Together' in the UK, the
people of Scotland must accept our wishes, as expressed at the ballot box, will be ignored and we will have
to accept whatever government is elected by the people of England, who form the majority of the UK
population. That has been the case for the past 50 years: throughout that period Scotland has voted Labour
at UK Elections, but we only got Labour Governments when England also voted for the party. For the
majority of the past 50 years, Scotland has had UK Tory Governments, despite never once voting for them.
Wings Over Scotland Reference An exhaustive list of features, documents, articles and videos on
independence
Whitehall bias and underperformance another reason for independence The fact that the Treasury do
not model the way the Scottish government is funded under the union, allied to their failure to look at
variant scenarios for UK public expenditure growth, means that the Treasury entirely miss the lose/lose
situation which Scotland is in under continuation of the union. On the one hand, if the Treasurys optimistic
growth scenario is realised, then there will be a Barnett squeeze. But on the other hand, in the very likely
case of continued austerity, then the Barnett formula would mechanistically deliver increasing levels of per
capita expenditure on devolved services to Scotland relative to England: in the face of universal austerity in
the UK, this would make the continuation of Barnett politically impossible.
The Science of Independence Some of the hidden benefits of independence have been discussed
elsewhere, such as the fact that billions of defence spending allocated as in Scotland actually never comes
near Scotland. Thats been quantified in the White Paper as a defence spend of 2.5billion will be 1billion
less than is currently allocated, but about 1billion MORE than is actually spent regardless of the purpose
thats an extra billion quid a year stimulating the economy. On top of that we will actually have proper
defences for the first time in years, and kick Trident the f*** out of here.
Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan a very powerful talk from this Englishman who tells us
why he supports Scottish independence and reveals some horrendous truths about the UK/Westminster
establishment. He also claims that I can tell you, its not an academic construct, the system stinks,
Westminster stinks, the British Government is deeply immoral, they dont care how many people they kill
abroad if it advances them and any anybody who votes No is voting to support a pathological state - which is
a danger in the world; a rogue state; a state prepared to go to war to make a few people wealthy. [...] Its not
possible to be a decent person and vote No, and we shouldnt be ashamed to say that


The owner of the Facebook page Rangers Fans for Independence has written some brilliant, powerful and
eloquent articles that are well worth reading in full dont worry, you dont have to be a Rangers fan to read
or appreciate them (its a page intended to show that not all Rangers fans have decided how to vote solely
based on the team they support). For example, this article writes that
There are still many people in Scotland who are unsure about how they will vote in the
Independence Referendum or they are committed No voters simply because they do not like
Alex Salmond. In many years time from now children will ask grandparents and pupils will ask
teachers why did people in Scotland vote No to independence when every other nation in
history said Yes and many even had to lay down their lives? Some will even ask who Alex
Salmond was and why people would vote No because of him. It is likely that Alex Salmond and
many of us here today will be gone forever and we must ask ourselves what kind of Scotland
future generations of Scots will live in.

What we know is that there are those who govern Scotland without the consent of the people
of Scotland and who do not have Scotlands best interests at heart. People who have
squandered hundreds of billions of pounds in revenue from North Sea Oil and Gas. People who
say in 2013 that Scotland Ceased to be a Nation in 1707 after the Act of Union. People who
say it is alright to locate Weapons of Mass Destruction less than thirty miles from the most
densely populated area of Scotland yet far too dangerous to locate anywhere south of the
border. People who say that the poorest and weakest in our society must pay for the mistakes
- 306 -

of the richest and most powerful and people who say that we must accept their values and
their principles even when they are the opposite of our own.

We know that Unionists in Edinburgh sanctioned handing over 6,000 square miles of Scottish
water from Scottish jurisdiction to English jurisdiction in 1998 without the knowledge or
consent of the people of Scotland. We know that the Unionists in Edinburgh sanctioned
handing over legal supremacy of the High Court in Edinburgh to the Supreme Court in London
giving the Legal System in England supremacy over the High Court in Edinburgh for the first
time in over 800 years again in secret. We know that the Defence Minister of the London
based Ministry of Defence said publicly that he could not place Trident in Davenport Naval
Base, Plymouth because it presented an unacceptable risk to the civilian population. We know
deep in our hearts that the only conclusion we can draw from that public statement is that it is
acceptable to the London based Ministry of Defence to place Trident at Faslane on the Clyde
because the risk to our civilian population is acceptable. We know that the Westminster
Government commissioned a report on the implications of independence in 1974 and
concealed that report under the Official Secrets Act for almost four decades because its
findings illustrated how wealthy an independent Scotland would have been.

To know all of the above yet still insist on voting No to Scottish Independence is to leave the
future of our country and the future generations of Scots in the hands of those who have lied
to us and who do not value our citizens as much as they value their own. In affect it is leaving
the welfare of Scotlands children at the mercy of a small and privileged elite in the Capital city
of England who have a proven record of deceit and corruption and who have been responsible
for a society that is the fourth most unequal society in the developed world. You are saying to
Scotlands elderly that they must accept the lowest pensions in the European Union and Fuel
Poverty when Scotland is an Energy Rich Nation. You are saying to our sick and affirm that they
must pay for their prescriptions and their Health Care because those we did not elect in
London say so regardless of the fact that those we did elect in Edinburgh provided it for free.
You are saying to our scholars young and not so young that they must pay at least 9,000
Tuition Fees up front if they want to go to University because those we did not elect in London
say so despite the fact those we did elect in Edinburgh are determined to provide that
University Education for free

If you vote No on the 18th of September knowing all the facts then you have no right to blame
Alex Salmond or anyone else. If you did not know any of the above then I suggest you have
come to your final decision prematurely and you require to avail yourself of more information.
If you still vote No them you only have yourself to blame for what comes after the 18th of
September if Scotland does not gain its independence. You will not have the right to complain
about any policies Westminster imposes on Scotland. You will not have the right to complain
about any suffering inflicted on the people of Scotland by politicians in London that we do not
elect. You will never again have the right to complain about the unfairness of a small and
privileged Elite in the South of England imposing their will on the people of Scotland. You will
not have the right to complain because you failed to do something about it when you had the
chance. The sadness is that those future generations of Scotlands children may pay the price
then for those of us who lacked the courage now. The pathetic excuse that we voted No
because we did not like Alex Salmond will be of no importance one hundred years from now
nor will it be of any comfort.

Here the author writes that:
The No Campaign and the British Media are in Over Drive with the constant Scare Stories
from a never ending conveyor belt of Think Tanks and Renowned Experts who are tripping
over themselves to warn us not to vote Yes. Such is their apparent concern for our welfare that
they are compelled to come out of the wood work at this eleventh hour in the referendum
debate. One must wonder how they managed to contain their concern for all those years until
- 307 -

only weeks before the vote on the 18th of September.

We are warned that everything will cost more and we will have even less to pay for it in an
independent Scotland. We are assured that those Think Tanks and Renowned Experts are
100% impartial and are only telling us their views at this the final stages of the campaign for
our own good. The fact that New Oil has apparently been discovered off Shetland is nothing
for us to worry our little heads about because our dear friends in Westminster will relieve us of
that Burden just as they did in the early seventies and for the last four decades. The fact that
those who apparently discovered this New Oil have been sent home on full pay until after the
referendum is, we are assured, a mere coincidence and not in the slightest a cynical ploy to
deceive the people of Scotland on the true value of Our natural resources.

We are advised that they love us so much that they want us to remain part of the most
successful partnership in history. Then we are warned that should we decide to leave this
loving partnership then we can expect no goodwill from those we have left. Indeed we are
cautioned that they will make life so difficult for an independent Scotland even if it means
making life difficult for them in the process. We will not be able to use Their pound and we
will see Border Controls erected because we will be regarded by them as Foreigners. This is
despite the fact that the Pound Sterling is an asset of the United Kingdom of which Scotland is
entitled to a fair share and despite the fact that the Scottish Government has expressed no
desire whatsoever to erect Border Controls in an independent Scotland. These are not words
of affection from a compassionate partner wishing to maintain a relationship but threats from
a domineering partner who refuses to consider that the other part of the relationship wants to
move on and just remain good friends.

I love you and want you to stay but I will do everything in my power to punish you and make
your life an absolute hell if you refuse to obey me and dare to go. That is not love or affection
but arrogance and bullying. We have the resources and the knowhow to make a new
independent Scotland a fantastic success and above all we have the people in Scotland who
have the ability and the vision to insure it is a nation worth leaving to those yet to come. I am
voting a resounding Yes because I believe with my head and my heart that the time has come
where we must make our own way in the world whilst at the same time maintain a friendship
with our closest neighbours. When one part of a relationship holds different values and has
different aspirations and priorities it is better that they acknowledge those differences and
accept the relationship is not what it was originally intended to be. The best course of action
for all sides is to agree an amicable separation and endeavour to continue as good friends.
That is the message that has been repeated time and again from those who aspire to once
again be part of an independent sovereign Scotland. I hope that in the event of a Yes vote our
neighbours will accept that gesture of continued friendship but I shall cast my vote for an
independent Scotland regardless.

And here he writes:
We are being fed a relentless and systematic Toxic Drip of bitterness and hatred towards the
most popular politician in Scotland whose Government received the most amount of votes
from the Scottish electorate at the last Scottish Parliamentary Elections. This Toxic Drip effect
is deliberately designed to turn us against the man the British Establishment fears the most
and whose commitment and determination is likely to help us deliver a verdict the fear even
more.

They despise him with a passion and they conduct a sustained campaign of smear and hatred
towards him sponsored by the Parliament of Westminster and the British Establishment and it
is funded by you the tax payer. They want you to despise him also and turn against him not
because he is a threat to you but because he is a threat to them. On a daily basis the Unionist
Media feeds the people of Scotland a constant torrent of insults and innuendos about the First
Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, none of which have any credence or validity. He is a liar,
- 308 -

he is a dictator, he is a bully, he is a numpty or a clown and he is a madman obsessed with his
own agenda of becoming a self appointed 'President'. They are doing this because they believe
that if they can discredit the democratically elected First Minister then they can discredit his
campaign to secure an independent Scotland.

They want to stop us voting for an independent Scotland because that will spell disaster for all
those Scottish Unionist politicians who make a very comfortable living in the Westminster
Parliament hundreds of miles from Scotland. They are more concerned about their own well
paid jobs than the people they were elected to represent and if they can persuade us to vote
No then they will be in line for a peerage and an equally comfortable retirement. Alex Salmond
has never been a part of that establishment even when he was at Westminster in the days
before we had our own parliament. He was a thorn in their sides and the fact he could not be
bought and had no interest in a Knighthood and a seat in the House of Lords made him even
more dangerous.

What they do not realise is that it is not his campaign and his alone but it is the campaign that
has witnessed a grass roots revolution in Scottish politics the likes we have never seen before.
There are literally hundreds of different groups around the country manned by countless
thousands of volunteers who are committed to campaigning for a Yes vote and they act
independently of the First Minister and the Scottish Government. Although they agree
wholeheartedly with his lifelong vision of a Sovereign Scotland they are operating separately
from Holyrood and the official Yes Campaign. People who neither vote for Alex Salmond or the
Scottish National Party are as passionate about independence as Mr Salmond and his
Government. Many have never voted for the SNP and never will but they will join the SNP in
voting Yes in the referendum. They will do so because they have not been offered a convincing
and positive alternative to independence by the Unionists or anything that will remotely
address the concerns and aspirations of Scotland or its people. All we have been offered is a
continual diet of scare stories and dire warning about what will happen to us if we dare to vote
Yes on the 18th of September.

The Unionists north and south of the border have a steady supply of Think Tanks and Experts
who advise us that the sky will fall on top of us and all terrible things will befall us if we do not
do as we are told and vote No. The best they can muster in way of a Positive is a vague but
apparently guaranteed promise of more significant powers if we stay in the United Kingdom.
With only a few weeks to go they still havent managed to agree amongst themselves what
those significant powers will be or when we are likely to find out but we just need to trust
them it will be some time after we reject independence. The difficulty for those contemplating
a No vote on the basis of those vague promises is that history tells us that Westminster and its
Scottish Unionist Lackeys are not to be trusted one little bit regarding more powers.

Those same Unionists are furious that the people of Scotland are even being allowed a
referendum to vote in and would never have allowed us that opportunity if it was up to them.
When Alex Salmond and the SNP were first elected to power in the Scottish Parliament they
only had one seat more than Scottish Labour. That Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish
Liberals voted against the Scottish National Party Bill to hold a referendum on independence.
They argued that there was no particular interest in independence by the Scottish electorate
and therefore no need to hold a referendum on the matter. We now know that there is a great
deal of interest in independence and that the First Minister and his Government were right to
give us a referendum on the matter. When the votes were counted after the last Scottish
Parliamentary Election in 2011 the Scottish National Party went from being a minority
Government to a majority Government with a truly historical increased majority. It was
because of that historic majority and only because of it that the re-elected Scottish
Government was able to fulfill its manifesto pledge and give Scotland the referendum and the
opportunity to vote for independence.

- 309 -

Alex Salmond and his Scottish National Party refused to be denied by Scottish Labour, the
Scottish Conservatives and the Scottish Liberals and finally put in place a referendum. That
referendum is bitterly resented by the Westminster Establishment and those career politicians
north of the border whose ultimate aim is that much coveted Knighthood. Johan Lamont, Ruth
Davidson, Wullie Rennie and Westminsters man in Scotland, Alistair Carmichael and the head
of the Better Together Campaign Alistair Darling are far more interested in a peerage than
the poor and vulnerable in Scotland. The Unionist politicians loath Alex Salmond because he is
a very real threat to the British Establishment and their privileged lifestyle. He is a committed
Scottish politician who is only interested in what is best for Scotland and when the people of
Scotland are eventually made aware of the treachery of those Unionists who seek to deceive
us then we will all know just how committed he was and how treacherous they were.

You can choose to accept the scare stories and the relentless expert opinions from the endless
supply of Think Tanks or you can do a bit of homework and make up your own mind. I have
carried out my own research and I have not heard a compelling argument that would persuade
me to vote No. By contrast I have heard many that persuade me that voting Yes is the only
option. Voting Yes to rid Scotland of Weapons of Mass Destruction and voting Yes to give us
the powers we need to build a fairer society based on helping those who need it and not just
helping ourselves or voting Yes to insure that never again will we have immoral policies such as
the Bedroom Tax forced upon us by Governments we did not elect. They say vote with your
head and not your heart but my heart and my head say that a Yes vote is a vote for a Positive
and Compassionate Scotland that I will be proud to pass on to my children and grandchildren
and for all the generations of children Scotland has yet to produce.

Yet another relevant and powerful piece:
As long as I can remember independence for Scotland has been my desire and I have never
once in my life felt that I am British. As a child I learned in school about William Wallace and
Robert the Bruce and I learned how Scotland has fought our larger southern neighbour for
centuries over who has the right to govern Scotland. I cannot ever recall when the question
was put to me, would you like to be British? Yet I can remember from a very young age being
told that I could not put on any form that I was Scottish because that was not an option. Any
time the authorities required my nationality there was only one option and that was British.

When I went to geography classes in high school I learnt that there were many different
countries and many different cultures but all those countries had one thing in common that
my country did not. They were able to call themselves nation states and there was somewhere
on a form that had the name of their country. I learned in history classes how many of those
nations were much poorer than Scotland and in some cases much smaller but they had often
fought and sacrificed so many lives to gain their independence. Uncertainty about the future
was the last thing on their mind because gaining their freedom was worth any price. There
were countries who faced turmoil and struggle and who seemed to be in a far worse state than
my country but they were determined to decide their own destiny rather than have others
make decisions for them. To date not a single one of those nations has looked back with regret
at gaining their independence and not one would trade that independence for any amount of
wealth.

Compared to many of the worlds 189 independent nations Scotland is relatively wealthy and
has vast amounts of resources in comparison. Indeed there probably has never been a nation
more ready for independence than Scotland. Even the United States of America was ill
prepared for the independence they fought so hard to achieve from the British Empire. When
Americans faced the might of British forces during the war of independence the population
was just around two million people. Those ordinary American citizens who took up arms
against the British were not trained in the art of warfare and they faced an army of seasoned
military men with years of battle experience and expertise. That rag tag army of civilians did
not seek assurances about what the future had in store for them nor guarantees that they
- 310 -

would be better off financially. What they were fighting for and what was at stake was the
right to be governed by themselves instead of being governed by those who did not have their
consent. Many of the individuals who were the architects of the war against the British were
wealthy men and they stood to lose a great deal.

We are a wealthy nation although that wealth has been managed and squandered by
governments in London allegedly acting on our behalf. Scotland is also a very resourceful
nation with extremely innovative people. We have given so much to the world for such a small
country and punched well above our weight in many fields such as engineering, science and
medicine. The television, radio and penicillin are only a few of our contributions to mankind.
We have given so much throughout the centuries but the most important thing we have
exported to other nations of the world is our people. There is not a corner of the planet that
Scots have not explored and not left our mark on and our influence on many nations is without
question. It is for those reasons that the very suggestion that we are unable to run our own
country is as absurd as it is untrue. A nation that has given so much to so many others in the
world is more than capable of joining the great family of independent nations big and small.

Yet for all that we have achieved as a people and all that we have given to others there are
still those who insist we are too small, to poor and too stupid to be in charge of our own
country and our own destiny. Many of those who assume the right to govern us from outside
Scotland mock our desire for self-determination as some ill thought out scheme of a petulant
adolescent leaving home for the first time with the meager contents of their piggy bank. Even
worse is the pessimistic negativity of some who live here that believe being in charge of a
fraction of our own resources is the best we can hope for. They are willing to accept that we
are not sophisticated enough or mature enough to make all the decisions that affect our
country but that we should leave the majority of decisions to those we dont vote for and
whose politics we dont agree with. The people who live in Scotland who believe that Scotland
should be governed from London have many excuses and many scare stories. What they dont
have is any positive vision for a better way of doing things than the way they have been done
in the past or how they are done now. More of the same is their mantra and if it aint broke
then dont fix it.

What those who aspire to the Status Quo dont realise is Scotland is tired of how things have
been done in the past and how we have been governed and are still governed. We are tired of
governments in the capital city of England governing Scotland in a way that is not in keeping
with how we want to be governed. We are tired of seeing many of our children go hungry and
many of our pensioners go cold when we are wealthy enough to prevent it. We are tired of
Governments in London taking our wealth and sharing it amongst their friends in the South of
England before whats left trickles its way north through the regions. We have had more than
enough of politicians we never elect lording over us and imposing policies on us we never vote
for. We are weary of being treated as a northern region of England rather than a nation of
Scots. There was a time when those who sought to rule us without our consent could say and
do what they wanted to us safe in the knowledge that there was nothing we could do about it.

For more years than not governments in London have governed Scotland with little or no
regard to what we wanted. That was before we got Devolution and before we got our own
Parliament for the first time in more than 300 years. That was also before we got a Scottish
Government that does not rubber-stamp the wishes of the Westminster Parliament in London
and does not dance to the Unionist tune as did previous Scottish Governments and previous
Scottish politicians. This Scottish Government is determined to stand up for the people of
Scotland and stand up to the Parliament in Westminster and will not be bullied or bribed. This
Scottish Government will not hand over 6,000 square miles of North Sea from Scottish to
English jurisdiction in secret without the permission of the people of Scotland. This Scottish
Government will not hand over supreme legal authority of the High Court in Edinburgh to the
Supreme Court in London in secret without the permission of the people of Scotland. This
- 311 -

Scottish Government will not sit idly by whilst a Government in London puts Weapons of Mass
Destruction on Scottish soil when that same Government in London will not allow those
weapons to be put anywhere on English soil.

People throughout the land are speaking out and standing up to be counted in their hundreds
of thousands as never before. A nation is stirring and many of its citizens sense that the
greatest opportunity in centuries is now in our reach to restore our nations sovereignty and
return its powers north to where they have always belonged, Scotland. On previous occasions
the Establishment would have exercised tight control on what information we were given.
Those days are gone and the people no longer look to the Mainstream Media for information
as they might have and they certainly dont look to that Mainstream Media for impartiality or
truth. The greatest debate that has ever taken place on the future of Scotland is not taking
place in the newspapers or on the television screens as they might have done before. No the
greatest constitutional debate in Scotlands history is taking place in cyberspace and on the
doorstep and in the town halls and high street stalls the length and breadth of Auld Alba. It is
in these places that the battle will be won or lost and not the Tabloids or the BBC and STV
studios. The evidence so far suggests that where the real debate is taking place the
Propaganda Machine of the British Government has little or no impact.

Hundreds of years ago our ancestors were on the brink of gaining their freedom and that
quest inspired the penning of the Declaration of Arbroath.

'As long as a hundred of us remain alive never will we on any condition be brought under
English rule, it is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for
freedom for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.'

We are not required to take up the sword and fight nor are we asked to give up our lives but
we are asked to give a moment of our time and with the stroke of a pen change the course of
history. Our sovereignty and a better future is within our grasp.


Not quite a list in the standard sense but this poem by Manmohan Tagore, How dare you Scotland!, is a
rousing read:

HOW DARE YOU SCOTLAND!
How dare you want to be governed by the Party you voted for.
How dare you expect to use your own oil wealth to improve your own country.
How dare you complain about the doubling of number of Scottish people in poverty during the eighties.
How dare you complain about the policy of creating 8 out of 10 of all new jobs in the UK in London only.
How dare you complain about your graduates having to leave Scotland and their families behind just to find
a decent job.
How dare you complain that 20% of your children live in poverty.
How dare you oppose Austerity measures which are projected to put 50,000 100,000 more children into
poverty.
How dare you complain about having the lowest minimum wage in Europe.
How dare you complain about spending 27% of your income on childcare. Who cares if in Sweden they only
spend 5%! And dont you dare mention that they are a small northern European country of around 9 million
people!
How dare you complain about having the least generous pensions in Europe. Theyre only pensioners after
all!
How dare you complain that in some parts of Glasgow some men dont live as long as they do in Iraq or
Afghanistan.
How dare you show a more progressive attitude to Immigrants when the rest of the UK is allowing UKIP to
gain power.
- 312 -

How dare you complain that you only see 1.9 billion worth of defence spending in Scotland when you are
charged 3.3 billion per year.
How dare you complain about our children polling as the least happy in the developed world.
How dare you complain about having to subsidise a high speed rail link in the South East at a cost of 4
billion pounds when this will do nothing for Scotland.
How dare you complain about Trident and its huge running costs. Why would you want to spend that money
on your infrastructure for heavens sake!
How dare you complain about being the 3rd most unequal State in the developed world.
How dare you object to the brutal and barbaric foreign policy of the UK.
How dare you complain about a 400% rise in foodbanks since the Coalition came to power.
How dare you ask for clarity and evidence when the NO campaign claim Scotland is better off as part of the
UK.
YOURE SUPPOSED TO TELL EACH OTHER WE COULDNT DO IT!
HOW DARE YOU REACH FOR THE STARS!

Websites
Bella Caledonia
Business For Scotland
C'mon Scotland
Derek Bateman
Greg Moodie
Holyrood Magazine
Indy Poster Boy
Kevin McKenna
Labour For Independence
Lallands Peat Worrier
Michael Greenwell
Munguin's Republic
Newsnet Scotland
Referendum 2014
Scot Goes Pop!
Scotland Tonight
Subrosa
TA of Moridura
Undecided?
Wee Ginger Dug
What Scotland Thinks
Wings Over Scotland