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 wasn’t 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 24th June and this now contains references from the 25th June to around 5th 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, it’ll 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) – it’s a separate follow-up and should be read in addition to the last one, if you’ve not already read it (the article “Scottish Independence”). I’ve 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 you’ll also find this one useful and that it persuades you to consider voting for Scotland’s future as an independent nation.

Thanks for reading and good luck!

- 1 -

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 Scotland’s 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, “It’s 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 didn’t 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.”

- 2 -

Better Together (BT) continue to argue that this referendum is about Alex Salmond and the SNP to deter many non-SNP (Labour mainly) voters. It’s 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 Darling’s leadership...

- 3 -

Despite BT’s 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 “can’t 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)  “Edinburgh’s 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 Blair’s 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 month’s 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)

- 4 -

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 doesn’t 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, it’s as simple as that. For me and the Yes community, it’s that easy.

You can add in all sorts of aspirations and side allegiances if you like. I believe for example that independence will unleash Scotland’s 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 don’t ‘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 you’d vote No is clear.

- 5 -

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 “Scotland’s 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 - 6 - 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 Scotland’s 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 doesn’t 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 don’t 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.

- 7 -

But it’s 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 world’s top 200 universities. Scotland’s 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 world’s 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 - Scotland’s shipyards at Govan, Scotstoun and Rosyth produce world class ships. Despite Westminster’s 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: - 8 -

“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 Coates…the 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 Scotland’s 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 “Scotland’s economic growth at new record level” “Scotland’s resurgent economy has bounced back to eclipse its pre-recession peak and reach a new record high, official statistics

- 9 - 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 Deloitte’s 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 SNP’s 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 Britain’s 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 doesn’t stop Gordon Brown criticising the SNP’s proposed corporation tax cut as reported in the Guardian: “In his address Brown said the biggest winners from the SNP’s plans for a 3% corporation tax cut and its refusal to back Labour’s fuel prices freeze were the energy companies built out of the UK’s privatised utilities.

- 10 -

‘”We’ve talked about fat cats. Now we’ve got a new phenomenon – fat Nats. That’s what we’re 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 SNP’s corporation tax proposals (see here), including statements published in the Daily Record on 27th August and the Observer on the 31st August.

But it’s 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 it’s funny how Labour are attacking the SNP’s proposals to cut corporation tax but have said absolutely nothing about the current Tory government’s 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 doesn’t, 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 UK’s current rate.

- 11 -

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:

- 12 -

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 don’t know how you can describe any country as bust given the term in business means a company that is so in debt it’s no longer trading or active. That clearly can’t 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 don’t we hear anything about Iceland in the news, that little country of 300,000 people? Perhaps it’s 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 Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s 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 community’s 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 didn’t 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 - 13 -

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 "we’re 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 UK’s 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:

- 14 -

Another article, this time from the Independent, regarding why “You won’t 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 don’t vote Tory and can’t 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 Scotland’s finances, what is worth noting is that they report an independent Scotland’s deficit would be 6 per cent,

- 15 - 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 Britain’s 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 Zealand’s 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 Australia’s, you’d 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."

- 16 -

10 reasons why an independent Scotland’s 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) Westminster’s fixation with financial services 6) Westminster squandered £300 billion in offshore revenue 7) Westminster has distorted the energy market 8) Westminster’s dysfunctional housing market 9) Westminster’s debt mountain 10) Westminster misses opportunities for Scotland

How true is number 10 above, in particular? Well, the Scotsman reported that “Scotland’s 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?

- 17 -

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 Government’s 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 government’s 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 government’s 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."”

- 18 -

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) Scotland’s 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, they’re 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. They’ve 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 that’s currently got its foot jammed on the throttle and its wheels pointing straight at a brick wall.”

- 19 -

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. It’s 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 government’s 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 Government’s 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.”

- 20 -

Farming & Fishing A lot has been made about Scotland’s 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 it’s 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.

- 21 -

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 government’s “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 we’re 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 I’m 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 Scotland’s 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 government’s 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

- 22 -

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?”

- 23 -

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 Scotland’s total tax receipts generated per person since 1980 from the average for the UK, they’ve contributed a surplus of £222 billion in today’s prices (again, counting Scotland’s geographical share of North Sea oil and gas).” – see here

- 24 -

And speaking of subsidies, the Better Together campaign and in particular Alasdair Darling, like to talk about the UK’s 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?

- 25 -

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 people’s 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:

- 26 -

- 27 -

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:

- 28 -

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) – it’s 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 Scotland’s 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 doesn’t 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). It’s 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 ship’s 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, let’s 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. That’s 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 government’s 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 Scotland’s share of the cost of HMS Queen Elizabeth – will generate 28,000 jobs. That’s 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 government’s 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 let’s 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 - 29 -

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 world’s 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 decade’s 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 nation’s defence. It exists, as Admiral Zambellas noted, solely to project the UK’s 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, we’ve 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 won’t 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:

- 30 -

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 Sun’s 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 government’s 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 UK’s 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 UK’s 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 Scotland’s 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

- 31 -

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 Salmond’s claim that North Sea oil is a bonus rather than the backbone of an independent Scotland’s 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 Scotland’s 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

What’s more surprising is the manner in which David Cameron visited Shetland – it wasn’t 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. Cameron’s 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

- 32 -

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 vessel’s survey results were to put it mildly impressive. The results are alleged (get used to that word, I’m 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 it’s 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 Cameron’s 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). It’s 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 Scotland’s 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 Scotland’s new oil boom” – see here  “World’s 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 Sea’s 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 UK’s energy needs in 2020.” – see Maersk Oil website

- 33 -

Turns out the North Sea fields aren’t 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 EnQuest’s 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 UK’s 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 Kraken’s 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 Sea’s 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)

- 34 -

“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 Scotland’s untapped frontier West Coast or Atlantic Margin has been underestimated.

The investigation was undertaken by oilandgaspeople.com, the world’s 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 UK’s 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”.

- 35 -

- 36 -

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 Osborne’s new tax regime in 2011

“This seems a fairly punitive tax and appears very short-sighted. We’ve 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 doesn’t take much imagination to predict industry’s 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 - 37 - 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 September’s referendum on Scottish independence. [...] Many analysts believe that the potential is much greater." (original article) And the Investors Chronicle isn’t exactly a renowned fount of Scottish-nationalist propaganda – for 150 years it’s been making its living out of telling the City of London how to get richer. If you want to find out what the UK’s wealthy elite REALLY think about the North Sea’s prospects, you won’t find a much better indicator.

- 38 -

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.

- 39 -

“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 SNP’s spending plans.”

Not only are they scaremongering with claims of dwindling oil, the Treasury’s own forecasts have been heavily criticised by one of Scotland’s most respected economists, who said in EnergyVoice “OBR as being - 40 -

“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 OBR’s 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 government’s pessimistic projections for an independent Scotland’s 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 campaign’s inflated claim of a £7.6bn budget deficit for an independent Scotland. Professor Mackay is pretty scathing about the UK government’s 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 weekend’s Sunday Times online”, it’s nowhere to be found on the paper’s 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 it’s 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

- 41 - 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 Norway’s £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 Scotland’s calculations and the UK’s 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, Scotland’s spending priorities would be very different to the UK’s 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.

- 42 -

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 that’s on top of the pension being the worst in the EU and 2nd worst in the developed world (Daily Mail).

- 43 -

As published on Better Together’s 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 UK’s 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 we’ll let that one slide pending a bit of stat- checking.

“We all receive the same state pension” Well, no we don’t. That’s 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 let’s look at the words in the biggest print. “Pension pot”? “The state pension, unlike private pensions, is not – there isn’t a fund there, it’s paid for by today’s 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 company’s fund out of which you get your pension.” (see here)

Well, it’ll certainly come as a surprise if they’ve 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”.

- 44 -

Those aren’t 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 campaign’s claims are a load of nonsense. A reasonable viewer might find themselves wondering what else their campaign isn’t 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 DWP’s own admission, the UK government is obliged to keep paying the state pension to anyone who’s 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 you’re entitled to it, like any other pension.

That applies to pensioners who live in Scotland the same as it does to anyone else. They’ve paid their contributions to the UK government and it’s 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. They’ll 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 who’ve already made sufficient contributions to qualify but haven’t 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. There’s 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 that’s normal. We know about that already, it’s 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 it’ll 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, it’d 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.”

- 45 -

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 it’s 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 didn’t 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 it’s 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, what’s 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 (it’s 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 UK’s 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 didn’t agree to any of it or take any out in its own name (the Scottish government cannot borrow, it’s 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 Scotland’s 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 Scotland’s bargaining position.”” – see The Telegraph

“Nobel economist: Scots would be right to refuse to share UK debt if London won't share pound””A 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. That’s 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, Scotland’s credit rating would be stratospheric."

- 46 -

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 it’s not £5 billion out of £700 billion but £5 billion of Scottish interest repayments towards the UK’s 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 hasn’t 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. It’s underpinned not by gold reserves (Gordon Brown sold them off at rock bottom prices) but by the economy, especially North Sea oil, and the UK’s 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, Scotland’s 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

- 47 - 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.”

- 48 -

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 - 49 - the problem with that is that Scotland’s largest trading partner, the rUK would enter another recession risking Scotland’s 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 you’d 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). It’s 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 world’s 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 UK’s benevolence for help with the EU. I just don’t 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 UK’s debt or insisting that Trident is removed from Scotland, we know that the issues are important enough to make the UK Government jumpy

- 50 -

– 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 don’t like it’ and, crucially, governments don’t 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 Scotland’s 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 Germany’s or Greece’s 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 sterling’s 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 Ireland’s 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.”

- 51 -

 “The Bank of England cannot even deny sterling liquidity to any Scottish-focused bank prepared to put up the necessary collateral, without jeopardising sterling’s international liquidity and external value. Moreover, assuming Scotland continues to run a healthy external balance of payments, courtesy of 90 per cent of the UK’s 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 America’s central bank, the Federal Reserve. In the absence of a formal currency union agreement, Panama has no say in the Federal Reserve’s 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 Scotland’s economy.

Nevertheless, as a result of using the dollar, Panama – a country comparable in population to Scotland – has one of the world’s 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 Scotland’s 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 Scotland’s 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 Scotland’s interests into full account when setting policy. The currency problem just isn’t a problem."

- 52 -

 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 England’s 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 Scotland’s economy more stable and secure. The UK’s obstinacy would be Scotland’s 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 Osborne’s 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

- 53 -

indeed blast the yes campaign’s 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 it’s 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 Scotland’s 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 campaign’s 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. Today’s results suggest that emulating Panama by ‘Sterlingising’ without a currency union could give an independent Scotland a remarkably robust financial system because Scotland’s 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

- 54 -

concerned by the UK’s 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 country’s products, and so demand for that country’s 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 isn’t 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 Labour’s 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. Today’s results suggest that emulating Panama by ‘Sterlingising’ without a currency union could give an independent Scotland a remarkably robust financial system because Scotland’s 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, let’s see Sterling’s 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 - 55 - 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 you’ll notice that only from 1992 onwards was the pound partially pegged and it wasn’t 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 Westminster’s stewardship, the pound has steadily devalued to the point where it’s not really worth much at all, not any more. It was $5 to the pound back in 1930. Mind you, the dollar’s devalued too, but the pound’s gone downhill at twice that rate, which isn’t very good testimony to Westminster’s 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

- 56 - full blown dependence within the union? It’s 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 UK’s 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 – Scotland’s 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 - 57 - 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

- 58 -

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, hasn’t read up on it given he’s trying to claim that Scotland would be forced to join the Euro.

“Ed Balls is talking balls about Scotland’s currency options” – see here

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

So either he’s too incompetent to be chancellor (although George Osborne’s qualification of towel folder to be seems sufficient for the job) or he’s deliberately lying to try and spread fear amongst the voters in

- 59 -

Scotland. I’ll 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 that’s 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, Scotland’s share would equal 74% of GDP by 2016/17 against 89% of GDP for rUK. “ This means that Scotland is subsidising the UK’s debt i.e. it’s helping to bail out the UK.

This article here explains that interest rate on the UK’s 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 England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) this month voted to increase domestic interest rates, ending three years of unanimous 9-0 votes to keep the Bank’s 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.”

- 60 -

Banking Bailout

Contrary to Alasdair Darling claims on national TV in his first debate with Alex Salmond, the UK’s 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.

- 61 -

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 Majesty’s 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 it’s 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 Trident’s 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 UK’s 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. That’s 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

- 62 -

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 it’s 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 you’d 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 what’s 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 “Falmouth’s tourism industry could be affected and the town could become a “potential terrorist target” if Britain’s 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 doesn’t want trident relocated there but the UK government is happy to base them in Scotland?

- 63 -

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, it’s 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. Today’s 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? It’s hard to see how.

- 64 -

Did Trident deter the Glasgow Airport bombers? No, it didn’t. The SNP say September’s 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 Scotland’s 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 Britain’s 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 François Mitterrand, claimed Thatcher had threatened to launch a nuclear strike on Buenos Aires if the French president had not handed over codes to disable Argentina’s French-made Exocet missiles.

Magoudi quoted his former employer as stating: ‘It’s a good job I gave way. Otherwise, I assure you, that the lady’s 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, it’s 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 don’t need nuclear weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (in Iraq) because of your own stupidity or immorality.

Following on from George Robertson’s “Forces of Darkness” speech (discussed in the previous document), there have been a rash of articles claiming that Scotland, the country that’s too wee, too poor and too stupid, holds the key to the UK’s 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.”. It’s obvious that irony isn’t 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.

- 65 -

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 Party’s biggest donors is in negotiations to finance a Russian oil company targeted by US sanctions against President Putin. Vitol, the world’s 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, there’s 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 UK’s 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 Scotland’s 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 it’s the unlucky Middle East that’ll 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:

“Here’s 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.

- 66 -

US taxpayers won’t 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.”

Let’s study that for a moment, shall we?

Firstly, Ukraine is not even remotely on Britain’s “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 it’s the Army’s 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 Army’s 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 Army’s 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 UK’s 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 don’t 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. That’s £2.7 million per job. We’re reasonably sure that there are far more efficient means of generating work with £3.5bn. It’s 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 you’re anticipating, or actually in, a full-scale war. Is there something Mr Fallon and Mr Cameron aren’t 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 - 67 - 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”, he’s 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. That’s not news, that’s anti-news. It’s 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 NATO’s strategically-crucial “GIUK Gap” undefended. But none of that is what we’re 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.’”

That’s 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 don’t 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 planet’s 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 Sun’s idiocy this morning, there’s a serious point. The thought of an independent Scotland as a international outcast, shut out of the West’s defence alliance, is a scare story of the crudest order. It’s designed to frighten the electorate into voting No by deliberately misrepresenting the reality, cloaking a falsehood in plausible-sounding quotes that don’t fall to pieces until the reader applies their own scrutiny.

It’s perhaps worth tuning in to the rest of the Times piece. “The Union Jack flies prominently outside the front of Nato’s 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.” - 68 -

Er, duh. Scotland isn’t 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 it’s just closing its eyes and hoping the danger goes away. And this is the proud, mighty United Kingdom that we’re supposed to be relying on for our defence? We don’t know about you, readers, but this news doesn’t fill us with confidence.

(Also, didn’t the then-defence secretary Phillip Hammond strenuously insist that the UK wouldn’t allow its armed forces to be broken up like “a chocolate bar”, and that the very notion was “laughable”? Didn’t he say that Scotland would have to build its own from scratch, rather than taking bits of the UK’s? Can’t anyone keep their story straight for five minutes?)

“An independant [sic] Scotland’s 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 wouldn’t 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 Scotland’s fault that it wasn’t 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 UK’s invasion of Iraq, in particular. And now it seems the UK can’t 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 UK’s airports?

The UK can’t even protect its own territorial waters (as explained in the last document) and is actively closing coastguard stations. - 69 -

- 70 -

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 Scotland’s 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 ½ 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 master’s table.”

And remember the choice of UK Prime Minister you’ll have at the next UK general election:

- 71 -

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 they’re 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.

- 72 -

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, let’s 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 they’ve 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 Parliament’s 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 we’re telling you that the Calman Commission got it wrong and actually didn’t give Scotland all the powers it needed. We’ll 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” isn’t 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 anyone’s 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. It’s like saying that you’re 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 you’ll work out the details later and it’ll 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. - 73 -

“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, they’ll put those visions before the English people, who are the ones who’ll 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.

It’s 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 it’s 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

- 74 - 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 Labour’s 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 Johnson’s 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. There’s 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 that’s 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 3rd place with them being pushed into 4th, 5th or even 6th 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 Rennie’s comments (Scottish LibDem leader in case you haven’t heard of him, most haven’t) that “The Scottish Parliament Is A Temporary Institution” (see here in his own words) it apparently doesn’t 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.

- 75 -

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 let’s 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 - 76 - 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 doesn’t 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: “don’t tell me it’s 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 don’t believe in more powers for Scotland. But what about David Cameron? He would need to go against not only the reason he didn’t want Devo Max on the ballot paper in the first place (he doesn’t 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:

- 77 -

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 Scotland’s 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 don’t affect Scotland. So the Tories win, because they’ve reduced Labour’s numbers and influence at the Commons. And while Labour will grumble a bit at that, they’ll 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, there’s 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 Scotland’s oil revenues safely in the Treasury and Trident in the Clyde.

- 78 -

- 79 -

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, that’s 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 Scotland’s 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 Scotland’s place in the Union should trigger a review of its share of taxpayer’s 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. - 80 -

‘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 formula’s 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 can’t 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 can’t address the Barnett Formula unless you address the whole of it. I certainly can’t see it happening before 2014 and the Scottish referendum.‘”

THE SCOTTISH LIBERAL DEMOCRATS - 81 -

“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 Scotland’s budget – which could lead to cuts in services. The proposals will be seen by some as evidence the commission was a smokescreen to cut Scotland’s 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.”

- 82 -

THE UK PUBLIC (via The Sun/YouGov) “60% of UK taxpayers don’t 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 Scotland’s 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 Barnett’s 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 isn’t 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: ‘It’s 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: ‘They’d 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 Barnett’s reverse will cause anger in England, where opinion is mobilising against the Scots.”

In the interests of fairness we’d balance these quotes with counterpoints, but it’s 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 we’ve 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

- 83 -

Together” campaign director Blair McDougall, which is just about as close to a cast-iron guarantee that it won’t 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 naïve. 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 - 84 -

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.

- 85 -

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 Scotland’s 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 don’t 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 that’s 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 - 86 -

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 won’t stop it. The prime minister’s 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, there’s even a whole website called “NHS For Sale” (see here) the primary aim of which is to prove NHS privatisation is happening right now.

- 87 -

- 88 -

- 89 -

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 TTIP’s 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. - 90 -

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 Brown’s 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 won’t 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 UK’s 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, Labour’s 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 NHS’s 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. “It’s 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 wouldn’t – it doesn’t hold the cards any more. “There’s 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.

- 91 -

“If it goes through the genie would be out of the bottle and it would be irreversible. The stakes couldn’t 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: “[I’m] 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.” - 92 -

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 Blair’s 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 Scotland’s 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, let’s get health policies that can be consistent across England, Scotland and Wales.Wouldn’t 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 Unite’s 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.

- 93 -

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, he’s just concerned that it’s 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 country’s 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 Scotland’s funding is safe in Tory hands.

The official No campaign is now arguing that there would be no impact on Scotland’s 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 Lansley’s 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 - 94 -

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”

- 95 -

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, we’ve 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 everyone’s pockets, it’s 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? - 96 -

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.”

- 97 -

“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 coalition’s 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.

- 98 -

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 Holyrood’s Welfare Reform Committee. Labour’s 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 coalition’s welfare reforms isn’t 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

- 99 -

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 plans””An 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 Jobseeker’s 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 man’s 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 - 100 -

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 aren’t. 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 Scotland’s 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.

- 101 -

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 it’s based on is damaging to the general population.

Another article here discusses the history and philosophy of neo-liberalism and why it has failed (it’s 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 hasn’t 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 Britain’s 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 you’ve 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 labour’s desperate and sad attempts to tar Alex Salmond and reduce the currency debate even further than they’ve 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 - 102 -

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 it’s obvious now from the output of Better Together that many Labour MPs and MSPs share this sentiment – they don’t 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 that’s assuming they don’t win outright. Further evidence for this includes this article that reports:

“Labour leader Ed Miliband’s 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.”

- 103 -

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.

- 104 -

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 - 105 -

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 naïve 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 Thatcher’s 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 won’t 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 labour’s 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 - 106 - 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 Government’s welfare cuts have still to come. Shamefully, yesterday’s figures revealed six out of 10 children living in poverty had a parent in work. Yesterday, I heard Jackie Baillie, Labour’s 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 – “Labour’s 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 isn’t 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

- 107 -

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).

- 108 -

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 Westminster’s 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 Scotland’s 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. He’s 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. He’s 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 he’s 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).

- 109 -

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

- 110 -

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 doesn’t 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 it’s 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 doesn’t 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.

- 111 -

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 won’t go into details as it’s 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:

- 112 -

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

- 113 -

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, it’s 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 Salmond’s EU claims” (Telegraph)  “Independence: Juncker deals blow to Scots EU plans” (Scotsman)  “Alex Salmond’s 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 Scotland’s EU place” (Financial Times)  “Better Together said the president’s comments make it clear that a Yes vote in the referendum would also be a vote to leave the EU.” (Herald)

Even BBC Scotland’s 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 Scotland’s 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 “Juncker’s 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 Scotland’s 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

- 114 -

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 Scotland’s 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 Scotland’s 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 it’s 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-Scott’s 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 don’t 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. Antony’s College, Oxford University, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, Brussels, and Honorary Director-General of the European Commission states that:  Arrangements for Scotland’s EU membership would need to be in place simultaneously with independence - 115 -

 Scotland’s 5 million people, having been members of the EU for 40 years; have acquired rights as European citizens  For practical and political reasons they could not be asked to leave the EU and apply for readmission  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 ‘won’t 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 Juncker’s 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 Scotland’s 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. It’s not legally possible. You want a certainty? There’s one right there. And as well as the legal impossibility, it’s 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, don’t 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" - 116 -

“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 UK’s unilateral demands to overhaul a huge number of EU rules (they haven’t agreed to the UK’s demands of late) and recklessness given the almost- childish threat that if the EU doesn’t 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 Juncker’s appointment to the top job in Brussels would make it harder to persuade the public to remain in the 28-nation bloc. Mr Cameron’s 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 isn’t 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. That’s 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 wasn’t keen

- 117 -

to support an EU President who was chosen by a majority of EU parliamentarians. There’s 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 eurozone’s impending banking union that threatens to isolate Britain and, ultimately, for a possible UK exit from the EU. “I’m 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 doesn’t 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

- 118 -

“Punching Above Our Weight” As mentioned in the last document, you hear this phrase that the UK “punches above our weight”. It’s 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 don’t 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 isn’t 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.”

- 119 -

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 wouldn’t get into the EU (and so the law wouldn’t 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 Together’s argument, would swamp the Scottish university system with English students looking for free education (after all they’re 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 wouldn’t.

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.

- 120 -

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

- 121 -

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 you’re 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 wouldn’t 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, isn’t 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 it’s 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? Isn’t 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. It’s 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 it’s 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

- 122 -

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

- 123 -

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 Government’s 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 they’ve 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 Scotland’s 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.

- 124 -

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 September’s referendum on Scottish independence. [...] Many analysts believe that the potential is much greater." (original article) And as already mentioned before, the Investors Chronicle isn’t exactly a renowned fount of Scottish-nationalist propaganda – for 150 years it’s been making its living out of telling the City of London how to get richer. If you want to find out what the UK’s wealthy elite REALLY think about the North Sea’s prospects, you won’t 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 Wood’s comment (mentioned above) that there is ONLY(?!?) 35 years of oil left in the North Sea. Specifically, as the BBC News website reported:

- 125 -

“A leading oil industry figure has claimed that the Scottish government’s 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 Wood’s 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 government’s 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 it’s 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 we’re 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 he’s disingenuously trying to pretend was actually the Scottish Government’s) and now – coincidentally at the exact same time he’s 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, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is minting money. The challenge? How to spend it all.”

But Scotland has been given a second chance. It’s 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 they’re 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.

- 126 -

Westminster has wasted the last 40 years of oil money with nothing to show for it, but it doesn’t 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 1960’s.

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 Scotland’s GDP per head excluding oil and gas is identical to that of the rest of the UK’s - oil and gas is a huge bonus which by voting for independence we can utilise instead of squandering it as has occurred under Westminster’s watch.”

And this article provides a video interview of Ian Wood stating “We’ve produced 41 billion barrels. If you look ahead, we could still produce another 25 billion barrels – at $100 a barrel, that’s $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.”

- 127 -

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 doesn’t 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  “HSBC’s 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

- 128 -

 “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)  “HSBC’s Flint apology over money laundering scandal” - Scotsman

You should bear these in mind when judging the impartiality of Douglas Flint’s 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

“Let’s 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 (“Let’s Stay together”). As this article here (“Trinny and Susannah Just Say Naw”) says: “I don’t know what’s 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 doesn’t 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

- 129 - articles here and here describe how some of those who are claiming to now love Scotland and don’t 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 Hitler’s’. 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.”

There’s 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?”

- 130 -

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 I’ve 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 ain’t personal. It’s political. And that’s 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 doesn’t 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 don’t 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 can’t implement its view unless it is independent.

5. You say that together, we have “a powerhouse of creativity that we don’t want to lose”. Artistic co-operation crosses borders, perhaps more than any other kind of international co- operation. Politics doesn’t 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.” It’s OK to feel that, but this says more about us than about the people of Scotland. If many Scots don’t feel British any more, there are probably some good reasons and perhaps we - 131 -

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 that’s 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 it’s 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? What’s most striking about the “Let’s 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.” It’s 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 - 132 -

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 wasn’t giant Scotlandshire-sized hoax, reality dawned that this was actually the substance of Better Together/No Thanks/UK:OK/United Together’s 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 wasn’t 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. It’s 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 society’s grievous problems, the No campaign comes up with Ronnie Corbett. While one in five of Scotland’s 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 isn’t an emotional debate, to ignore ‘Braveheart’ then this? As Dan Snow, husband to Lady Edwina Grosvenor, the second daughter of the 6th Duke of - 133 -

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 isn’t a love letter, it’s an insult.”

This article here writes: “Scotland has no currency, no money, it’s a huge financial risk (because of course, we’re a basket case), it’s cursed with resources it can’t 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, we’ve got gorgeous scenery, and we provide a tartan splash of colour that helps British nationalism pretend it’s not a form of nationalism at all.

Still, it was awfie nice of the two hundred slebs. It would maybe have been nicer if they’d signed an open letter to the Westminster Parliament telling them that they’re 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 it’s likely that our elected and unelected unrepresentatives would have slung them a deifie. [...]

The letter – well, I say letter, a paragraph doesn’t count as a letter. It’s more of a postcard – asks Scotland “not to leave this shared country of ours” and asks us to remember “the bonds of citizenship”. And there’s the problem right there. This is not a shared country, and I don’t 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, it’s not a sharing country. In the UK a small number enjoy access to wealth and privilege at the expense of the majority. That’s not sharing, it’s dispossession. For the majority of its citizens the UK is not a nation, it’s 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 there’s 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. There’s 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. That’s not a bond, that’s bondage.

It’s all very well to ask others to keep sharing when you’re one of the ones on the receiving end of the largesse. The two hundred slebs don’t put forward any political solutions to the ever widening social and economic chasms which disfigure the entire UK. Instead they’re making a call for inaction to the only people who are proposing to do something about this lamentable state of affairs. It’s like Labour’s suicide pact, sorry – Labour’s 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, we’re tired of being cynical, we’ve lived long enough with alienation. But although we are alienated from the Westminster Parliament, we are not alienated from each other. We’re cynical about the motives of the powerful and connected, we’re not cynical about our hopes and aspirations for dignity, equality, and justice. But we’ve learned that things will only change if we change them ourselves.

So don’t 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:

- 134 -

“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 , that’s 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, you’re 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:

- 135 -

This is simply another example of the desperation in Better Together’s arguments, taking certain figures and making an argument from them that is completely nonsensical.

There’s 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”

- 136 -

Funnily enough, as reported here, this unequivocal and unambiguous answer wasn’t published by the media to allay fears any readers may have had over Gordon Brown’s 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 they’re only “£3 billion a year”, even though they’ve 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. It’s heartbreaking that some Scots will decide the future of their children’s country on the basis of such utterly shameless, brazen, cynical, tribal, self-serving dishonesty. We don’t trust ourselves to say any more on the subject than that.”

- 137 -

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 it’s bad then it must be bad!

Perhaps Gordon Brown is simply making the Better Together campaign look ridiculous because he’s 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 Brown’s 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?”

- 138 -

But this spreading of lies isn’t 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 that’s 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, - 139 -

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? Here’s 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 there’s one thing we know about Alistair Carmichael, it’s that he always says the funniest things.

But seriously? Are the SNP only scaremongering about NHS privatisation? Well, to be fair, the Yes campaign aren’t the only ones “scaremongering” (warning actually) about NHS privatisation - UNISON are doing the same (see here):

- 140 -

Even Andy Burnham, Labour’s 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 can’t 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 wasn’t 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 Labour’s annual conference, Andy Burnham said that the Tory-led coalition’s 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 Clegg’s support to run the country.” - The Guardian, September 2013.

“David Cameron’s 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 Cameron’s 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.

“Cameron’s 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 public’s permission to put their NHS up for sale. If he is not stopped, the NHS will be broken up. That’s why the choice on the NHS at next year’s 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.

- 141 -

Suffer or pay – the same old choice in a two-tier Tory NHS. We’ve 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 what’s 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. That’s 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, it’s absolutely clear.” - Andy Burnham, Labour shadow health secretary, August 2014.

“Be warned – Cameron’s 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 government’s 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 - that’s how the Tories see the future of our NHS and that’s 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 can’t 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 - 142 - 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 it’s 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, it’s true that goods in Ireland are more expensive than they are in Britain. But Ireland’s per capita GDP is 16 per cent higher than the UK’s ($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 Canada’s 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 there’d 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 haven’t 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. Let’s crunch some numbers on that, shall we?

- 143 -

There are 2,372,780 households in Scotland, according to the last census in 2011. The number is increasing so it’s probably more now – let’s up it just a tiny bit to 2.4m to keep the figures neat.

For “at least three times”, let’s 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 let’s 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 we’d 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 they’ve 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. That’s just over 257 calls per person per day. In reality it’s far more, as lots of people will be out or engaged and you’ll have to try them more than once, but some will also be committed No voters who won’t take up much time, so let’s 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 aren’t in for 13 hours a day – they have to go to work, or college, or shopping, or whatever – so that’s a waste of time. Realistically your window for catching most people at home, assuming you don’t want to harass them at 11 o’clock 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. That’s 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 Don’t Know’s mind with compelling arguments about invasion from North Korea and whatnot.

But wait – as we see from the image above, BT’s 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 that’s no bad thing. Besides, it’s not that simple to block the BBC – yes the transmitters may stop broadcasting it but it’s unlikely Virgin or Sky will stop broadcasting it, given Sky and Virgin’s 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 that’s 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 didn’t say that? Well, Scottish Conservatives leader Ruth Davidson certainly did (as reported here), claiming that Scotland wouldn’t 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. - 144 -

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 ISP’s 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, it’s very unlikely any of the ISPs will undertake the significant cost of redesigning their network just to placate the BBC (who haven’t yet asked for it to be done anyway).

And as the article states “We’re 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 Corporation’s 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 I’m 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 hadn’t been captured so the abuse he gave the crowd wasn’t recorded). However, as this article here points out (“Jim Murphy’s Hecklers Reveal True Danger for Labour”), it’s the heckling itself in a very Labour town that’s most interesting: “We’ve 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

- 145 - do very little to gain Scottish votes came back to haunt Labour in 2011. Yet despite Labour’s unsuccessful election campaign in 2011, where the electorate reiterated their displeasure of Labour, Labour still didn’t 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 party’s ills on the “Nats”.

Which brings us to Jim Murphy and his hecklers. The people who heckled Jim Murphy weren’t, 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, I’d 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 can’t 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 don’t 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 Labour’s ‘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. - 146 -

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 Labour’s current strategy and Scotland just won’t 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 Murphy’s 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 won’t 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. It’s 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

- 147 - 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 Scotland’s interests, but what is in his own or his party’s interests." I think Anas needs to go back to school and learn what democracy means – I guess his memory is so poor he doesn’t remember what it’s 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) “there’s 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 doesn’t 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 that’s where we belong, obviously) bemoaning her husband boring on about the referendum. Because, you know, politics is boring. You should find it boring, because you’re a woman. Politics is for the menz. Women don’t pay any attention to politics after all do we? She can’t even remember the name of our First Minister, you know the one the country elected with a majority, he’s just ‘that guy aff the telly’. That politics, it’s all so very far above our engagingly fluff-and-kitten-filled heads. We’d 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 they’re much better than talking to knowledgable people and making up your mind based on hard well-researched fact. Besides, we’re 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)

- 148 -

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: ‘It’s 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 I’m sure you’ll remember if you’re 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. - 149 -

But why would Better Together prefer you didn’t know about one of their biggest donators? Well, we’ve already met Ian Taylor before but for those with a short memory:

- 150 -

“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 can’t be volunteers if they’re paid) to canvass for them (see here and below)

- 151 -

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:

- 152 -

Even the BBC had difficulty finding any “ordinary” mums after it resorted to interviewing her on BBC Breakfast on the 18th 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 Yvonne’s 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).

- 153 -

Here is Yvonne on the Better Together website:

And here she is with someone rather famous (or infamous) in independence referendum circles:

- 154 -

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 Yvonne’s 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:

- 155 -

Furthermore, as this article reports (the extract is almost the full article and it’s 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 I’m 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 we’d 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 she’s rather less likely to achieve as a Scot if Scotland is no longer part of the UK.

- 156 -

Here’s 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.

- 157 -

Then there’s ordinary student Marian Craig from Paisley.

Caught in a casual moment when she’s not working as a research assistant to Labour MSP Mary Fee, shadow housing minister.

- 158 -

Who could be more ordinary than unemployed graduate Alan Grant from Stirling?

After all, which of us HASN’T spent a few years as a spokesman for the University of Stirling Conservative Society, trying to preserve every aspect of the UK’s political status quo? (Basically he just hates anything with “Yes” in it.)

Next up is ordinary full-time mum Leanne Williams from Galston.

- 159 -

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 he’s retired from is being a Lib Dem councillor. He was suspended for breaching the Councillor’s Code Of Conduct over a planning application in 2011.

- 160 -

There’s 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, she’ll get some sympathy from ordinary Greg Williams, oil worker from Aberdeen.

- 161 -

As he actually managed to secure a Labour candidacy in 2011, though he lost out to the SNP’s 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.

- 162 -

Ordinary Conor McElwaine, a student from Dundee, has no such experiences.

Although given that he’s the Chair of Scottish Young Labour, as well as the President of Dundee Labour Students, you wouldn’t be all that surprised if it was on his to-do list.

- 163 -

In the future, Conor might find himself sparring with ordinary Kyle Thornton.

It doesn’t seem too implausible that their paths could cross one day, given that Kyle is Secretary of the Glasgow University Conservative Association.

- 164 -

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.

- 165 -

…who is the same body’s vice-chairperson.

We could go on and on, folks. But we imagine you’ve 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:

- 166 -

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: “there’s nothing worse for a parent than your children seeing people as foreigners. We’re sure that Ed’s Belgian father and Polish mother would agree.

Marion Miliband (née Kozak) was a Polish Jew who survived the Holocaust, which according to the Labour leader’s fellow registered No campaigner Alistair McConnachie never happened (see The Guardian). She was also an Eastern European immigrant, who almost certainly wouldn’t have been allowed into Britain if Miliband’s other No-camp allies UKIP had any say in it.

You’d 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 Labour’s anti-independence campaign, it’d 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 Brown’s 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, doesn’t 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, Labour’s 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 don’t have to live in

- 167 -

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 don’t have ambition for Scotland, don’t care enough to grant it independence, don’t 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. Tom’s article drips with implied contempt and reveals how it isn’t 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 year’s 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. She’s 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 can’t 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 can’t 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 wouldn’t 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.

- 168 -

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 children’s circumstances and any changes to the law which may be made by a Parliament, which hasn’t 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, it’s inconceivable that two separate countries wouldn’t 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 we’re all anti-English, just weeks after Darling agreed that the SNP was driven by “blood and soil nationalism”.

(Although they’re 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 there’s an even more obvious one.

Because there are essentially two kinds of immigrants – legal ones and illegal ones. Anyone who’s 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

- 169 -

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 Hadrian’s Wall erected across the border by the rUK, then, would and could achieve absolutely nothing. Even if Scotland had taken in 10 million immigrants, they’d 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 don’t obey the law, an independent Scotland’s immigration policy would be completely irrelevant. (Also, if you’re 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 we’ll 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 don’t like Scottish foreigners either. At least I think that’s the logic. It’s hard to tell with Westminster PE teachers. They’re not really renowned for joined up thinking.

Because it certainly can’t 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 there’s no passport controls between the UK and Ireland, what with them being a part of a Common Travel Area. And it can’t be the foreigner thing either in Ireland’s 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 “we’re just spiteful gimps in suits” as the reason for the Scottish border controls, which doesn’t 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 they’re 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. It’s a wee fantasy the Eds want to scare us with. They want us to take off our trousers and run at their command. But let’s 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, let’s 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 they’ve 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 UK’s EU obligations and opt outs with Brussels. Meanwhile the other EU countries are going “Oh look we’ve got shiny new ways to put pressures on Westminster that we couldn’t use before.” Way to go to strengthening your negotiating position with Angela and François, Ed.”

- 170 -

And when it’s not those in England becoming “foreign”, it’s Scotland becoming a foreign country, again as if that’s 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 we’d 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, children’s clothing, education, food, books.”

Besides, this is kind of insulting given the Tories have already discussed placing 15% VAT on food and children’s clothing according to this Daily Mirror article “Now Tories want to slap VAT on food and children’s clothes and RAISE tax on energy bills”

Yes Campaign Vs No Campaign

I’m 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 - 171 - it’ll 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”, “UK’s 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 “UK’s 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 UK’s “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 isn’t 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 don’t 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).

- 172 -

On the other hand, Scotland is scolded like a child or a submissive spouse that if it leaves the union it won’t get to keep the pound, rUK will erect border posts, it won’t 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 we’ll 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 you’re told or you’ll be punished just isn’t the language of the caring friend, at least none I want to know.”

The author of this article doesn’t 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:

- 173 -

"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:  You’ll 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  We’ll All Be Murdered By Terrorists…  …And Even If You Only Get Injured You’ll Bleed To Death  Women All Over The World Will Be Raped  You Won’t Be Allowed To Listen To British Music…  …And You Won’t Feel As Connected To Tennis At Wimbledon  We’ll Have To Drive On The Other Side Of The Road  You’ll Never Win The Lottery  England Will Build A New Hadrian’s Wall  You’ll Need A Passport To Go To Garelochhead  Orkney And Shetland Will Form A Breakaway Country  Nobody Will Know Scotland’s International Dialling Code…  …And You Won’t Be Able To Afford Phone Calls Anyway  You Won’t Get Any Holidays Ever  We Might Have To Get A Weird-Looking New Queen  We’ll Be Barred From Joining The Eu…  …But We’ll Have To Pay The Eu A Fortune, As We’ll Be Too Rich  You Won’t Be Able To Watch ‘Strictly Come Dancing’…  …Or ‘Doctor Who’  We’ll Get Nuked And Nobody Will Care  Your Pension Will Be Slashed  Your Friends And Relatives Will Become Foreign  We Won’t 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 Scotland’s 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”

- 174 -

 “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 Salmond’s European Dream”  “Scotland’s 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 Scotland’s brands“  “Scottish independence ‘would harm world’s 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 15th 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 Salmond’s dream” – except he didn’t. “Our children will have to go on a waiting list for GOSH” – except they won’t. “We won’t be allowed to use the pound” – except we will. “We won’t be allowed back into the EU” – except we won’t be leaving in the first place. “The SNP’s ‘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 didn’t. “Alex Salmond ducked out of debate with Darling” – except he didn’t. “Mark Carney said currency union impossible” – except he didn’t. “A currency union requires a single government” – except it doesn’t. “The UK doesn’t build warships abroad” – except it does. “The UK won’t share its embassies – except it ALREADY shares embassies in multiple countries. “We’ll lose our pensions” – except we won’t.

- 175 -

- 176 -

There’s more about the Tesco response to Better Together’s 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 Scotland’s 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 industry’s 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 don’t even hear a dredger.’

- 177 -

Since the destruction of most of Glasgow’s 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 it’s all mobile phone shops and takeaways. There used to be queues out the door.’

It is not simply that people’s shopping habits have changed, but that many more cannot shop at all. ‘A lot of people have lost their jobs so they don’t have the money to spend. You hear about more and more people going to food banks.’

‘It’s getting drummed into the young ones to get an education,’ says Love. ‘But my nephew went to the University of Dundee and now he’s 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 they’re 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 he’s 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 don’t 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.

- 178 -

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 can’t 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”

- 179 -

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 “We’re #YesBecause we want to see Scotland prosper”):

And for the union (it’s all about winning a “war” for Labour):

- 180 -

George Galloway One of the surprising “stars” of the unionist campaign has been George Galloway – just when everyone thought he’d 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 don’t want him associated with them) that there’s 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 5th November (and it’s telling it’s 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 George’s 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, Scotland’s 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, it’s 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).

- 181 -

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 it’s 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 Mundell’s) which has helpfully been annotated with some clarification:

- 182 -

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 “dishonest”after 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, we’ve 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."

- 183 -

What about Alex Salmond? Well, there isn’t much to report. For anyone that thinks they can’t trust him and so are voting No (because they obviously trust the British political class before one of their own), Alex

- 184 -

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 you’ll see Alasdair Darling donate any of his substantial MPs salary, speaker’s 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. I’ve been in the SNP for donkey’s 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 WON’T 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 Darling’s performance. For example, it is recommended you read this article in full as it’s very good and any one extract doesn’t 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 - 185 - 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 Don’t Knows. And what the poll discovered is that among voters who’d 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 couldn’t 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 couldn’t 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

- 186 -

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 you’re 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 (“What’s 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 Darling’s 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)

- 187 -

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 I’ve 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.

- 188 -

"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 - 189 -

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 UK’s 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 EU’s 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 UK’s “financial standing” – is also spurious given its recent downgrade in credit rating and the fact that Scotland’s 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. Don’t 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 wouldn’t change the fact that Scotland is completely capable of making it’s own decisions in all areas of public policy – if - 190 -

we already deal with education, health, criminal justice and a range of other areas then why on earth would we believe that we aren’t 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 today’s 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 that’s 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 don’t 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 “won’t 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 didn’t use the pound Sterling then that would create a great big black hole in the balance of payments and I’m pretty sure I heard an economics expert say that without Scotland, the pound would take a tumble. So not so sure about that one……perhaps they should change the wording to “just might be possible?” After all, one of the coalition cabinet ministers said it “just might be possible”, didn’t 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 don’t 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”??? Hasn’t 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 doesn’t that starting gun go off before 2016? When thinking about that, the words “Housing bubble” just popped into my head. Hasn’t Mark Carney the governor of the Bank of England written to George Osborne about the dangers of another housing crisis? The United Kingdom’s headline economic figures may be looking okay at the moment but if built on a housing bubble, won’t that be a little short lived? The words “just as our economy is starting to take off.” are perhaps a little over confident, don’t you think?…..And what about

- 191 - that public debt of £1.37 trillion? Doesn’t 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 you’re going to make an argument about “More businesses and jobs”, shouldn’t 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….let’s see…..Scotland has 8.4% of the population so I’ll 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” doesn’t 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”, shouldn’t the argument cover what those thousands of people actually do? I mean, doesn’t Scotland do more than financial services? And yet again, are the UK government in this leaflet telling us that there won’t 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 doesn’t matter what the government say. Just like any business person, I don’t care where the bits are that I need to operate my business come from, just so long as they’re available and don’t take too long to arrive. On this one I have to say that if that’s 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 don’t 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! They’re taking donations to the local foodbank! How nice of them. But wait a minute…there’s a label attached to the picture and that says, “By staying in the United Kingdom. your money is safe and goes further.” But if they’re going to the foodbank, doesn’t that mean that a sizeable chunk of the population haven’t got any money? Otherwise they wouldn’t have to go in the first place. Let’s 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”, that’s dreadfully unfair isn’t it? Shouldn’t we aspire to more? Shouldn’t 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 don’t think so.

“Cheaper bills The United Kingdom’s 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 Scotland’s 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, that’s the UK government saying that if you opt for independence, because your tiny little country won’t have any credit history, your mortgage or your car loan will rocket in cost of repayments. And they’re saying that because of the “United Kingdom’s financial standing”. But that can’t be true. Didn’t the big credit reference agency Fitch - 192 - downgrade the UK where it lost it’s AAA credit rating? And didn’t the other big credit reference agency “Standard & Poors”say that after the analysis they had done on an independent Scotland without the oil, that they’d give us their highest credit rating due to Scotland’s 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? It’s 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. It’s added onto your gas and electric bill and yet you live in Scotland that doesn’t have to buy from abroad. That’s unfair isn’t it? It’s 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 we’ve had a UK govt that are positively anti-renewables so I’ll stick with the Scottish governments plan to invest in our own renewables and re-industrialise Scotland into the bargain. I’ll 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 don’t 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 that’s talked of. Perhaps the other thing I should tell you is that three of those people live in England. Personally, I’d rather see banks and building societies that didn’t 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 doesn’t it? Now what about State pensions….they would in fact be safer in an independent Scotland because we’re in a much better position financially than the rest of the UK. Please don’t forget that the UK has an enormous £1.37 trillion in public debt. Now it doesn’t 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, aren’t 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 we’d 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. That’s according to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). So that sixth position would be subdivided somewhat and it’s very telling that it’s the rUK that drops 8 places more than Scotland due to Scotland’s exporting muscle. We really are that loaded. Now let’s put the bank bailout thing to bed…Taking 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 wouldn’t 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.” It’s quite apparent that Scotland would have dealt with the banks just as well but perhaps we’d have taken a different path. Iceland handled it well, didn’t they? They bailed out no one, jailed the bankers and the politicians connected with them and now they’re on the up and up. They’re doing much better now than most countries - 193 - 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 we’ve 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 that’s their big pitch for getting folk to vote no is well, laughable.

“Lower taxes, higher public spending. As part of the United Kingdom, Scotland’s 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 isn’t money gifted to us by a benevolent Westminster, no, it’s a loan. We get a block grant each year and then the UK treasury adds around £17 Billion to our bottom line. That’s for things spent on Scotland’s behalf but not on Scotland. It’s 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 it’s way if we were an independent country. At the moment we live under Westminster rule, it’s like going to a restaurant and getting a huge service charge added to the bill. Are we that daft? No not really, it’s just that we can’t 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 that’ll only make it as far as Leeds or Manchester and a few more projects which don’t touch Scotland, that bottom line payment is going to get bigger. In other words the service charge is going to cripple us. And then there’s 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. Who’s 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 you’re standing. The M25 motorway around London is being widened whereas the M8 “Motorway” between Glasgow and Edinburgh which are two of Scotland’s 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?, Don’t 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 - 194 - from Westminster. The formula used to calculate what we get to spend is called the Barnett formula. That formula looks as if it’s going to be dropped and we’ll 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 won’t 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 Majesty’s 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 Treasury’s 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. Let’s savour this one and vote yes. This will go down as one of the biggest laughs when we look back and remember.

Next page……awww a woman holding a sleeping baby and she’s smiling, however, what that’s got to do with the strapline which says, “By staying in the United Kingdom, Scotland has a strong voice in the world.” I don’t mean to be unkind here but the only connection I can possibly make is that someday after the child has grown up, perhaps it’ll 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 Scotland’s 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 isn’t 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 Kingdom’s 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 there’s a picture next to that paragraph on the leaflet which is most definitely a British Passport. I haven’t held one of those for years, I hasten to add that I do have a passport but it’s 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 don’t forget Scotland will have its own embassies. The UK have a head start of a few hundred years but I’m sure we’ll 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, haven’t they? And yet the UK Government, almost in the middle of a firefight with the Taliban - 195 - 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 we’re an independent nation.

“Help for the world’s 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 I’m 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 that’s needed right here and now? The term “help for the world’s poorest” is getting dangerously close to including folk that live in our own country. No I’m 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. That’s 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??? It’s 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 it’s 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 “money’s 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 EU’s “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 I’ve read, we’ll 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 we’ll be in the Commonwealth. There, what’s missing? Oh yes the G7, 8 and 20. Well taking that Scotland will be 14th richest in the world – that’s right now if we were independent, then why wouldn’t 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 wouldn’t an independent Scotland be part of that?

- 196 -

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 wouldn’t a re-industrialised Scotland be in it? It’s 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 we’ll form other allegiances in the future such as with the other Scandinavian countries. We’ll see. At least we’ll 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 Scotland’s 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. That’s the core of the lie. Protect Scottish interests? Don’t 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? It’s 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 doesn’t tell you is that the guy on the left is on a zero hours contract, he’s just turned up for work and has been told that he’ll have to go home because they’ve 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 doesn’t earn enough to keep her and her children with a roof over their heads and food on the table. She’s looking to see if there’s 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 he’s fit for work and are stopping his payments.

There you go, conjecture applied to a photograph, but I’ll bet you that if you go to work places throughout Britain, you’ll 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 world’s 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 - 197 - 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. That’s how it’s been with Westminster in charge all the way along. Are we daft? No, we just can’t 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? I’ve had a good look at that. There’s always been the capability to raise taxes in Holyrood. The Labour Govt didn’t use them and they could have. Why not? It’s simple really, there wouldn’t 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. That’s 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 we’ll get all the powers we need and we won’t have the embarrassment of asking for more powers and being turned down again and again.

“We all benefit from being together Collectively, the United Kingdom’s 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? It’s 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. It’s a shame that we don’t get to enjoy the fruits of our labours though, isn’t it? Just think, all that money being frittered away on items such as the bar bill in the House of Commons and they wouldn’t 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, won’t they? They’ll have secured the gravy train from Scotland for another generation. Don’t 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 - 198 -

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”, it’s the UK Government that have much more to gain out of that deal and it’s us that’ll 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 it’s got can muster then frankly I think it’s fair to say that I don’t feel the love. This was an exercise in “say something, say anything” and I can’t imagine that people would get taken in when they look at the reality of what’s 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 isn’t 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 couldn’t 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 can’t be paid off. If Ed Balls ends up as Chancellor, just like everyone else, he’ll play politics for a while and then realise he’ll have to go cap in hand to the money markets and restructure the debt. When that happens, if we’re sensible enough, we’ll 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, we’ll have a country to rebuild and we’re 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?

It’s 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 Cameron’s 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).

- 199 -

 “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

What’s 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 didn’t 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 don’t 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 weren’t liked much either by the armed forces:

- 200 -

It wasn’t 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:

- 201 -

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 government’s 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)

- 202 -

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 Ukip’s 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 hasn’t 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 - 203 - 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 we’ll 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 it’s 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

- 204 -

It seems Ian Not-so-Smart was playing tar-the-SNP bingo here because he’s 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 brother’s 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 don’t think he’s 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)

- 205 -

As reported in this BBC article, here and here, Labour’s 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. You’ll never hear the SNP attacking the voters of any of the Unionist parties. You’ll 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):

- 206 -

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)

- 207 -

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

- 208 -

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)

- 209 -

And when they’re not calling supporters for independence Nazis or English-haters, well, they’re 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 hasn’t 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 wouldn’t 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. That’s 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.

- 210 -

Better Together Funding Despite Alasdair Darling’s 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 Scotland’s 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 Hussein’s 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 Britain’s 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 Party’s biggest donors is in negotiations to finance a Russian oil company targeted by US sanctions against President Putin. Vitol, the world’s 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

- 211 -

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 McDougall’s “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 we’re sure he’s a top-hole fellow despite being apparently the only non-lord in the group. We hope the others don’t mock him too much for being an oik.

- 212 -

More information on who donated how much to the Better Together campaign:

This Guardian article claims Better Together’s “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.”

- 213 -

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.

- 214 -

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 you’re voting yes, you have freed yourself from the shackles of a future that’s determined for you by people whose interests are not your own. You’ve realised that there are different paths to tread, different destinations to strive for. You’re independent already, and you already live in a Scotland that Westminster cannot deliver. Live independently in your own head, and you’re 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. It’s 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 don’t 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

- 215 - 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 Herald’s and the Courier’s) thought to even passingly reference Professor Sir Donald Mackay’s 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 Donald’s 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 4’s dispatches. However, aside from the fact that the existing head of the SWA stated he experienced no intimidation whatsoever, the episode revealed how it wasn’t deemed acceptable for heads of business to feel intimidated (understandably as long as they’re 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.

- 216 -

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 Israel’s actions in Gaza have been under-reported in a similar manner to the demonstrations outside BBC Scotland’s 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, I’m 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 gentleman’s pro-union outburst would have come as no surprise to the program makers, or most certainly shouldn’t 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 BBC’s, 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." - 217 -

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 it’s Westminster – the home of democracy – against upstarts in Edinburgh or Cardiff, there is no contest. It’s as if we don’t have the right to challenge, that it is an affront to right-minded people…that 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 isn’t intimidation, what is? We will put up a border with guards…we will refuse to buy your electricity…we will deny you access to your currency…we will bar you from membership of NATO…each 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 he’s dodging a question. But he wasn’t. She sounded very indignant indeed that the British government made clear complex warships will not be built outside the rUK and it didn’t matter what a pipsqueak from the SNP said, that was that. They’ve 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 it’s 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 Minister’s 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 won’t 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 parliament’s 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.....

- 218 -

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 doesn’t 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.”

- 219 -

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 mayor’s 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 Scotland’s GDP.

- 220 -

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 isn’t just careless, it’s deceptive since in order to gauge the reality of Scotland’s 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 Scotland’s 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 doesn’t look in very good shape, with the tattered edge. Subtle but negative nonetheless.

- 221 -

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 won’t 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 Together’s 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 it’s 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 it’s how it has been reported by the BBC that’s 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 Donald’s 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. - 222 -

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.

- 223 -

But then it doesn’t 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 person’s’ 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 there’s 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 don’t doubt the sincerity of these people. I feel for them, because I think they’ve 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 Border’s dubious grassroots credentials and gloomy message, there’s the rather glaring issue of their name. Unlike the real No Borders, they only object to one border – Scotland’s. The UK’s 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.

- 224 -

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 isn’t immune from presenting news stories as detrimental against independence even when they’re 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 “It’s 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 doesn’t 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 won’t 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.

- 225 -

“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 SNP’s 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, it’s 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 Scotland’s consumption for up to 320 years.

Another Times article mentioned in the same piece above referred to an independent Scotland’s 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)

- 226 -

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 Hunter’s almost-impenetrable digital-only effort), the press saw nothing at all newsworthy about a 72-page book that’s 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 we’d actually missed a feature in last weekend’s 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.

- 227 -

A book of errors is a new gospel Ben Borland

IT USED to be only Jehovah’s 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. It’s 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 Government’s 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, they’re a long way from Bath. But we weren’t aware that there was a shortage of outlets interviewing politicians, economists or businesspeople. That angle seems to be covered more than adequately already. (Also, didn’t you say we weren’t religious?) - 228 -

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 man’s personal opinion to decide how to vote in the referendum.

No, what they’re using are the facts. We’re just the messenger. It’s a quite appalling and condescending slur on half the population of Scotland to suggest that they’d 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. It’s 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”.

That’s not a contradiction at all. We explain it very clearly in the book – Scotland contributes more than its proportionate share to the UK’s coffers, and the “extra spending” is in fact debt taken out by Westminster in Scotland’s 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.

It’s 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 campaign’s most repeated scare story is that an independent Scotland wouldn’t 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 couldn’t 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 couldn’t 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 SNP’s 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 hasn’t. As it happened we’d 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?

- 229 -

“Military” enemies, you dimwit. The word’s 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. They’re well-equipped terrorists, and you can’t 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 NATO’s, specifically the UK’s – “substantially” increased the risk of terrorist attack. If Scotland doesn’t share UK foreign policy, it doesn’t have to share the same enemies, even if it’s in NATO.

I could go on, but I think I hear somebody at the door. Ah yes, it’s 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 Jehovah’s Witnesses? “I am stark naked, and I am opening the door in five, four, three…”

Blah blah. So there isn’t in fact a single “glaring mistake” that’s been identified by the article, nor a “contradiction” either. But still, it’s flattering that they sent their top man for the job. Even if that’s not, in the Express’s 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 didn’t devote this double- spread to actually reporting plans B, C, D, etc instead of the usual scaremongering, which sounded suspiciously similar to Better Together’s screams of “Where’s Plan B?”

Another article here discusses how the Scottish Sun claims that the First Minister has finally “admitted” that independence won’t 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 they’ve been doing for the last 14 months.

“This is a great opportunity, a historic opportunity. If we vote Yes, then we’ve 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 won’t all be perfect [and I] daresay we’ll 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 isn’t straightforward – building a better country isn’t be the work of a day. Nothing is going to be handed to us on a plate. - 230 -

Independence isn’t about waking up one day with three taps labelled whisky, oil and water.

It’s 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 country’s 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: ‘I’ve never argued that. I suspect we’ll never have no problems, but I’m 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 isn’t (just) cheap, snarky point-scoring about the stupefying incompetence of other journalists. It’s 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 we’ve 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 won’t 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 country’s leader so that it can then trumpet any polls showing that erosion (as the Sun’s sister paper The Times does today, getting excited about Salmond’s trust rating plunging from 36% to a shocking, er, 35%).

“Was that really so difficult, First Minister?”, bleats the Sun’s editorial piously. Well, no, it probably wasn’t. It didn’t seem to be difficult when he did it in June 2013. It wasn’t difficult when he did it again in January 2014, or once more in June 2014.

So we can’t 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 didn’t 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 - 231 -

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 700th 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 700th 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 couldn’t 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 it’s 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. It’s only been three years since Scotland had a turn (Edinburgh in 2011), and Northern Ireland still hasn’t 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 doesn’t 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 aren’t our friends? Oops!

Glasgow Commonwealth Games

- 232 -

The Commonwealth games had been a great success in Glasgow and it’s 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 shouldn’t be used in the campaign for or against independence. However, it didn’t 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):

- 233 -

And most strikingly of all, the BBC website’s 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 Scotland’s 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 2nd August:

- 234 -

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 can’t 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, it’s 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 UK’s 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. - 235 -

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 Scotland’s 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

- 236 -

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 “I’m waking up to this nonsense.. journalist please don’t create lies to make headlines”. Was this printed just to make sure that those in Scotland didn’t 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 Scotland’s "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):

- 237 -

- 238 -

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 - 239 - we’ve 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. We’ve 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 DON’T 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 DON’T 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 that’d be quite a serious matter – or he’s a bumbling oaf who doesn’t have the remotest clue what he’s 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 you’re 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 they’d 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 it’s 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 doesn’t 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 it’d be clearly untrue and they’d 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 WOULDN’T 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 1970’s 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.”

- 240 -

But perhaps this is all paranoia? Surely the UK government wouldn’t 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 we’ll 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:

- 241 -

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 Darling’s No campaign, internet trolls – so-called ‘cybernats’ – called her a ‘bitch’, provoking outrage. Surely he can’t blame Salmond for that? He goes close. ‘It’s up to the people at the head of the campaign to set the tone. It’s a degree of unpleasantness that is profoundly un-Scottish.” It’s as if he’s 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 didn’t).

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 Scott’s 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:

- 242 -

 “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 country’s 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 it’s worth reading in its entirety, here’s 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”.

- 243 -

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.

- 244 -

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 Westminster’s 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 “That’s 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 doesn’t’ 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 – it’s 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.

- 245 -

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 can’t 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. “Don’t leave us” you cry “I think we are better together" It doesn’t 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. That’s 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 don’t 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!” “It’s 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 don’t 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

- 246 -

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 don’t 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 didn’t 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. I’m sure that my No voting friends don’t 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 I’m sure that all of us, whatever side we’re 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 I’ve 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 can’t go home when it’s 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.

- 247 -

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 didn’t vote for them.

Well, you won’t be able to say that any more.

Up until September the 18th, we have all been able to hide behind all that being someone else’s 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 peace…or 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 weren’t 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 can’t. You’re stuck along with the rest of us.

Except of course, we’re going to be really, really annoying about it. We’re going to make you feel bad. We will be unbearable. Every single day, we’ll 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. That’s the way it’s 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 didn’t 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 on…is that fair? We can’t be expected to have thought all that through before it happens!

Well…Think 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 Scotland’s bluff. To settle and silence the “Scottish question” for a generation.

- 248 -

(That won’t work, obviously, but that’s 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 won’t 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 we’ve 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 you’ve said to other side; “whatever you want to do is fine with us”?

There I go again…being divisive…talking about “the other side”.

Well, take a listen to the mutterings of the backbenchers from those English and Welsh constituencies who haven’t had the bargaining position we’ve had, that bargaining position you’re 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 wasn’t 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 don’t have the guts to fuck off.

A replacement for Trident? You don’t want that? Shut Up. A slashing of consequential health spending as privatisation of the NHS in England and Wales speeds up? You don’t 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, it’s terrible. But it’s not our fault. We’re not responsible. We didn’t 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 can’t influence to do whatever they like with it.

- 249 -

I hope you’re 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 you’d 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 won’t 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 aren’t powers at all, but huge burdens which will cripple the Scottish budget. But what Arnott’s 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 we’ve suffered a democratic deficit by voting for one party and getting another as the government, because we’ll have said loudly and clearly that we’re 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 we’re 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, we’ll 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 we’ll have meekly given it permission in perpetuity.

- 250 -

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, there’s only one that will fit.

I’d be ashamed of my country; I’d 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.

I’ll feel that way, and I’ll believe it, because of one thing above all; it’s what the ‘NO Campaign’ have told us. It doesn’t 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’, they’re all the same, backed by London or City interests, funded by Tory donors and peers.

I’ll feel ashamed because the ‘NO’ campaign has continually demanded certainties from those who’d choose a better direction - and let’s face it any direction we choose is better than one forced or foisted upon us from afar. I’ll feel ashamed because these people have the power, right now, to provide the certainties they demand of the positive message.

I’m 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 we’re 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, CBE’s and OBE’s, 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. They’re nothing other than the paid lackey’s of a London establishment that daren’t even engage - 251 -

publically in our debate, a debate which wouldn’t 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 country’s people will have bought into such a negative message, such a song devoid of hope and aspiration that I can only imagine they’ve forgotten what it means to be Scots. In a dependent Scotland a dirge will be top of the pops.

I’ll 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 I’m ashamed you saw the need to mark that particular box.

You see, the reason for my feelings won’t be immediately apparent on the 18th, but on the days, weeks, months and years afterwards.

It’s 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, there’s only one result, and it’s not a good one.

I can guarantee, that there’ll be a dearth of folks to proudly proclaim they voted NO in the years to come, they’ll not sit with their children and grandchildren, they’ll 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 don’t need me to be ashamed for you, because the next time an English government, for with over 80% of the seats in the Commons, that’s what it is, an English government; the next time one of them foists something on you or yours that you despise, I know you’ll look back ruefully, and you’ll wish you’d acted differently on that day. I know that then though, you’ll 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, it’s called freedom. To have it filtered by another parliament in another country where you have naught but the tiniest of voices, it’s 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 it’s finally time for me to say this. I’ve been mealy-mouthed and temperate for a while, but I’m 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 - 252 - 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 it’s fine to tell the rest of the world they can’t 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 won’t 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 can’t, 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 won’t be totally crucified in the event of a NO victory next month, if you wave a flag that claims to speak for Britain but doesn’t 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 didn’t 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 Salmond’s 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 Let’s 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 can’t 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 can’t, if you think that other countries who welcomed independence wouldn’t have given their right arms for the oil we have when they were starting out, if you think we won’t 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 can’t 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 can’t 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 - 253 - 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 won’t have to give up, we couldn’t deal with a currency change when we’ve 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 can’t 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 don’t do things because you’re 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 can’t do it!” before sitting mutely and meekly back down again will somehow not become a global laughingstock, if you honestly think you won’t 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 don’t question your political beliefs, I don’t question your motivations and I don’t 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 don’t. We don’t have to defend them. You’re the ones who should be defending your beliefs. If you don’t believe in basic human rights, if you don’t believe in democracy, if you choose to uphold privilege and royalty over equality and justice, then it’s 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 I’m 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 - 254 -

you and your miserable beliefs until the breath leaves my body. Do you understand what that means? Do you?

It means that you’ve 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. It’s 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?” - 255 -

“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 can’t be trusted with a box of fireworks, let alone a fleet of nuclear submarines? You would conclude that it had lost its senses.

So what’s the difference? How is the argument altered by the fact that Scotland is considering whether to gain independence rather than whether to lose it? It’s 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 they’re 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 world’s prosperous nations are small: there are no inherent disadvantages to downsizing.

Remaining in the UK carries as much risk and uncertainty as leaving. England’s 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 Ukip’s 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 - 256 -

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 pound’s 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 world’s 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 people’s 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?

- 257 -

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"? - 258 -

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:

- 259 -

 "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

- 260 -

 "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 jobseeker’s 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 Glasgow’s 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

- 261 -

 “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 “UK’s 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 Government’s 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.

- 262 -

- 263 -

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)

- 264 -

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

- 265 -

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):

- 266 -

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”

- 267 -

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 party’s 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 you’re thinking, “hang on, maybe they’re 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 hadn’t 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

- 268 -

“'Heartless and callous' Tories block £3m European Union fund to feed the hungry and poor” – see The Mirror

- 269 -

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. It’s 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 I’m still seeing it pop up on Twitter) by claiming that “Food banks are not a sign of the UK’s 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. It’s hard to know what to expect when you walk through the doors for the first time. It wasn’t a sad looking place. It was a warehouse. A working warehouse. There were no Saatchi-esque ‘Labour Isn’t 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. It’s enough to get by on if you have to, but it’s 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. It’s nobody’s fault. People just don’t 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 - 270 -

me that people wouldn’t 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 child’s eyes light up as he was given a small bar of chocolate, seemingly the first he’d 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 doesn’t 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, what’s 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 BBC2’s Newsnight programme shows the Westminster Government have been misleading Scotland and several English regions on the project’s economic impact. London’s 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 Westminster’s 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 Aberdeen’s 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, Scotland’s people represent 8.4% of the country’s population but contributed 9.9% of the UK’s 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?

- 271 -

HS2 was approved by the No Campaign’s 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 don’t 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 there’s 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 (they’re 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 lion’s 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 wouldn’t have to if the rUK refuses a currency union) and before Boris Johnson’s £1.3 trillion wish list is included. If you include both these then the savings are worth over £300 billion to Scotland ALONE.

- 272 -

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 we’re straight back to where we were, prior to the crash. With the return to growth starting to pile on the debt once more, we’re 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 he’s 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 - 273 -

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

- 274 -

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 Scotland’s 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 England’s 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” – he’s 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 it’s our turn. Hate the poor? Hate the Disabled? Hate the Foreign? Hate the Scots! He expects that we’ll 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. Today’s 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. Wales’s most disadvantaged communities are particular losers from the current spending settlement.”

He goes on to make his push for UKIP to push the Tories…who will then pish the other British parties. As follows:

“Until now the Conservatives haven’t 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 England’s tummy. He smokes. He drinks pints. And he’s called Nigel Farage. He does even less well in Scotland than the Tories. He’s got nothing to lose by wrapping himself in the St George’s 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 COWARDLY…Jocks the hardest.”

- 275 -

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…..

- 276 -

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 it’s 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 isn’t 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 Labour’s 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 don’t 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 UK’s recalcitrant northern province. We’re a land which they don’t 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 Westminster’s view. Scotland compares itself with Denmark or Finland, other small northern European countries. Westminster compares Scotland with Yorkshire. Scotland’s view is a foreign view, one to be slapped down, patronised and dismissed.

Scotland has watched and learned. What we’ve learned will not be unlearned.[...]

We’ve 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. They’re 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 you’re secure in your identity you don’t 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 it’s 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 - 277 -

5. Scotland Will Become Really Boring and Depressing -

And finally, a little animated video of what could happen if you vote No – see here

- 278 -

- 279 -

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 Scotland’s population. This article in the Scotsman continues with this view that “Independence could be “very positive” for people’s health if it left them feeling they had more control over their lives, according to Scotland’s 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. - 280 -

“Scotland’s 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 one’s 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 won’t 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 - 281 -

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 Thatcher’s 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 Scotland’s workers have been unemployed.

The Conservative vote in Scotland did not survive Thatcher’s 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 today’s UK, we see large amounts of investment directed towards the London city-state, with 80% of last year’s 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 - 282 - 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 children’s 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 Scotland’s 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

“Scotland’s £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 UK’s £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 September’s result. Having blurted out the threat of repercussions in event of a NO win, I think they’ve 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 don’t 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)? - 283 -

It’ll start with a lot of grumpy and deeply confused people asking their media and their politicians some pointed questions. It’ll end with… who knows? But at a guess, I’d say a lot of well known faces will find themselves jobless in the near future.”

“If Scotland goes, it will be in everyone’s 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

- 284 -

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 “what’s to stop Scottish politicians becoming as corrupt as Westminster”. It is the epitome of the No campaign - let’s 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 can’t 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? Can’t 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. I’ve 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 Westminster’s medieval confrontational style, but completely natural and normal for most other countries.

- 285 -

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 (I’m 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 won’t 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 we’re all the same really, that England hasn’t 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:

- 286 -

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, I’ll risk encouraging this argument by citing this article “What have the SNP ever done for us?“:

“I’m voting no because I really hate that Alex Salmond and the SNP, what have they ever done for us anyway?

Here’s 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.  They’ve put 1,105 more police on Scotland’s 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. - 287 -

 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 – that’s 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 Scotland’s 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!”

- 288 -

And there is also this article “The Scottish Parliament's proven track record” – see here

- 289 -

Finally...

Our current political situation is not “normal.” Normality is not normal. It doesn’t 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 are”as being rather peculiar

The No campaign have been reduced, more or less, to repeated variations on a theme of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” or “why take the risk of change?” or “don’t 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 wasn’t to our choice any more, we could vote against the cruelty and incompetence and hatred were doing all this to us…and, 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 can’t 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 currency…all that…a newly independent Scotland will find itself more less at war with the rest of the world, they say..and we’d lose.

Underlying almost all of Project Fear is this very specific injunction that we mustn’t vote “against” Britain, we mustn’t 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 it’s not the nationalists who have a low opinion of our cousins. It doesn’t 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 what’s the opposite of independence?”

“If we are better together, why are we not already better together?”

“I’m 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 - 290 -

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 “We’re too wee and poor for our economic collapse to have any significant impact on the rest of the UK, but we’re too big a financial risk for them to enter into a currency union with us. We can’t 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. We’re being asked to believe all these propositions are true. But they can’t all be true. We’re 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 won’t 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 Johnstone’s 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 doesn’t 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 don’t because they’re 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.

- 291 -

- 292 -

- 293 -

- 294 -

- 295 -

- 296 -

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 woman’s 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 - 297 -

 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 they’re 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 I’ve selected a few choice sections from each story:

Jenni Flett: Let’s Fight For What’s 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 friend’s 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 NATO’s nuclear weapons that I’d 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 - 298 - 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 18th” – “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 Länder 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 Scotland’s 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 I’m 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 I’d 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 I’d 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 I’d read it. The person then complained of comments being removed, this time I didn’t 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 I’d not read any of it in my papers or seen it on the news? Were they right? Was the media biased? - 299 -

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 you’ve not got a vote anyway. I froze with the realisation I didn’t want him to vote No, I didn’t want a No vote. I was going to vote Yes because all those silly reasons I’d 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 wasn’t unusual or wrong. It was normal and just. [...]

For the first time in my life I’ve not got the wool over my eyes. I can see what a mess we’ve been in and see that it never needed to happen. The debt we have wouldn’t be, if only we’d 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 can’t do anything about who gets to make it. I see now that not only can we never use Trident, but it doesn’t deter anyone it wastes billions.

We can’t 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 Britain’s “First Strike” nuclear capability will cost £100bn pounds.”

Oh look, there’s 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. We’ve 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 there’s the wasteland or maybe the new shopping malls where our industrial base used to be. One aircraft carrier with no aeroplanes doesn’t make up for that. Not much use against suicide bombers, either. [...]Of course there is some risk. Life’s a risk. None of us knows what’s going to happen tomorrow. Whether people vote yes or no, change will come. That’s the way of the world. I’d rather have change we’ve voted for than change imposed on us from a government we didn’t 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. [...]I’ve always considered myself British. Scottish first, but still British. My pride in British achievements past, present and future is undiminished – It’s just that I’ve 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 Scotland’s best interests without being criminally negligent, as this country and it’s 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.”

- 300 -

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 innocent’s 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 Scotland’s’ 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 don’t think it can and believe that Scotland’s 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 gran’s – “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) - 301 -

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.”

- 302 -

- 303 -

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 14th April to the 23rd July. It’s not clear why it stopped on the 23rd 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, Scotland’s government released a statement of its own. Humza Yousaf, Minister for External Affairs and a man I’ve 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 Scotland’s economy will be stronger without Westminster IndyRef Answers – a website with dozens, if not hundreds, of questions and answers relating to Scottish independence

- 304 -

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 Treasury’s 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. That’s 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 that’s 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, it’s not an academic construct, the system stinks, Westminster stinks, the British Government is deeply immoral, they don’t 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. [...] It’s not possible to be a decent person and vote No, and we shouldn’t 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 – don’t worry, you don’t have to be a Rangers fan to read or appreciate them (it’s 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 Scotland’s 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 - 305 -

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 Scotland’s 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 Scotland’s 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 Scotland’s 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

- 306 -

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, - 307 - 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 haven’t 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.

- 308 -

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 Westminster’s 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 world’s 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 - 309 - 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 don’t vote for and whose politics we don’t 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 don’t 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 don’t fix it.

What those who aspire to the Status Quo don’t 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 what’s 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 - 310 -

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 don’t 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 Scotland’s 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 don’t 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. They’re only pensioners after all! How dare you complain that in some parts of Glasgow some men don’t 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.

- 311 -

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 heaven’s 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. YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO TELL EACH OTHER “WE COULDN’T 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

- 312 -