Nemo me impune lacessit

2







It is 24 hours before youre to be born as a baby, and a genie appears.

The genie is going to let you set the rules of the world youll be born
into. You can set the social rules, the political rules, the economic rules-
whatever you like. And whatever rules you set will apply for your lifetime
and your childrens lifetimes too.

You think: This sounds great! Whats the catch? And the genie then tells
you that you dont know if youll be born rich or poor; black or white; male
or female; sick or healthy; intelligent or foolish.

The Ovarian Lottery
Warren Buffet












3
Background ................................................................................................................ 5
THE PAST ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5
THE REALITY ................................................................................................................................................................. 6
THIS PAPER .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
What are the political issues for Scotland as part of the UK? ....................................... 8
POOR REPRESENTATION ........................................................................................................................................ 8
DIFFERENT PRIORITIES .......................................................................................................................................... 9
MORE INFLUENCE FOR THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND .............................................................................. 10
What are the economic issues for Scotland as part of the UK? ................................... 11
SCOTLANDS TAX AND ECONOMY ..................................................................................................................... 11
WHERE THE SUBSIDY MYTH COMES FROM ................................................................................................ 11
ASSETS AND INDUSTRIES ..................................................................................................................................... 17
SAVINGS AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND WILL MAKE MANY ARE PER YEAR ......................... 19
OTHER MONEY THAT WILL BE SCOTLANDS AS OPPOSED TO THE UKS ..................................... 20
THE DEBT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21
SO THE TRUTH ABOUT THE OIL .................................................................................................................... 21
THE OIL FUND ............................................................................................................................................................ 23
AN INCREDIBLE SUCCESS STORY FROM NORWAY................................................................................... 24
WHAT SCOTLAND PAYS FOR THAT IT DOESNT NEED .......................................................................... 18
LOSING OUT ................................................................................................................................................................. 24
What are the social issues for Scotland as part of the UK? ......................................... 25
THE UK AND SCOTLANDS CURRENT SITUATION .................................................................................... 25
THE REAL COST OF BENEFIT FRAUD .............................................................................................................. 28
FROM DLA TO PIP AND THE BEDROOM TAX ............................................................................................... 29
MEANWHILE, IN THE UPPER ECHELON OF SOCIETY ........................................................................... 31
WELFARE AFTER INDEPENDENCE .................................................................................................................. 32
THE COMMON WEAL ............................................................................................................................................... 32
Why have I not heard everything about what will happen? (This also has information
about Scotlands start up costs) ................................................................................ 34
MEDIA BIAS .................................................................................................................................................................. 34
PORKIE PIES FROM THE TREASURY................................................................................................................ 35
MORE PORKIE PIES BUT SCOTLANDS PEOPLE LEARN NOTHING ABOUT IT ......................... 36
THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT IS MORE EFFICIENT AND CHEAPER THAN WESTMINSTER
............................................................................................................................................................................................ 36
GENERAL VIEW FROM THE YES / NO CAMPAIGNS .................................................................................. 37
Where would the money to start an independent Scotland come from? .................... 38
INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................................... 38
SCOTLAND IS ALREADY PAYING ....................................................................................................................... 38
How would Scotland build its industry/boost the economy? ..................................... 39
SCOTLANDS ECONOMY NOW ............................................................................................................................ 39
UNDER AN INDEPENDENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT ........................................................................... 40
What about peoples pensions? ................................................................................ 41
YOUR PENSION WILL BE PAID REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU LIVE ............................................... 41


4
AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLANDS PENSIONS ................................................................................................ 41
UK PENSIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 41
What will happen about Scotlands defence? ............................................................ 42
SCOTLANDS CURRENT SITUATION ................................................................................................................. 42
IS SCOTLAND EVEN CURRENTLY DEFENDED? .......................................................................................... 43
DEFENCE IN AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND ............................................................................................... 43
NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) ................................................................................................ 44
TRIDENT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 45
Will Scotland not be under threat if its nuclear weapons are removed? ..................... 45
What about the people who will lose jobs? ............................................................... 46
What is happening with the current NHS? ................................................................. 47
BEING DESTROYED BY PRIVATISATION ....................................................................................................... 47
SCOTLAND AND THE NHS ..................................................................................................................................... 47
What will happen with the BBC? ............................................................................... 48
What about currency? .............................................................................................. 49
THE POUND IS SCOTLANDS TOO ...................................................................................................................... 49
THE EURO ..................................................................................................................................................................... 49
THE CURRENCY UNION .......................................................................................................................................... 49
Will Scotland stay in the EU? ..................................................................................... 51
THIS COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED AGES AGO! .................................................................................... 51
THERE IS NO REASON FOR SCOTLAND TO LEAVE ................................................................................... 51
WHAT SPAIN REALLY SAID .................................................................................................................................. 52
AND JUNCKER (PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION)................................................... 52
AS PART OF THE UNION ..................................................................................................................................... 53
Will Scottish people still have a monarchy and be British? ......................................... 53
What about international relations? ......................................................................... 53
SCOTLAND IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED ......................................................................................................... 54
PROJECTING PEACE AND JUSTICE, NOT FORCE AND FEAR ................................................................. 54
THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE REST OF THE UK ................................................................................... 55
Do the big companies not all want to leave? ............................................................. 56
How is Scotland in a strong position to become independent? .................................. 56
Why should I vote YES now and not wait to see if there is another opportunity in, say,
ten years? ................................................................................................................. 57
LESS BUDGET = LESS PUBLIC SERVICES IN SCOTLAND ........................................................................ 58
WESTMINSTER POLICIES ARE WIDENING THE INEQUALITY GAP .................................................. 59
EITHER WAY, CHANGE IS INEVITABLE .......................................................................................................... 60
MORE POWERS ACTUALLY NOT VERY POWERFUL ............................................................................... 61
SCOTLAND HAD ITS CHANCE .......................................................................................................................... 62
A CALCULATED CHANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 63
Further reading / other links ..................................................................................... 64



5
Background

Scotland is in a MUCH better position than the media and
Westminster would have us believe. We arguably have
more assets than most other countries in the world relative
to our size (sadly, minus the self-belief of the countrys
people), and are world renowned for our history of engineering feats and
inventions.

Yet a lot of Scots simply think that we dont have what it takes to go it
alone. Is this because of the Scots Crisis of Confidence, the people of
Scotlands heritage of lacking self-esteem, seeing the glass as half-
empty, and being overly critical of themselves and others? Or could it be
something to do the way that we have been presented to ourselves by the
UK government and media over the last 300 years?

THE PAST

The Scottish people voted for independence in a referendum in 1979. They
had the majority of the votes for Yes, but a last minute change to the
requirements (needing 40% of the total electorate rather than the people
actually voting in order to win) meant that Scotland stayed in the Union.
The electoral register contained the names of people who had passed
away prior to the date of the referendum. How would they have been able
to vote?

Before the referendum in the late 70s, there were scare stories just like
there are now. Some of these ended up coming true under the government
that issued the warnings, and governments that were to follow. For
example, in the UK, industries were wiped out and millions of people lost
jobs under the policies of Margaret Thatcher, after Scots were told that this
would happen in an independent Scotland.

People back then were also lied to about Scotlands wealth, and were
promised change after the 1979 referendum that didnt happen: how can
some people in Scotland be willing to let that happen again?

Similar scare stories were flying about prior to the referendum for a
devolved Scottish parliament in 1999, that key parts of our economy would
collapse and businesses would flee, etc. However, most people would
agree that Scotland has been in an increasingly strong position since then.


6

The truth is that Westminster have covered up facts from the UK and
Scottish public, such as the McCrone report (buried for decades by
Westminster) which outlined the embarrassing wealth an independent
Scotland could harness from its oil reserves. Gavin McCrone, then Chief
Economist for the Scottish Office, advised the government in power to set
up an oil fund for the countrys people: something they declined to do.

Instead the UK government has spent the vast majority of Scotlands oil
money, while endorsing stories of an impoverished and undeserving
Scotland, such as the myth that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the
UK. This is simply not true.

The British Empire has enjoyed a long and mighty reign all over the world.
But despite the loss of its colonies, the reigning British government still
indulges itself by projecting images of grandeur around the world: the
vision of punching above our weight resonates around Westminster.

The reality of the current United Kingdom is something quite different. It is
a great country to live in, for the higher-end of society, yes. But
unfortunately the vast majority of people do not fall into this bracket.

THE REALITY

Scotland is doing much better economically compared with the UK, and
The Financial Times stated that with independence Scotland would be
within the top 20 richest countries immediately after the event of a Yes
vote, several places further up the list than the remainder of the UK.

So why does Scotland have some of the most shocking welfare
statistics in the developed world?

And why are people so misinformed about the truth of what is really
happening in their own country?

We need to bear in mind that many of the unanswered questions could
have been avoided, and a clear picture of what an independent Scotland
would look like could have been created for the Scottish people for them to
cast their votes on the 18
th
September.

The Scottish government requested meetings with the current UK
government to discuss the relevant issues and present the facts for all to


7
see so that people would know exactly what they were voting for or
against. However, this was declined by Westminster with an absolute
refusal to pre-negotiate. No doubt, in order to cast uncertainty and doubt
over the Scottish electorate: an act one may expect from a party set to lose
a lot.

Additionally, instead of matters being explored and discussed openly in the
media, as you would suppose from a country with freedom of speech laws
and a liberal press, the media has created, at best, a murky view of what
could be in an independent Scotland.

THIS PAPER

This paper discusses answers to some common questions relating to the
coming referendum: questions asked by many, but with answers sadly not
necessarily being investigated fully by the mainstream media outlets. I can
assure you that what I have written is NOT scaremongering, something
that has been all too common during this campaign. Things may sound
unbelievable at times, but that is because the fact of the matter is that they
are, and have been for quite some time.

Please click on the headings on the contents page to navigate directly to
your particular questions of interest. There are a lot of pages so this saves
having to scroll up and down!

It is recommend to first read the answers about the political, economic and
social issues for Scotland as part of the UK, to set the context for the rest
of the paper. Some answers may refer you to others, due to the
overarching, overlapping and interconnected nature of the topics
discussed. Also there may be some issues and facts that are repeated,
due to the expectation that some people may only read answers to one or
two questions.

There is a lot of reading involved, condensed from a lot of data from many
different sources, and there are recommended links highlighted by
colourful, underlined words. Some sections have more links than others: I
would like to have included more, but time is essentially running out.

The argument about Scottish independence is a vastly important one, for
the future of Scotland and its people. I hope that this information will help
the Scottish citizens who read it make a better informed decision on the
18
th
September: whether to remain part of the Union of the United


8
Kingdom, or to become an independent nation, in charge of our own
affairs.
What are the political issues
for Scotland as part of the
UK?

POOR REPRESENTATION

Scotland is poorly represented at Westminster. In the last 70 years
Scotland has had the government it voted for in less than half of the
elections. Even if the whole of Scotland voted for one party, its voice
would not carry enough weight to make a difference if less than half of the
rest of the UK voted differently.

Therefore, when decisions are being made in regarding important issues
that affect us all, Scotlands voice remains largely unheard. Over recent
years, Scotlands MPs have voted against many of the UK governments
undertakings:

- The Iraq war: Scotland voted against the unlawful wars that the UK
has been getting involved in. Thousands of UK troops have lost lives
or been affected in other ways in unjustifiable and illegal wars such
as in Iraq. Many share the view that Tony Blair should be charged
with war crimes.

- Austerity measures: Scottish MPs voted against this policy.
Despite Scotland being a very wealthy nation, there are 5 times
more food banks in Scotland than last year according to the Trussel
Trust. People, including working people and children, are literally
starving due to UK government cuts to public services and industry.
This is happening while the richest people in society get richer.
Please see the social issues for Scotland for more information.

- Welfare reforms: Despite tax avoidance schemes for the wealthy


9
costing a vast amount more than benefit fraud, which only accounts
to around 0.8% of the welfare budget, a (completely unnecessary)
crackdown on benefit fraud has led to changes to the welfare
system, causing millions of disabled people to have reduced or no
benefits. Again, please see the social issues for Scotland for more
information.

- Prioritising of nuclear weapons over Scotlands economic
development: Westminster chose to introduce dangerous nuclear
weapons to the west coast of Scotland instead of investing in
lucrative industrial infrastructure to extract oil from the Clyde Basin.
Scotland had voted against such policies, yet, again, its voice is
largely unheard.


With an independent Scottish government, the people of Scotlands voices
will be heard and have an impact on the decisions the country makes. The
voices of 5 million are heard fully when they are not diluted in 67
million. Scottish citizens will vote in the parties that they want in their
government, and the Proportional Representation system, where
parties are allocated a percentage of seats dependent on their percentage
of votes, is far more democratic than the current Westminster First Past
the Post system where the majority rules. So everybodys vote will go
towards something to a much greater extent than it does now.

The Scottish people will be able to influence the Scottish government,
something they are simply not able to do now in the UK.

Policies and laws can be much more easily tailored to the needs and
wants of a population of 5 million than the UKs current 67 million. And the
composition of the Scottish cabinet is far more representational of the
range of people within Scotland: more MSPs have been brought up in
working class backgrounds, fewer went to private schools and likes of
Oxford or Cambridge University, and they have lived in Scotlands local
authorities, some even growing up on council estates. Thus, the Scottish
MPs are far more in touch with the needs of Scotland and its people, than
the government made up from wealthy public school boys several
hundred of miles away.

DIFFERENT PRIORITIES

Throughout recent years, policies are have been generally tailored to suit


10
the richer end of society, with a large focus on the City of London. Even
the last (New) Labour government implemented policies to suit a right wing
agenda. The Tory policies that have been implemented since the time of
Thatcher and were accelerated under the last Labour government, to
shrink the role of the state and increase the role of the private sector
(privatisation of public services, tax cuts to favour the wealthy and big
businesses, and cutting public spending), are dangerous to the economy
and are certainly not in Scotlands interests.

Another example of the widening gap between Scotlands and the UKs
vision for society, is regarding human rights. The UK government wants to
withdraw from the European Union Human Rights Agreement. This would
mean that UK citizens would not be able to call upon an EU court
concerning a human rights violation. This mindset is miles apart from the
Scottish governments view that social justice is paramount.

MORE INFLUENCE FOR THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND

As mentioned previously, due to Scotlands smaller population not being
diluted in a bigger one, the people of Scotlands voices will be heard more
easily, and count towards the outcome of general elections and decision
making to a far greater extent.

Another reason why a new, independent government will give people more
influence regards the creation of a Scottish constitution, the first formal
constitution written in the UK, by the people for the people. Declaring that
the Scottish people will be sovereign, rather than a parliament or
government allows the countrys citizens to make decisions about how
they feel the country should be run and what the priorities should be.

The draft constitution is on the Scottish government website and can be
read by the public. If a person sees something that they think should be
altered in some way, or they think something should be added in, then they
can write to the Scottish government stating their thoughts.

Whatever is written into the constitution enshrines those things as rights
which every citizen of the country would be able to claim, and would be
every governments responsibility to protect and deliver, e.g. access to free
healthcare and education. No subsequent governments would be able to
create legislation to violate the constitution, so things like public services
will be protected.



11
In an independent Scotland with a smaller, arguably more manageable
population, the lines of communication to members of the Scottish
parliament are relatively short compared to those at Westminster who are
far removed from the everyday folks. A lot of MSPs work at a local level as
well as their post in the government, so are much more invested in their
area at ground level.
What are the economic
issues for Scotland as part of
the UK?

SCOTLANDS TAX AND ECONOMY

Scotland is the only country in the world to discover oil and get poorer.

Scotland constitutes 8.4% of the population of the UK and every year it
contributes between 9.5% and 10% of the UK's total tax revenue, meaning
that Scotland's economy is stronger than the UK's as a whole. Over the
last 5 years, Scotland has contributed 9.9% of the UK's total tax revenue,
and received 9.3% of the public spending. This amounts to an 8.5 billion
pound shortfall for Scotland over the same period, debunking the myth that
Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Quite the reverse is true.

"The Scots are subsidy junkies whingeing like a trampled bagpipe as they
wait for their next fix of English taxpayers' money."

(Lord) Christopher Monckton is the person responsible for coining the
phrase 'subsidy junkie'. He was UKiP's president in Scotland but was
sacked in 2013 after factional infighting.

WHERE THE SUBSIDY MYTH COMES FROM

First of all we must beg the question: if Scotland is indeed a sponging
nation, reliant on handouts from the rest of the UK, why is there such a


12
desperate attempt by Westminster to keep Scotland in the Union?
Obviously this little country north of the border has a good thing going on.

WHY WITHOUT OIL AND GAS?

When the media compare the economies of Scotland and the UK as a
whole, they routinely present two figures for Scotland: with oil and gas
and without oil and gas. Aside from the fact that we never see figures for
the economies of Norway, Saudi Arabia, the USA, Russia or any other oil-
producing country without oil and gas, we also never see a separate
figure for the economy of the remainder of the UK without oil and gas.
This is an interesting piece of presentational bias, repeated over and over.

The constancy and ubiquity of its use by pro-Union commentators seems
designed to imply that these real, tangible assets - which indisputably
belong to Scotland due to simple facts of geography and existing
international law regarding maritime boundaries, may be in some way
unreal or perhaps inherently unreliable and not to be trusted. No other
countrys economic strengths are viewed in this way and no other country
considers at its own assets in this light.

Even accepting this split, the BBC article above confirms that with the
contribution of the revenues from the oil and gas industries included,
Scotland contributes more per head in tax than the rest of the UK. When
the contributions from oil and gas are artificially excluded, Scotland is
found to contribute more or less its population share (99% of the UK
average and almost equal to the southeast of England). This allows the
YES-campaign to legitimately assert that Scotlands economy is not
dependent upon oil and gas indeed, it demonstrates that the revenues
which flow from these industries are a bonus.

Although this highlights the underlying strength of the Scottish economy, it
is surely a mystery that we never see similar figures deliberately excluding
the contributions of other sectors of our economy, such as tourism or
construction. Or does the fact that it is always oil and gas and only ever in
Scotlands case tell us all we need to know? 25%-30% of Norways
economy is based on oil, compared with 10% - 15% of Scotlands.

EVEN BEFORE DISCOVERY OF THE OIL

The subsidy myth is pervasive and resilient, however. Even when we


13
finally take on board the fact that over 90% of the oil and gas belong to
Scotland - and always have done - most of us are surprised to learn that
Scotland did not become a net contributor to the Union at the point when
oil and gas began to be extracted from the North Sea.

John Jappy, a former civil servant, has told the story of how he had
believed that Scotland was subsidised by the UK until he got a look at the
books and found that the reverse was true: every year, a large subsidy
flowed out of Scotland into the coffers of the UK Treasury. You can listen
to Mr Jappy speaking about the past regarding Scotlands oil and
Westminster.

Going considerably further back, UK Government figures for 1920 1921
reveal that Scotland has been a net contributor for a long, long time.
According to these figures, the revenue from Scotland was 119,753,000,
the expenditure on Scottish Services was 33,096,000, and the balance
retained in London for Imperial Services was 86,657,000 (most of which,
it is noted, was disbursed in England).

One wonders why they stopped producing these figures, contrary to the
wishes of Scottish representatives! Another article makes the point even
more powerfully, looking at figures from 1900 to 1921, and showing that
Imperial Services during that period cost Scotland approximately 2.5bn a
year in todays prices.

As evidence shows, the drain continues today, mainly through annual
payments servicing the debt of the UK. Here are some pages with more
information about this:
1. http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/westminster-tricks-scotland-
out-of-127-00-per-second/
2. http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/westminster-debt-is-harming-
scotlands-economy/
3. http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-angels-share/
4. http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/where-does-scotlands-wealth-
go/

SO WHY DOES THE SUBSIDY MYTH PERSIST?

As noted in the On Our Own Two Feet article by John Jappy (see link
above), the Westminster Treasury admitted in 1997 that Scotland had paid
the Exchequer 27bn more than it had received since the Tories came to
power in 1979. Given the evidence is now public and has been for some


14
time, why does the subsidy myth persist?

One reason is that the true facts and figures receive very little coverage
from a mainstream media almost entirely hostile to the idea of Scottish
independence: scares, smears and untruths abound. Instead there is a
focus on the Scottish governments decision to place a spending priority on
its citizens welfare, offering free tuition fees, free prescriptions, and care
for the elderly. Arguably, something that a lot of people south of the border
feel resentment toward.

Also, it has been a central tactic of the anti-independence campaign to
emphasise the fact that Scotland gets more per head in spending than the
rest of the UK. While its true that, under the Barnett formula, Scotland is
given more spending-money per capita than the rest of the UK, this is not a
gift given to Scotland out of the goodness of Westminsters heart: it is
based on borrowing, therefore it is a loan. Scotland has to pay any
borrowed money back and do every year, to the tune of around 4bn.

When we look at the money that is coming in and the money that is going
out, three figures are relevant: the total amount of revenue raised, the total
borrowed and the total spent. Scotland is not allowed to borrow any money
at all. Instead, it gives all the money it raises to the UK Treasury; on top of
revenue raised from all parts of the UK, the Treasury borrows money on
behalf of the UK as a whole and spends the combined total on a range of
things. One of those things is the money back to Scotland in the form of a
block grant.

All the services in Scotland have to be paid for out of this grant; Scotland
has no way to enlarge the pot and its budget cannot legally exceed it. If
Scotland runs a budget surplus one year, Westminster takes that surplus.
If Scotland runs a deficit another year, it has to pay it back to the
Exchequer with interest.

So Scotland has to pay off its own deficit if it runs one and, over and above
that, the UK also charges 4bn a year to Scotland towards the cost of
servicing the UK debt! (See the above links). As Business for Scotland
has made clear, Scotland pays a massive subsidy to the rest of the UK
regarding debt, to the tune of 64bn over the past 32 years.

The debt is continuing to rise faster than the UK can pay it off. Each year,
Scotland is only paying off interest on the total amount of UK debt, never
managing to make a dent in the capital that has been and is being
borrowed (technically known as a structural deficit).


15

http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

THE 'BLOCK GRANT' AND THE BARNETT FORMULA

Scotlands block grant for public spending, calculated via the Barnett
formula, is based on a percentage of what is spent by the UK Treasury on
public services south of the border; e.g. schools, hospitals, roads, etc.
These percentages are called Barnett consequentials.

When we look at what the UK spends its money on, we can say that
Scotland pays for 10% of everything, including repaying the costs of UK
borrowing. This can be extremely unfair on Scotland for a number of
reasons: not only is it paying more than its share for everything, but many
of the things the UK chooses to spend its money on have zero benefit for
Scotland, e.g. the London sewer upgrade and the HS2 rail service. Also
things that a majority of Scots have strongly opposed, such as the illegal
war in Iraq and nuclear weapons.
Please see the section below about other savings Scotland will make
under independence.


CUTS, CUTS, PRIVATISATION, AND MORE CUTS

In addition to the unfairness of the present arrangement, there is the issue
of the vulnerability of the block grant to any change in Westminsters
spending priorities. If cuts are made to public spending, Scotlands block
grant shrinks accordingly and it has no means of enlarging it. Scotland has
no power to stop Westminster from slashing spending on higher education
and switching to a policy of introducing tuition fees for universities in
England. Money not spent in the rest of the UK means a reduction in the
money available in Scotland.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised a further 25bn cut to
public spending which will result in an unavoidable 2bn being cut from
Scotlands already shrinking block grant; Labours Shadow Chancellor has
committed to carry out exactly the same plan.

However, its not just cuts to spending that impact upon Scotlands grant.
Whenever any services are privatised in the rest of the UK, the costs to the
public purse are reduced. Therefore, the public spending money (the


16
block grant) that Scotland gets is also reduced, regardless of the fact
that the level of public services required remains the same.

Scotland's public spending is being cut, regardless of the fact it is more
than paying its way in the Union, and the need for public services remains
the same. Therefore, meeting the needs of Scotlands people is becoming
more difficult, and in some cases, they are simply not being met. If
Scotland stays in the Union, it will not be able to maintain the level of
public services that most people want and depend upon.

With deliberate policies of public service privatisation down south, and
consequent reductions in its block grant, Scotland will no longer be able
to afford policies such as free tuition, free prescriptions and free
personal care for the elderly. Scotland will be forced to either cut or
privatise. As part of the UK, Scotland has no means of increasing this
block grant.

SCRAPPING THE BARNETT FORUMLA

The three main Westminster political parties want the Barnett formula
reformed, i.e. scrapped. Many prominent politicians such as Prime
Minister David Cameron and Secretary of State for Scotland Alistair
Carmichael have been vocal on this subject, as have spokespeople for a
wide range of associations, commissions and organisations. They want to
scrap the 'Barnett Formula' to make a 'needs based' system to distribute
money around the UK. They say believe a flat rate per capita across the
UK would be 'fairer'. As part of the union, Scotland would lose out far more
than it already does: it would mean 4 billion less for Scotland to spend in
Scotland.

This is terrifying seeing as it is already in need of increases in public
spending, and is very unfortunately the reality of Scotlands future after a
No vote.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE EVENT OF A YES

Simply, an independent Scotland would have full control of 100% of its
money in order to spend it how it chooses on national priorities, like
improving public services and welfare.

There is no political party in Scotland that is against keeping public


17
services such as healthcare, prescriptions, tuition fees, etc., so with
independence the people of Scotland can be assured that they will stay.

ASSETS AND INDUSTRIES

Scotland owns around 10% of everything in the rest of the UK: everything
from Ministry of Defence aircraft and ships, to the London Underground,
the Bank of England, as well as land and properties all over the world,
artwork, etc. How to apportion these will be under negotiation on the event
of a Yes vote. Of course these will be of significant value, and negotiations
will take into consideration the fact that Scotland has no need for
underground stations in London or giant aircraft carriers with no aircraft.

Scotland also has more of its own assets than most countries of
comparable size. (Think about different countries and see if they have
more assets than Scotland!)

Scottish industry is a worldleader in an impressive range of sectors,
however Westminsters priority is the extremely temperamental financial
sector: we only have to look at the recent financial crashes to see how
easily this industry can fail us. The giant suction machine of the City of
London is having a detrimental effect on other industries. Industry in the
UK has suffered greatly over the past decades.

An independent Scotland could take full control of its industries to develop
them to their full potential to contribute to the countrys wealth. Scotland
benefits from an already incredibly diverse economy, with multi-billion
pound strong industries, including food and drinks, whisky (with ever
increasing demand), creative, construction, life sciences, tourism, fishing
and agriculture, manufacturing, financial and business, education (5 out of
the worlds top 200 universities with world class research facilities), and
digital and ICT.

Scotland is also sitting what some consider a renewable energy goldmine:
regarding the small size of Scotland, it has the potential to harness 25% of
Europes off-shore tidal and wind energy and 10% of Europes wave
energy: a renewable energy powerhouse, an industry the Scottish
government are committed to developing with the creation of thousands of
jobs. More than 2,000 energy-related companies put Scotland at the
forefront of the worlds energies market.

An independent Scottish government will have the power to design


18
industrial policies that will protect the people and environment from harm
as well as creating jobs, and take advantage of the countrys considerable
strengths, investing in currently struggling industries such as shipbuilding


The huge oil and gas reserves that Scotland has is really a bonus. This
little country really has been blessed. Perhaps, the only asset that
Scotland is lacking is its peoples self-belief?

Please see the section on how Scotland will boost the economy.

WHAT SCOTLAND PAYS FOR THAT IT DOESNT NEED

The current system also allows for massive spending in the rest of the UK
on things which are of little or no benefit to Scotland, but are considered to
be beneficial to the UK, such as:

Londons new sewer system

Maintenance and construction of The London Underground

The new high speed rail link, HS2 between Birmingham and
London (nowhere near Scotland but we will be paying 200,000,000
pounds for it per year for 20+ years)

The London Olympics (Scottish Parliament and Glasgow City
Council (plus sponsors) paid the full whack for the Commonwealth
Games on its own without the help from the UK, yet Scotland had to
contribute to the Olympic Games!)

Trident nuclear weapons (a militarily useless resource but simply a
symbol of global status according to Tony Blair)

The Iraq war (which was illegal and Scotland did not want)

The recent bank bailout (where the UK government chose to
nationalise private debt, protecting the bankers who caused the
problem, while crippling the countrys small businesses and
vulnerable individuals. This was fraud committed by individuals on
a massive scale, yet a crime for which not one person has been
tried.)



19
Despite Scotlands contributions, and the fact that our economy is
stronger, people are still led to believe that Scotland is subsidised by the
rest of the UK since we have free tuition fees, prescriptions, etc. This is
simply down to the Scottish governments decision to place a much
bigger priority on its citizens welfare.

SAVINGS AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND WILL MAKE
MANY ARE PER YEAR
Here are some examples of the huge savings that Scotland would make
under independence. For more information please click here.

4.4 billion per year more to spend in Scotland from income tax no
longer taken by the UK treasury

Scotland currently pays Westminster 5 million pounds per year just
for the privilege of having them run its affairs, and the coming Palace
of Westminster refurbishment is set to cost Scotland 300 million

Not paying for HS2 (High speed rail link between London and
Birmingham which comes nowhere near Scotland) will save
Scotland at least 200million per year (the total cost to Scotland
being 4.5billion over many years)

Scotland will save at least 1.6billion for the subsidy of the
development of Hinkley Point power station in Somerset. The
venture was initially supposed to cost 10bn but costs have now
vastly increased. The lifetime costs for Hinkley will be much more:
regarding liability, the taxpayer would be covering the insurance,
potentially trillions of pounds in the case of an accident. (Renewable
energy advocated by the Scottish government is both safer and
cheaper: costs are precise, free from hidden subsidies, and there is
no dangerous, residual waste to deal with.)

Not paying for Londons sewer upgrade will save Scotland
400million

Not having to pay for the M25 upgrade will save Scotland over
600million

Scotland currently spends 3.3billion on defence (significantly more


20
than any other country of its size) and the current Scottish
government plans on spending 2.5billion on defence, meaning it
will save 800 million pounds every year to spend on other national
priorities. (Please see the question about defence for more
information)

BBC license fees are currently 300million from Scotland and the
next budget for BBC Scotland is 87million. It would have an extra
200million per year. (Please see the answer about the BBC for
more information.)

Scotland will no longer need to pay for servicing the UKs debt every
year, saving over 100 billion altogether

It will save billions of pounds that it currently pay to Westminster for
Public and Common Services costs. The public do not actually
know what these are as they are not broken down into itemised
costs.

Over 10billion would be saved by not having to subsidise the
remainder of the UKs pensions (over 6 years of lower life
expectancy)

Trident: over 10billion will be saved if nuclear weapons leave
Scotland a weapon which Tony Blair stated was actually useless
and simply a sign of status.

OTHER MONEY THAT WILL BE SCOTLANDS AS
OPPOSED TO THE UKS

Fuel and alcohol/tobacco duty, DVLA and other licensing fees plus
agencies that manage these = jobs and income tax etc.

Imports to the whole of the UK pay duty and VAT direct to HMRC
(Revenue and Customs) so, under independence, imports to
Scotland would go to the Scottish Treasury. Over five years, this
would bring 5 billion to the Scottish Treasury.

VAT is payed according to where the headquarters of a company is
located, so companies such as Tesco, John Lewis, Argos are all in
England so VAT for products bought in Scotland is regarded as


21
being raised in England. As an independent country we will get to
keep that VAT (no exact figure has been calculated but it would be a
lot!)

Many Scottish exports are not currently credited to Scotland. For
example, whisky is credited to the port from which it is shipped, e.g.
Southampton. The imports and exports of an independent Scotland
will be clear to all. Currently, the UK is taking credit for some of
Scotlands exports.

1.5 trillion (1500 billion) is the value of the oil underground which
has yet to be extracted, excluding oil fields west of Shetland, west of
Lewis, and in the Clyde Basin.)

THE DEBT

Scotland owes none of the debt that was acquired by the UK government.
The UK government has recognised this. Of course, this would give
Scotland great bargaining power with the rest of the UK after
independence, especially regarding the currency debate.

SO THE TRUTH ABOUT THE OIL

This question raises its head again: Why is Scotland the only country in the
world to find oil and get poorer?

PESKY WESTMINSTERS SECRETS

Scotland has been getting tricked out of its oil money by Westminster since
the oil discovery was made. Instead the UK government has consistently
and deliberately downplayed the value of the North Sea oil in order to
mislead Scots about the wealth of their nation, while spending the money
on its own priorities. Westminster could obviously afford to be choosy, as
during a time of industrial hardship in Scotland, it blocked an oil boom in
the Clyde in favour of installing nuclear weapons. The position of the west
coast of Scotland could have been quite different to what can be seen now
in some of the jobless, poverty-stricken, run down towns.

The UK government also secretly adjusted the maritime boundaries in
1999, taking 6000 square miles of Scottish waters, no doubt in the hope


22
that they would strike black gold there.

Professor Gavin McCrone wrote a report before the last referendum for
Scottish independence in 1979 stating that Scotland would have
embarrassing wealth if they became independent. It was hidden by
Westminster so the public and political parties could not gain access to his
findings. However, it was obtained in 2005 under the Freedom of
Information Act.

Some excerpts from the McCrone report state:

"the balance of payments gain from North Sea oil would easily swamp the
existing deficit whatever its size"

"The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to a
quite an embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest
in Europe"

THE SCOTTISH OIL INDUSTRY IS ACTUALLY THRIVING

Despite reports about Scottish oil running out, last year investments in the
Scottish oil industry were at a 30 year high and Scotland is now on the
verge of another oil boom. David Cameron recently visited Shetland in
secret to discuss new oil discoveries on the Clair Ridge. The linked report
states:

This weekend rumours spread that workers on a rig in the Clair field had
been sent home on full pay and told not to return until late September,
coincidentally after the independence referendum.


Are Westminster still keeping secrets from Scotland? Surely the Scottish
people should question why they have been so misled by the UK
government over the years and are still continuing to be?


Over the years, 300 billion has come from oil tax revenue from North Sea
oil, yet we have nothing to show for it. Instead, the UK has 1.4 trillion of
debt.



23


Under independence, Scotland will gain full control to its oil industries and
will get to keep its own wealth, positively impacting on Scotland. The
Scottish government has stated they will create an oil fund for the countrys
people.


Here are some more links for people to read more information about
Scotlands oil:

http://www.scottishindependencereferendum.info/vids/dugoil.html
- a humorous but informative cartoon about oil

http://www.scottishindependencereferendum.info/oil.html
- links to some different sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUduiJL1f6s
- John Jappy, senior civil servant during the discovery of Scotlands
Oil, discusses what has happened over the years.

THE OIL FUND

The Scottish government would set up an oil fund from the money gained
from oil tax revenues, a very favourable idea for the people of Scotland.
Gavin McCrone advised the Westminster government to do this in the
1970s, but this advice was ignored. MPs over the years, such as Denis
Healy, Neil Kinnock, and Alistair Darling have admitted that by not setting
up an oil fund, Westminster have wasted a significant opportunity.

Many experts have stated that if Scotland had become independent in
1979 and had invested in starting an oil fund then it would be in at least 5
billion surplus (taking the UKs debt into consideration). Of course if
Scotland was not having to service part of the UKs debt then the figure
would be substantially higher than this.

The Scottish governments proposed oil fund would have two parts:

We must therefore ask: what exactly has the UK government been
doing with Scotlands money? It has certainly not been benefitting the
Scottish people.


24
1. a fund to offset market volatility due to the unstable price of oil

2. intergenerational fund that would grow over time like savings
which would be continually gaining interest then the interest can
be used to pay the nations pensions


The UK government have stated that in the case of a No vote, they are still
not going to set up an oil fund for the Scottish people, questionably
continuing to waste the potential of this resource.

AN INCREDIBLE SUCCESS STORY FROM NORWAY

A hugely prosperous oil fund model that the Scottish government has been
looking to for guidance comes from Norway.

The Norwegians set up their oil fund in 1990, but it only started to grow in
1996. It is now worth approximately 500 billion. Norway is therefore one
of the few countries in the world that is in permanent massive surplus: they
own between 1 and 2% of the equity on Earth.

If Norway was to dissolve their oil fund now and share it equally between
the population, every man, woman and child would be a kroner
millionaire.

Because their oil fund is now so strong, Norwegians dont just pay oil
money into it. They are able to borrow money from international lenders at
an interest rate of about 3%, and then invest it into their oil fund where they
get around a 7% return. They are essentially making money from the
money they borrow.

This has been recognised by the Scottish government as a way to further
develop the countrys wealth, so there is no reason Scotland could not
benefit from a situation such as this.

Scotland is already in surplus for energy production, and the renewables
goldmine it is sitting on can contribute to this fund as well.

LOSING OUT

An additional point that highlights how unfair Westminsters treatment of


25
Scotland is, and how much better we could be doing as an independent
country, relates to the European Union and the farmers grants. Scotland
has a large agriculture industry, however it is near of the bottom of the list
for the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies in the whole of Europe. A
billion Euros for farmers grants up to 2020 should have to Scotland last
year because of the strong agriculture industry but Westminster only gave
a fraction of the money to Scotland.

As an independent country, Scotland could do much better. It would have
a seat at the EU table and be able to represent itself for its farmers, it
would be able to target markets not currently being exploited by the UK
where Scottish produce is in high demand, and it would be able to get
more rural development funding (Ireland currently gets six times more than
Scotland). With independence comes opportunity.
What are the social issues for
Scotland as part of the UK?


"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its
weakest members."
Mahatma Ghandi

THE UK AND SCOTLANDS CURRENT SITUATION

SHOCKING STATISTICS

Even the mainstream media outlets cant hide these facts about real life for
some of the most vulnerable people in the United Kingdom. Sadly, this is
what has actually been happening in the UK - not sensationalism or
scaremongering.

British people are committing suicide to escape poverty.
(Reported on the Daily Mail website)

One in five of Scotlands children are officially recognised as


26
living in poverty. In some areas over one in three children grow
up in poverty. With Scotlands undoubted wealth CPAG
believes this is a scandal. There is no reason why our child
poverty rates should be so much higher than in many other
European countries. In Denmark and Norway less than 10% of
children live in poverty, whilst Germany has a poverty rate of
15%. (Reported on the website of Child Poverty Action Group in
Scotland)

The government's own figures revealed that 1,300 (disabled)
people had died after being told they should start preparing to
go back to work, and another 2,200 had died before their
assessment was complete (Labour MP, Michael Meacher about
the newly introduced Personal Independence Payments, as reported
on the Guardian website in 2013) The truth is that now the figure
of deaths is believed to have reached over 10,000.

UK income inequality is among the highest in the developed
world and evidence shows that this is bad for almost
everyone. (Equality Trust website)

Cancer patients lose out on millions (nearly 100 million) of
unclaimed benefits. (Reported on the McMillan Cancer Support
website)

UK state pensions are the lowest in Europe (Reported from the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on the
Daily Mail website).
Soaring energy costs could kill 200 pensioners per DAY this
winter as they fear to heat their homes (Information from Age
UK, reported on the Mirror website).
Pensioners are paying the price of the Governments failure to
act on the scandal of rocketing energy bills. Thousands will be
forced to choose between heating and eating this winter
because of David Camerons failure to stand up to the energy
companies. (Shadow Energy Secretary Caroline Flint as reported
on the Mirror website)

Five times more Scots are needing to use food banks than last year,
nearly one third of them children, according to the Trussell Trust,
one of the main food bank providers. The reason for the rise in
food bank cases is that household incomes are not keeping up
with the cost of living. Half of those who use food banks are


27
actually working, but their wages are too low to sustain them.
The other half are people on benefits, whose low incomes have
been squeezed even further by harsh policies like the bedroom
tax. And with more welfare cuts on the way, this situation looks
set to get even worse. (Margaret Lynch, Chief Executive of
Citizens Advice Scotland, as reported in the Scotsman.)

An additional 100,000 children in Scotland will be pushed into
poverty by the end of the decade owing to welfare changes
(Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, reported in the Daily
Record)

There are 657,000 carers in Scotland. 16,701 of which are young
carers. Helna Herklots, the Chief Executive of Carers UK said of
the 3.53 billion care cuts over the past 4 years: we face a stark
reality of a rapidly rising number of older and disabled people
needing social care, whilst fewer and fewer [are] able to access
the support they need. Families are unable to fill the gap left by
care cuts. The number of people providing full-time care to
loved ones has soared to over 1.4 million, and cuts to the
support they receive risks pushing carers to breaking point.
This cannot continue, and unless Government acts to place
social care funding on a sustainable footing, the future for older
and disabled people and families struggling to care for them, is
even bleaker still.

- More than 300,000 disabled people will have their benefits cut
when Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is replaced by a new
benefit, Esther McVey, the minister for disable people,
announced. (Reported in the Independent)


Even the nations working people are getting a rough deal:

More than six million working Britons are living in poverty.
(The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, reported in the Independent)

Half a million soldiers, nurses, and teachers will have their
income slashed under the coalitions benefit crackdown,
according to a new report (The Childrens Society, reported in
The Guardian)




28
Unfortunately, the case is not just that things are bad: they are set to get
worse if Scotland remains in the Union:

A further 25bn spending cuts much of it from the welfare
budget will be needed after the next election, Chancellor
George Osborne has warned. He said more austerity lay ahead,
as the job was not even half done. (Reported on the BBC News
website)

No matter how much we dislike particular Tory spending cuts
or tax rises, we cant make promises to reverse them. I am clear
that I wont do that and neither will any of my Shadow Cabinet
colleagues. (Ed Balls, reported in the Independent)


Pensioners literally having to choose between food and heat, working
people and children starving: how can this be in a country that had the
potential to have embarrassing wealth according to the McCrone report,
which was hidden from the UK public by the government in the 1970s?

The sad fact of the matter is that Westminster has messed up, prioritising
financial gain and maintenance of a global status over the welfare of the
countrys people. Many of the social issues in Scotland, and indeed the
rest of the UK are being swept under the carpet as recent policies, such
as the Bedroom tax and changing Disability Living Allowance (DLA) to
Personal Independent Payments (PIPs), have actually made the situation
for many already vulnerable people, a whole lot worse.


An excellent but incredibly upsetting breakdown of the current Westminster
governments failings regarding the welfare of the UK can be found here:
http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2014/01/the-cost-of-ids-100-ways-iain-
duncan.html

THE REAL COST OF BENEFIT FRAUD

Regarding the benefit system, some people may be quick to blame benefit
fraud on the reasons why the government is cracking down. However, the
fact is that the cost of benefit fraud is incredibly low: a small
percentage (2bn in 2011/12) compared with the vast cost of legal tax
avoidance schemes for the wealthy, benefit errors, and the money
the government saves from unclaimed benefits ((nearly 48bn


29
altogether),) possibly more as it is difficult to calculate tax that that has
been avoided).

However, the myth that this type of fraud is a huge problem in the UK is
rife, and the TUC (Trades Union Congress) states that the support for
benefit cuts is dependent on ignorance and that hostile attitudes to
welfare are widespread.

For example, on average people think that:
- 41 per cent of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to
unemployed people, while the true figure is 3 per cent.
- 27 per cent of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently, while the
government's own figure is 0.7 per cent.

Despite these incredibly low figures, the government and media have
allowed the myths to continue, in order to justify support for their
unrelenting cuts to the welfare budget.

FROM DLA TO PIP AND THE BEDROOM TAX

It would be easy to argue that the recent Westminster administration has
truly victimised disabled members of UK society.

DLA TO PIP

PIPs (Personal Independent Payments), administered by a private, French
company, Atos Healthcare, were introduced to replace the previous DLA
(Disability Living Allowance) to radically reform the welfare system and
reduce the number of disability claimants.

Disability Rights spoke of the loss of independence many disabled
people would have to endure: nearly half a million people would have no
disability benefit entitlement at all, and nearly half a million would have
a reduced award. Some aspects such as the fit for work tests state that
if a person can walk 20m, even needing the help of a stick, they could lose
up to 1800 of their benefits and their mobility vehicle, and even if people
were already registered as being disabled, they would have to undergo
distressing retests.

Since the introduction of the PIPs, literally thousands of deaths of
disabled people have been recorded. People have died while appealing


30
cases that they should have won first time round, while having to wait
months for money that they were perfectly entitled to, and there is much
anecdotal evidence reported by relatives that their loved ones were simply
so distressed by the stressful, painstaking PIP application (and
reapplication) process that their health suffered considerably. Some claim
that the new system violates disabled peoples human rights.

In response to this reform, the Disability Benefits Consortium, made up
from more than 50 disability organisations, urged the government to
rethink the policy. Letters written from the charities to Department of Work
and Pensions from charities representing millions of disabled people
requested that the policy be reexamined as the life shattering changes
meant that over half a million people are set to lose out and even more
in years to come. Thousands will be forced to give up their car or other
essential mobility equipment, thus potentially leaving work or education, or
missing medical appointments.

The case went to court, but unfortunately the charities were unsuccessful
as the changes were deemed to be lawful.

The National Audit Office produced a report on the PIPs, which stated
that this new benefit system was three and a half times more expensive
than the previous benefit and took double the time to administer.

Ironically, the documentation for this welfare reform can be found on the
Simplifying the welfare system and making sure work pays section of the
UK government website.

THE BEDROOM TAX

The Bedroom Tax means that people with spare rooms in their council or
Housing Association accommodation will not be entitled to full housing
benefit if they are deemed to be under-occupying their home. Again, it
tends to be the poorer people in society who live in this type of housing.

There have been reports of increased homelessness around the country,
and people having to rack up debt in order just to pay bills.

Among other problems with the policy, there are no allowances for
disabled individuals who need a place to store medical equipment in their
home. The only way out that disabled people have is to apply for the
already over-stretched Discretionary Housing Payment fund, and


31
Westminster MPs have stated that local authorities should help the people
in their area, (of course public spending cuts make this incredibly difficult).
Many disabled people are unable to get help.

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith stated in
2010:

You have nothing to fearIt is a proud duty to provide financial security to
the most vulnerable members of our society, and this will not change. This
is our contract with the most vulnerable.


So, is this really the financial security that the UKs disabled and
vulnerable have been looking for? An independent Scotland can do
much better.

MEANWHILE, IN THE UPPER ECHELON OF SOCIETY

While this austerity was underway, affecting the most vulnerable in
society, the richest have been wealthier than ever and the UK had more
billionaires per head of population than any other country, according to the
BBC after viewing the Sunday Times Rich List.

Tax cuts have been introduced, favouring the wealthiest in society. The
super rich are twice as rich as around five years ago, and the fortune of the
wealthiest 1000 people in Britain is equivalent to one third of the countrys
GDP. The Equality Trust state that the current tax system is regressive,
not fit for purpose and the public are misled about the tax system and
wrongly believe that the richest pay the most in taxes. The truth is that
the poorest households in the UK pay a higher percentage of their
income in taxes than the wealthiest.

The one off tax for the wealthy was an alternative to the austerity
measures. Much of the public agreed it was a very effective way to solve
the economic problems of the country, but was dismissed by David
Cameron. Instead, his government chose to hit the poorest people the
hardest.

As an additional insult to the people crippled by welfare cuts, a UK
government minister recently quit his job as the 120,000 per year wages
were intolerable and not enough to support his family in London.



32
WELFARE AFTER INDEPENDENCE

Scottish government is committed to social justice and equality. According
to the Equality Trust, countries with a lesser divide between rich and poor
have lower crime rates, higher life expectancy, higher levels of trust,
happiness and social participation, higher educational scores.

The Expert Working Group on Welfare for the Scottish government
recognised that the current system is too complex and advocated ways in
which improvements can be made.

The Scottish government is dedicated to:

- scrapping unnecessary and ominous Westminster policies such as
the bedroom tax

- maintaining the sovereignty of the Scottish people regarding the
wants and needs for their country in the writing of the constitution

- introducing a minimum wage that, at least, rises with inflation

- stopping the PIPs that have had a disastrous effect on the countrys
disabled people and reforming the welfare system, focusing on
making it fairer, more personal and simpler for all, and making care
for the most vulnerable in society a priority

- preserving public services like the NHS and free tuition, where
healthcare and education should not just be for those who can afford
it (please see section about what is currently happening to the NHS).

- offering childcare to families with young children in order to increase
quality of life, tackle poverty, and benefit the economy as more
adults can get back to work. This can also reduce gender inequality
in the workplace.

THE COMMON WEAL

A more equal society for Scotland is advocated by Robin McAlpine, via the
Common Weal, an emerging movement which is developing a vision for
economic and social development in Scotland. It rejects 30 years of
grasping, me-first politics, a survival-of-the-richest, winner-takes-all
mentality which left us all in second place, and asserts that we


33
should create hope and change by putting All of us first.

Some of the elements to create a fairer and more equal society promoted
by the Common Weal involve:

- supporting individuals and small businesses through a national fund
for industry, beating big-business

- fighting back against energy companies and taking the nations
energy into collective ownership

- building a new generation of great quality, affordable public housing

- strengthening the welfare state, not cutting it, in order to alleviate
peoples fear of having nothing

- ending tax avoidance: if poorer people have to pay taxes, so should
multimillion pound companies

- believing in Scotlands ingenuity and rebuilding the economy that
has been crumbling due to UK government policies


There is no reason Scotland cannot have these things. For too long,
Scotland has been lied to by the UK government, and made out to be too
wee, too poor, too stupid to run its own affairs: Scottish people have lost
faith, and have lost their self-belief. But Scotland has the money for
welfare. It has the industries to create more jobs for people. It has the
capacity to build a better country than its citizens are currently living in.

In an independent Scotland, people can create an all of us first
society to thrive in and be proud of.


34
Why have I not heard everything
about what will happen?
(This also has information
about Scotlands start up
costs)

MEDIA BIAS

Essentially, the Scottish people are being tricked out of making an
informed choice, as the issues surrounding the referendum are not being
discussed and highlighted in the media. What is being presented to us is a
false prospectus from the No campaign.

The media has strong ties to the current government, who obviously
dont want Scotland and its assets to leave the union. (Scotland has
approximately one third of the landmass, 70% of the coastline, 1.5 trillion
pounds asset of oil as well as other growing industries, and it strengthens
the UKs balance of trade as it is in surplus [the balance of trade is the
UKs import/export balance and is the worst in the developed world in 2014
according to the EU: Scotland is propping it up.])

The BBC is pro union with clear bias in its coverage, and many media
channels are the same. A report by Professor John Robertson of The
University of the West of Scotland explores the range of media bias in the
BBC relating to items about the referendum.

For example, negative news would be shared first to have the biggest
impact, government studies would be passed off as having impartial
figures, on television, supporters of independence face more intense
questioning and are cut off far more readily than pro-Union people. Also,
in newspapers, many headlines have had an incredibly doom and gloom
stance yet if you read the article you will find a quote or something perhaps
taken out of context regarding an area where people have doubts or
questions about what may happen in an independent Scotland e.g. a
headline such as PENSIONS BLACK HOLE of an article that discusses
the UK being safer for peoples pension whereas the truth is something
scarily different from that (see above section about pensions).



35
Here is a link to the first in a series of videos that explore a tool that has
been used to a huge extent during the referendum campaign: The Fear
Factor: The politics of fear can mean only one thing: that the powerful are
afraid: http://www.scottishindependencereferendum.info/ffvideos.html

PORKIE PIES FROM THE TREASURY

The UK Treasury was caught out lying about the start up costs for an
independent Scotland. They stated that it would cost 2.7billion based
Professor Dunleavys figures (from the London School of Economics).
Professor Dunleavys research actually highlighted that the average cost to
start a UK government department is 15million and it was deliberately
highlighting that in comparison to other countries the UK government are
incredibly wasteful and inefficient.

The UK treasury took the figure of 15million and decided that Scotland
would need to create 180 departments. This is how they came up with the
figure of 2.7billion, despite the fact that most of Scotlands government
departments already exist so would not need to be set up. The UK
government have less that 30 departments so why they would think
Scotland would need to have 180 is a question I am sure many people
would like to know the answer to!

Dunleavy rejected the use of his figures and stated that the Westminster
had increased his figures by 1200%. He stated that in actual fact, he
deemed the systems already set up in Holyrood (the Scottish government)
were modern streamlined directorates able to work at a fraction of the
cost in collaboration with other relevant departments in contrast to the
large, expensive bureaucracies of Westminster all working in isolation from
each other. Quite the contrast to the picture that Westminster had painted
of his research.

His actual estimate for a one off start up was between 200 and
250million.

(If Scotland remains in the Union, HS2, the high speed rail link between
London and Birmingham, would alone cost Scotland 200 million per year,
EVERY YEAR, if it is even on budget.
There has also been the banding about of a 900million figure from the
UK Treasury for the updating of Scotlands IT systems. Firstly, this is likely
to have to happen if Scotland stays in the Union anyway, the cost would be
spread between now and 2018 2021 and possibly longer, and regarding


36
the UK Treasurys recent guesswork for Scotlands start-up costs, do they
even have much credibility to be making assessments for Scotland? Even
if the figure was that high, Scotland could easily still afford it.)

MORE PORKIE PIES BUT SCOTLANDS PEOPLE
LEARN NOTHING ABOUT IT

After the treasury admitted to misbriefing by using Professor Dunleavys
figures inappropriately, they then said that the real start up figure was 1.5
billion, based on the work of Professor Young from the University of
Western Ontario.

Professor Young immediately rejected the use of his figures as they were
not applicable to Scotland. The figures specifically applied to a situation
where Quebec might become independent from Canada, and have to start
up a whole countrys governmental infrastructure more or less from
scratch. In line with Professor Dunleavy, Professor Young asserted that
the infrastructure necessary for Scotland to function as an independent
country was already largely in place. Unsurprisingly, this was not largely
promoted in the press.

Down south, in the week that this news came out, the headlines stated
things such as UK TREASURY CAUGHT OUT LYING TO SCOTTISH
VOTERS OVER INDEPENDENCE in order to tell the true story. In
Scotland there were no such headlines and the media hardly covered the
story. By the end of the week, the media coverage had completely twisted
the story, with headlines such as BLOW TO YES CAMPAIGN: SCOTTISH
GOVERNMENT UNABLE TO PUT A FIGURE ON START UP COSTS.
Unfortunately, this is a common way in which information regarding the
referendum and Scottish independence has been handled by the major
media outlets.

For further information about media hysteria, please also see the sections
about Scotlands entry to the European Union, and whether big companies
want to leave Scotland after the event of a Yes vote.


THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT IS MORE EFFICIENT
AND CHEAPER THAN WESTMINSTER

The Scottish government finance minister, John Swinney, also gave an


37
example of Dunleavys argument about Westminsters inefficiency and
wastefulness. Relating to new tax gathering powers acquired through The
Scotland Act, where an administrative body had to be set up to do what we
had previously been paying the UK to do on our behalf, the service can be
done in Scotland more efficiently and 25% more cheaply.

This applies to all the things that we currently pay the UK to do on our
behalf, e.g. Ministry of Defence, Department of Work and Pensions, DVLA,
etc. We already pay for these services, and start up costs would not be a
lot more than we pay now but will create thousands of jobs in Scotland
which will therefore feedback income tax to the Scottish Treasury.

GENERAL VIEW FROM THE YES / NO CAMPAIGNS

Arguably, the move by Westminster and the media to keep information
from the Scottish public was to keep people guessing and add to the
scaremongering that has been rife in the No campaign.

If the Scottish government and the UK government sat down to work out
what independence would mean, the people of Scotland would know
exactly what they would be voting for. As mentioned previously, the
Scottish Government wanted to do this but Westminster declined. Fear,
uncertainty and doubt could have been removed but instead have formed
a central part of the No campaign.

It could be argued that the Yes campaign depends upon discussion and
exploration of a wide range of issues and how issues are interrelated -
from finance to welfare, industrial policy to defence, pensions provision to
government spending priorities. In contrast, the No campaign has tended
to avoid discussions, having refused on numerous occasions to put
forward people to take part in local and national debates, as well as simply
have simply not turning up to scheduled public meetings.

It has also been evidenced that the direction of travel of voters is
generally from No to Yes as people become better informed about the
issues surrounding Scottish independence. There are very few that have
gone from a Yes to a No. This indicates that the arguments for
independence are far stronger than those for No.


38
Where would the money to start an
independent Scotland come from?

The savings that Scotland will make under
independence are vastly more than the cost. Please
see the sections about the economic issues for Scotland,
and the media bias answer that also discusses start-up
costs.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Restating a point made previously, experts stated that Scotland already
possesses the bulk of the infrastructure needed for an independent
country, e.g. government bodies already established, tax administration, it
already runs its own departments, it already runs its own education
system, prison service, NHS, police and emergency services, etc.

The remaining things Scotland needs to establish, it already pays for. It
contributes between 9.5 and 10% of the UKs tax revenue every year,
despite being only 8.4% of the population. This alone means that Scotland
would have an extra 4.4 billion pounds to spend in Scotland after a Yes
vote.

SCOTLAND IS ALREADY PAYING

Setting up of any new departments, such as the Scottish Ministry of
Defence, means that jobs that Scotland currently pay people to do in
England would come to Scotland, at no extra cost. Scotland is already
paying for these services, and experts have stated that we can be
doing it significantly more cheaply in Scotland. Because of these jobs
being created for people in Scotland, the income tax will go to the Scottish
Treasury, therefore keeping the wealth and jobs within Scotland.

Any new infrastructure that needs to be created will have the same
characteristics: jobs for Scottish people, and income tax staying in
Scotland, all from things that Scotland already currently pays for within the
United Kingdom.

Scotland generates money that tends to end up in London and the South


39
East of England. As a consequence of this, people want to work where the
money is so as well as a financial drain, there is a drain of Scotlands
talented and educated people, who also have to leave if they want to do
well in their careers.

An independent Scotland can fix the leaky ship: money currently
pouring out of its economy into the drain of the City of London can stay
within Scotland, to build the kind of fairer and more prosperous society that
it is more than capable of having.

How would Scotland build its
industry/boost the economy?

SCOTLANDS ECONOMY NOW

Scotlands current balance of trade is positive, meaning that it exports
more than it imports. The UKs is negative, meaning that it imports more
than it exports. The Scottish economy is currently stronger than the
UK economy as a whole. It could be said that Scotland is, in some ways,
propping up the UK economy. Scotland has a diverse economy that is
doing well but the Scottish government does not currently hold powers to
develop its own industries to their maximum potential.

Since the time of the Thatcher government, there has been a switch from
the promotion of manufacturing industries to the expansion of the financial
sector and prioritisation of big business. Therefore industry across the
whole of the UK, such as in mining, shipbuilding, and car manufacturing
has been reduced to a large extent, especially Scotland and the north of
England.

This led to privatisation of public services, selling of national assets, and of
course, a huge loss of jobs (and therefore loss of income tax to the
Treasury), as well as placing an emphasis on low pay for the remaining
workers and little regulation of business (the phrase cutting of red tape
has been banded about a lot relating to this).



40
Of course, the financial sector is not particularly productive as people are
dealing with money and numbers: nothing is actually created, so there is
little need for a large workforce in this area.

There has been very little effort by recent Westminster governments to
rebuild other industries in the UK. Their priorities tend to involve reading
the market trends and basing decisions on ways to make the most profit,
rather than creating policies to benefitting the people and economy in a
more sustainable way.

UNDER AN INDEPENDENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT

Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess
player, not the chess piece.
Ralph Charell


The Scottish Government will be proactive in their approach, by linking
supply and demand simultaneously in order to boost the economy. They
have stated that they would create an integrated industrial policy where
industries would be created as part of a virtuous cycle, where a product is
created as well as a demand for that product, therefore creating jobs in the
process.

For example, we can look at the potential development of the biomass fuel
industry: empty land in the north of Scotland can be utilised to grow
biomass crops (regarded a green alternative to fossil fuels), so a number
of local authorities then switch to using biomass fuel, therefore creating a
need for biomass crops. This cycle leads to the development of jobs and
training opportunities for young people (and of course the income tax of
these goes back to the Scottish Treasury rather than the UKs or another
investing countrys).

This model of creating supply and demand can be used can in other
industries, such as the renewables sector. The product is already there,
i.e. wind/tidal/hydro power, and the demand for energy exists. The
government would develop the industry to link the product to the demand,
again, creating many jobs in the process.

The government and local authorities would create markets, in order to
grow industry in different ways in different areas of Scotland, as well as
constantly looking for ways in which these cycles can be improved.


41


What about peoples
pensions?

YOUR PENSION WILL BE PAID REGARDLESS OF
WHERE YOU LIVE

The UK Minister Steve Webb answered a question from MP Ian Davidson
on the subject and reassured the public that everyones pensions will be
paid. If you have paid the UK based Department of Work and Pensions /
national insurance in your life, you will be entitled to get your money,
regardless of in which country you were living.

AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLANDS PENSIONS

Scotland pays less of overall public spending than the rest of the UK so
pensions are more affordable in Scotland. On average in Scotland, people
die younger so they dont benefit from their pensions for as long (not a
particularly happy statistic but a fact nonetheless). There is a possibility of
future pension policy in an independent Scotland taking this into account
and making pensions fairer and from a younger age.

The Scottish Government stated that the basic state pension would
continue to be uprated with the Triple Lock initially for the period of the first
independent Scottish Parliament. The proposed oil fund is also to be used
to create a pension pot for the people of Scotland, and the Scottish
government wish to improve pensions for its elderly citizens.

UK PENSIONS

On the other hand, the current UKs pension is one of the lowest in
Europe and the current government is looking to increase retirement age
to 67. This raises the question about pensions liability for the UK and
whether they will be in a position to pay the pension that people have paid
into all of their lives. However, there is no pension pot accruing interest as


42
you would expect. Gordon Brown took 100 billion from the pensions money
when he was in power so peoples pensions are currently being paid from
current national insurance payments and general taxation.

What will happen about
Scotlands defence?

SCOTLANDS CURRENT SITUATION

At present, the UKs pitiful defence of Scotlands coastline does not nearly
justify the huge, yearly defence bill that Scotland pays. Scots pay 3.3
billion pounds of the UKs defence budget, but just over half of that is
actually spent in Scotland.

The UK government overspend due to their continuous at war status
and invest billions of the UKs money in wasteful projects such as building
aircraft carriers for which there are no aircraft, and Trident, a nuclear
weapon of mass destruction, which most Scots do not want. Regarding
Trident, Tony Blair in his time as Prime Minister, and at a time when he
was trying to justify decisions to renew the UKs nuclear capability, actually
stated that Trident was unusable and was merely a symbol of the UKs
global status.

European countries of comparible size to Scotland pay a lot less to have
perfectly functional defence systems.

The difference is that these other European countries are paying for
defence, whereas Scotland is currently paying towards the UKs force
projection, i.e. invading other countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq as
part of the USAs extremely questionable war on terror.


This article Spend less to get more outlines more detail about how
Scotland is currently losing out from its current UK defence and would be
Scotland is currently paying for the UKs arguably futile projection of
power as opposed to simply protecting its own peace.


43
better under independence:
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/defence-in-an-independent-scotland-
spend-less-to-get-more/

And further reading about Scotlands defence can be found here:
http://www.scottishindependencereferendum.info/defence.html

IS SCOTLAND EVEN CURRENTLY DEFENDED?

It is arguable whether Scotland is even currently adequately protected by
the UKs defences. Despite Scotland having around 70% of the UKs
coastline, the Royal Navy does not have one major surface vessel
centered in Scottish waters. Instead, major vessels are deployed to
support military strikes in other parts of the world, such as Syria and Iraq.

Therefore, a few years ago, when a Russian aircraft carrier strayed into the
Moray Firth, UK Intelligence was only alerted via social media sites. Due to
the lack of local naval resources, the UK government had to send a vessel
from the south of England to make contact with the fleet. It took 24 hours
for a naval vessel to arrive from Portsmouth, demonstrating the
current lack of rapid response in defence for the coastline of
Scotland.
Despite the incident, UK Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond asserted,
"We do not need a frigate stationed in Scottish waters.

A similar incident also happened in 2011.

DEFENCE IN AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND

After independence, the defence budget would be reduced to 2.5 billion
pounds, freeing up 800 million per year to spend on other Scottish
priorities.

The Scottish Government intend to re-prioritise where money is spent on
defence, and create a better-equipped defence system that meets
Scotlands needs, such as protecting Scotlands oil rigs and fishing areas.

There are currently no naval patrol vessels or aircraft based in
Scotland or the surrounding waters, and under independence there
would be an immediate need for the procurement of several frigates and a
range of other appropriate vessels. Therefore maintaining shipbuilding on


44
the Clyde and giving the industry time to diversify and expand. Again, we
can follow a Norwegian example, where a diverse shipbuilding industry
thrives. This would, of course, create jobs, and kick-start Scotlands
shipbuilding industry, with income tax coming back to the Scottish
Treasury, as opposed to the UKs.

Again, the vision for Scotland is about projecting peace in its own country,
not force on others.

There is no question as to whether Scotland can afford an adequate
defence system, despite what has been stated in the media. It is already
paying way more than necessary for less mediocre defence from the UK.

For further information, please see the answers to questions about where
the money will come from, and why people may not have heard all the
facts about the independence debate.

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation)

The majority of countries within NATO do not have nuclear weapons, so it
is difficult to see how the loss of Trident would affect Scotlands entry.
Spain got rid of their nuclear submarines and warheads by 1979 and
joined NATO in 1982.


Regarding its geographical position, if Scotland was not part of NATO,
there would be a significant hole in the area the organisation is meant to
cover, therefore logic states that it would be in NATOs interests to admit
Scotland.

This is a very interesting letter about the American view of Scotland, and
an independent Scotlands entry to NATO from Will McLeod, the
Government and World Affairs Correspondent for Netroots Radio in
Washington, DC:
http://wingsoverscotland.com/an-actual-letter-from-america/

And here is an interview with Professor Michael E. Smith, Chair of
International Relations at the University of Aberdeen, an expert in the area:
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-keepers-of-the-gate/



45
TRIDENT

Scotlands MPs and MSPs have voted against the use of nuclear
weapons, however due to our relatively small percentage of the UKs
constituency, our voice is overruled.

The Scottish governments plan is to remove Trident from Faslane Naval
Base by 2020, and the base will be expanded in order to become the
headquarters for all of Scotlands military forces.

We must beg the question, Why are the UKs nuclear weapons in the west
coast of Scotland and not protecting the larger portion of the population of
the City of London and the south East of England? People in the rest of the
UK have (and rightly so!) stated their horror at the prospect of the nuclear
weapons being moved closer to their homes and children. So why should
they stay in Scotland, so close to its homes and children, especially when
Scottish MPs have voted against the renewal of Trident?




Will Scotland not be under
threat if its nuclear weapons
are removed?

Quite the contrary. Scotland is currently a global target as we are housing
unusable weapons of mass destruction. As soon as the weapons leave
Scotland, the target is removed.

It could be argued that people in the west coast of Scotland are currently in
more danger of nuclear poisoning than your average UK citizen, because
of the inefficient yet horrifying weapons being harboured there. In 2010, a
Royal Navy nuclear submarine, HMS Astute, ran aground off the coast of
Skye. Fortunately, the vessel was not armed and no harm was done.

Some may say that having nuclear weapons is a deterrent to the threat
from other countries. However, to have a deterrent weapon, the holding
party must be willing to use it and communicate this to the opposition.


46
Clearly, the Scottish government and the vast majority of the population
have no intention of striking a nuclear attack.

Other northern Atlantic countries such as countries such as Ireland,
Greenland and Iceland have a very small military capability, much less
than what Scotland is proposing. And the geographical position of Scotland
would warrant help if defence was needed as, being so close to other
European countries, it would be in their interests to keep Scotland safe.
The same way that France would be likely to help Belgium if they were
invaded (ridiculous as it sounds).

Anyway, who would invade Scotland? And for what reason? How often do
you hear of peaceful countries such as Switzerland and Sweden being
invaded? However, if there was to be an invasion from another
country, an independent Scotlands waters and aerospace would be
significantly more protected than they are now, as part of the UK.

What about the people who
will lose jobs?

Unfortunately, those who currently work on Trident would lose their current
position at some point after Scottish independence. However, the numbers
have been vastly exaggerated by the Tory and Labour parties.

520 jobs at Faslane and Coulport rely on Trident, nowhere near the excess
of 6000 that has been quoted by the pro-Trident parties.

John Foster, a social sciences professor at Paisley University was quoted
in the report that new jobs would be created at the Faslane base by the
introduction of non-nuclear Astute-class submarines.

The jobs lost will be in tiny numbers compared to the jobs that could be
created by the Scottish government in their industrial policy, although, the
transferable skills of the Trident workers could lead them into other
defence jobs.

For further information please see the section about how Scotland would
boost the economy.




47
What is happening with the
current NHS?

BEING DESTROYED BY PRIVATISATION

Many would agree that the creation of the National Health Service was one
of the pinnacles of Britains society. Free healthcare for everyone, no
matter how much money you have.

However, the current UK government is allowing the NHS to be bought off
by private companies, therefore reducing the public spending budget.
And because the public spending budget is being reduced in the rest of the
UK, the budget allocated to Scotland is also being reduced, despite
Scotlands public services remain at the same level.

(For further information about this please read about the block grant and
the Barnett Formula in the economic issues for Scotland as part of the
UK).

The UK government are selling off hospitals and medical centres to
private companies (one of the UKs largest private health insurance
company being Virgin Healthcare), so hospitals are essentially being made
to compete with each other. This means that the sharing of good practice,
which is common in the publically owned NHS, does not happen.

Also, these new privately owned hospitals obviously want to appear to be
the most successful to potential new customers, so the administrators
generally choose to provide the most cost-effective procedures with high
success rates only - the more difficult and costly procedures are left for the
NHS to carry out. Essentially, these companies care more about profit than
people, and this is what the current UK government is advocating.

SCOTLAND AND THE NHS

Luckily, Scotland is currently responsible for its own NHS, so privatisation
has only been taking place south of the border. Contrary to Westminster,
the Scottish government has put in place measures since devolution, to
undo the beginnings of privatisation begun by the Thatcher government:
they are committed to keeping the NHS very much a public service.


48

But because the Scottish government has no say in the budget allocated,
the public spending cuts via the Barnett Formula (that are really
happening) will lead to the Scottish Government not being able to afford
free healthcare for the countrys people. The Scottish government will have
no choice but to sell off parts of the NHS to private companies. Within 10
years time, there will be no NHS as we know it.

A very recent article in the Independent outlines concerns of Shadow
Health Secretary Andy Burnham: NHS could be 'carved open' by US
healthcare profiteers.

Fortunately, all parties in Scotland are unswerving from their view that the
Scottish NHS is an essential part of society, therefore with a Yes vote, you
can be sure it will remain a national, free, public service.



What will happen with the
BBC?

The BBC licence fee in Scotland raises 300 million pounds although the
budget for BBC Scotland is only 87 million pounds. If we keep the licence
fee as it is for a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation, this would leave us just
under 200 million to invest in sports coverage, creative arts, film studios
and related infrastructure (it was reported that the lack of a film studio was
the only reason the makers of Game of Thrones went to Ireland, having
originally wanted to use the landscapes of Scotland as a backdrop).

Regarding watching the BBC in an independent Scotland, most countries
in the world pay on average 1.5 million to get access to the BBC
programmes that they want. The main broadcaster in Ireland, RTE, pays
21 million for the full output of the BBC (all channels), why should Scotland
not be able to get a similar deal?







49
What about currency?


There has been a huge amount of negative press coverage on the
currency debate, much of it, such as the repetition of Salmond does not
have a Plan B has no substance. Alex Salmond clearly outlines the
position regarding currency: no currency deal, no debt.

THE POUND IS SCOTLANDS TOO

The pound was first used in Scotland so it is Scotlands pound as much as
the rest of the UKs. It is a fully tradable currency internationally so even
without a currency union, absolutely nobody can stop Scotland from using
the pound. There would simply be a Scottish pound, and a remainder of
the UK pound.

THE EURO

Hypothetically speaking, as part of the EU Scotland is not obliged to
take the Euro as its national currency. Dr Fabian Zuleeg, the Chief
Executive of the European Policy Centre states that there is no legal
mechanism to force a country into the ERM and it is not in anyones
interest to do so. (The ERM is the Exchange Rate Mechanism for the EU).

THE CURRENCY UNION

The idea of having on a currency union has been suggested, advocated,
and dismissed on a number of occasions.

Despite what has been banded about by Better Together and Westminster
about there being no currency union, Alistair Darling stated last year that it
would be desirable and logical for Scotland to keep the pound and that
a currency union would be the best for bother parties. This was also
recently reiterated by an unnamed government minister, Of course there
will be a currency union.


There are a number of reasons why the currency union is the most
economically logical:


50

No transaction costs for cross-border business
With a currency union there would be no additional costs for businesses
trading across the border. Scotland and the rest of the UK are major
trading partners, so it is in the interest of neither country to have cross-
border transaction costs.

Dividing assets (and debt)
The currency union makes the most sense for the negotiations that will
take place after a Yes vote. Scottish and UK governments need to divide
the current UKs assets (of which Scotland owns approximately 8.4%).

Regarding the UKs debt, the full liability lies with the UK: the UK
government owes the money. Scotland does not owe the money so
creditors will come looking to the Scottish government for the money. The
Scottish Government has stated that they will take on some of the UKs
debt as an act of goodwill and in exchange for confirmation a currency
union and amicable relations. There is no obligation upon Scotland to
repay any of the debt as it was not the Scottish government that
borrowed it. Therefore, Scotland is in a strong bargaining position as it
cannot default on the debt.

Maintaining the strength of sterling
As Scotland will continue to use sterling, both Scotland and the UK will
have to contribute to the strength of the pound. Therefore, it is in
Scotlands interests to keep the remaining UK healthy, and is in the
interest to neither party to see the other weakened. Both economies need
to other to be as strong as possible, and a currency union is the best way
to try to ensure this.


Because of the hugely important economic arguments for a currency
union, and the fact that MPs have stated in the past that this would be the
outcome for Scottish independence, the Scottish government have stated
that a currency union will be the inevitable outcome, either that or they will
not take on any of the UKs debt. The UK Treasury would create a very
difficult situation for all parties, including themselves, if they were to decline
a currency union. Therefore it is incredibly likely that the currency union will
go ahead.

So, why has they currency debate been allowed to drag on for so long
when all parties have, at some stage, been in agreement?



51
Alistair Darling has been completely contradicting what he said previously
regarding the currency union, probably because this is one of the only
remaining cards that Better Together campaign have to play to promote
fear and uncertainty in Scottish voters.

(Westminster also stated that they were not going to pre-negotiate any
issues before the outcome of the referendum, surely declining the currency
union would be considered a pre-negotiation?)




Will Scotland stay in the EU?

THIS COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED AGES AGO!

This question could easily have been answered by Westminster, as it is
only an existing EU country (in this case, the UK) that can seek this kind of
information from the European Union. Of course, Westminster did not want
to set the record straight about Scotlands position in the EU, as a straight
answer would give Scottish people less to be frightened of regarding
voting for independence.

THERE IS NO REASON FOR SCOTLAND TO LEAVE

Scottish citizens have been EU residents for 40 years and Scotland meets
all the criteria for membership. Many experts have stated that there is no
reason that Scotland would be extracted from the EU. There is no
mechanism in the EU to expel Scotland - no country has been expelled
and is no legal mechanism to do so.

Chaos would be caused within the EU if Scotland was no suddenly longer
part of it. There are currently EU citizens living here protected by EU laws:
if they are suddenly in a non-EU country they are no longer protected by
EU law, and for Scottish citizens in Europe the reverse applies.
Agreements like funding streams and trade agreements (e.g. Spanish
boats fishing in Scottish waters) would be null and void. How could all of
this spaghetti suddenly be untangled?



52
The argument about the EU has also been played to death in the media,
with headlines such as, SCOTLAND WILL NOT GET INTO THE EU, and
SCOTLAND CAN EXPECT EU EXPULSION. However, these reports
have little or no substance.

WHAT SPAIN REALLY SAID

In the media, it was played out that an independent Scotland would
perhaps have problems getting into the EU as Spain was having issues of
its own with a particular region, Catalonia, wanting to become
independent. It was stated that the Spanish Government would perhaps
not let an independent Scotland into the EU as they would want to set an
example to the Catalonians in their own independence debate.

The Spanish Foreign Minister commented on these claims, stating that
there are significant differences between Spain and Catalonia. Scotland is
a nation, whereas Catalonia is a region of another country. He affirmed
that if the UK is accepting of Scotland becoming independent then Spain is
too. Of course, the Scottish and UK governments both signed the legal and
constitutional Edinburgh Agreement, that both parties will honour the
people of Scotlands vote on September 18
th
: it is ok with the UK
government, therefore it is ok with Spain.

AND JUNCKER (PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMISSION)

Words from Juncker, the President of the European Commission (and
previous Prime Minister of Luxembourg), were also recently spun by the
Better Together campaign and media to create uncertainty in voters.

It stated in the media that Juncker had no plans to enlarge the EU for 5
years and this would apply to countries currently in the queue. Of course,
Better Togethers claim JUNCKER ENDS SALMONDS EUROPEAN
DREAM were seen around Scotland.

Juncker was questioned on the matter and claimed that he had not been
referring to Scotland and that that was an entirely separate issue. Juncker
and other EU representatives have stated that Scotland is a special case
as it is already part of the EU so would be exempt from the normal
application process, and they do not want Scotland to leave the EU.



53
Better Together, after all this came out, still said this:

President Juncker has made it perfectly clear that he agrees with his
predecessor Jos Manuel Barroso and European Council president
Herman Van Rompuy that if we vote to leave the UK we need to reapply to
the join the EU.

AS PART OF THE UNION

The only real current danger to Scotlands place in the EU is the ensuing
surge in popularity for the UKiP party, who would remove the UK from the
European Union if they got into power.
Will Scottish people still have
a monarchy and be British?

Yes, the current Queen will remain to be Scotland's Head
of State. It was Scotlands monarch that first sat on the
throne of the union of the nations and the people of Scotland are perfectly
justified keeping the Royal family.

Also, people will still be regarded as British as Scotland will still be on the
British Isles.







What about international
relations?



54
SCOTLAND IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED

Scotland already has a brand: arguably, it is one of the most easily
recognised countries in the world, admittedly via steroypes such as tartan,
kilts, whiskey, Braveheart, bagpipes, thistles, haggis, and the Loch Ness
Monster, but hugely recognisable nonetheless. Look at the number of
famous Scottish characters in books, movies and TV: Groundskeeper
Willie from the Simpsons, Long John Silver from Treasure Island, Fat
Bastard (of course, a wonderful representation) on Austin Powers, and Dr
Jekyll and Mr Hyde to name but a few.

There is also no lack of international Scottish icons that people can identify
with musicians, actors, comedians, sportspeople, and TV personalities.
Considering its small size, Scotland has produced a great amount of talent.

Globally, there is also a great Scottish community: people who are expert
in their field who promote the Scottish brand through their ingenuity and
creativity. Scotland is already famous for its history and heritage of great
inventors and engineers. Everyday products that are used worldwide, such
as the television, telephone, and pneumatic tyre, that were invented by
Scottish inventors. This tiny country has been excelling in many areas for
years.

And most Scottish people who travel to other parts of the world would be
able to tell you the immediate warmth that people have towards the Scots,
and how they question what they have heard about this elusive, little,
faraway country.

Another point to mention is that some people of other nations have spoken
out in their support of the underdog Scotland becoming independent:
- A postcard from New Zealand
- Support from Wales
- A letter from America (mentioned previously)

PROJECTING PEACE AND JUSTICE, NOT FORCE AND
FEAR

Scotland also wants to stop being part of a bullying nation, ceasing the
projection of military force on other countries, and becoming a far more
peaceful country. Rather than backing illegal wars, as is currently
happening, Scotland would be far more likely to engage in activities such


55
as cooperating with other nations in issues of global importance.

Scotland would, essentially, be taking responsibility for its little part of the
world, leading by example about how things can be: the beacon in the
north, setting a positive example by simply protecting its own waters and
coastline, promoting renewable energy, and committing to social justice
within a fair and equal society.

THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE REST OF THE UK

Regarding the rest of the UK, there could be true cooperation on the British
Isles: a proper partnership where Scotland and the UK would be seen as
equals and no party dominates the other. On issues that the governments
agree, there can be two voices instead of one. Thus strengthening the
international presence of the British Isles. Where there is agreement, the
governments work together, where there is divergence, different policies
can be put in place to suit the individual needs of each country. No country
would be forced to go through with policies it did not want.

With regard to peoples concern about opinion across the borders, some
may say that there is already segregation between Scotland and the rest
of the UK: Scottish banknotes are not always accepted as tradeable
currency down south, and despite it being untrue, many English people
feel resentment over the subsidy myth that Scottish prescriptions and
education is payed for by English taxes.
Many Scottish people, who will be better informed about how Scotlands oil
wealth is being manipulated by the UK, may have ill-feeling towards the
UK government, and the fact that the Scots are painted and viewed as a
scrounging nation when this is far from the case.


The relationship with the UK after depends largely on the negotiations with
the UK government and the slant the media takes, so this is rather more of
an unknown. However it could be said that Scotlands relationship with
other countries is likely to improve after independence.





56
Do the big companies not all
want to leave?

In true No campaign fashion, the media have played this out and jumped
on any fact that may have a negative impact on the Yes campaign.

Regarding the issue of Scottish independence, Standard Life released a
statement saying that their key priority is to continue serving the needs of
our 4 million UK customers, wherever they reside and regardless of any
constitutional change.

They then went on to say we have started work to establish additional
registered companies to operate outside Scotland, into which we could
transfer parts of our operations if it was necessary to do so. This is a
purely precautionary measure, and customers do not need to take any
action. We are simply putting in place a mechanism which, in the event of
constitutional change, allows us to provide continuity to customers and to
continue serving them, wherever they live in the UK.

The ridiculousness of the hysteria in the media surrounding this (not very
interesting) point can be found here.

The Better Together campaign was also caught trying to get companies to
highlight negative points relating to Scottish independence. Many
businesses have stated neutrality to the referendum, or in fact that it could
actually be positive for business.

On the other hand, the UKs decision to leave the EU has further potential
to harm business interests.
How is Scotland in a strong
position to become
independent?

The yearly savings that Scotland will make after independence are
considerably more than the one off set-up cost. There is no doubt that


57
Scotland can afford to be independent.

Scotlands economy is already strong and the country has a wealth of
assets and diverse industries with huge potential that are not fully being
taken advantage. Many of these, such as the renewable energy sector, are
ready to go, and others, like the shipbuilding industry, just need to be kick-
started again. The Scottish Government have recognised the massive
potential of Scotlands industries and are committed to developing these.

Historically, there has been no other small nation facing independence that
has been in a stronger position than Scotland is in right now: the sheer
volume of national assets and industries (including just less then 9% of the
UKs assets), it is already a globally recognised and established nation,
and the vast majority of the countrys infrastructure is already in place.
Arguably, the only vital asset that Scotland is missing is its peoples self-
belief.

For more information please see the section about the economic issues for
Scotland in the UK.






Why should I vote YES now and not
wait to see if there is another
opportunity in, say, ten years?

Again, this is not scaremongering. This is the unfortunate reality of what
the future holds for Scotland in the Union.



58
Please see sections about specific topics, e.g. the economy, social issues,
or the NHS for more information.

LESS BUDGET = LESS PUBLIC SERVICES IN
SCOTLAND

This is really happening: the inevitable shrinking of the block grant will
mean that Scotland shall continue to pay for things that it does not
need while standards of living continue to fall: It will not be able to
afford to maintain its current level of public services, never mind if the
Barnett Formula is scrapped altogether as MPs have discussed:

- Scotland will not be able to afford to keep the NHS public. It will have
to resort to the privatisation that has recently been favoured by
Westminster. Once an organisation such as this is dissolved, it
would be incredibly difficult to rebuild it.

- It is very unlikely that currently free public services, such as care for
the elderly, will be able to be maintained

- People working in the public sector, such as soldiers, nurses and
teachers are having wages slashed

- The Police could also take a hammering after a No vote (claimed
but former officers, ones currently working are forbidden from
sharing their views on independence)

- Continuing austerity for the poorest people in society


There is potential for huge loss in Scotland after a No vote. Why choose a
poorer future?

After a Yes Vote, the Financial Times stated that Scotland would expect to
immediately rise to within the top 20 richest countries in the world: it is
currently in a stronger position financially than the rest of the UK, and
would be even stronger after independence able to keep and spend all of
its own money on its own priorities.



59
WESTMINSTER POLICIES ARE WIDENING THE
INEQUALITY GAP

Westminster has said it repeatedly. The austerity job is not even half done
according to Chancellor George Osborne. Damage is being done that
could take generations to fix, while wage inequality in the UK is one of the
highest in Europe.

The Welfare State, one of the great British creations, is in a shocking state
of decline. Some of the most vulnerable people in society are being
targeted for budget cuts, while some of the most wealthy and powerful are
enjoying tax cuts.

Britain is a billionaires playground with more billionaires per capita
than any other country in the world. A decade ago, having 700m in
the bank was enough to be among Britain's 50 wealthiest people, but today
you need at least 1.7bn.

Meanwhile:
- Pensioners having to choose whether to buy food or to heat their
homes. It has been reported that many simply perish from the cold in
wintertime for fear of the high energy costs to heat their homes.

- Thousands of disabled people have actually died since the
beginning of Westminsters welfare reform of DLA to PIPs, and
millions are losing out on benefits they should be entitled to: many
have had to get into debt just to pay bills, or have become homeless
as a result of policies like the bedroom tax.

- More people than ever before in the UK (including people who
actually have jobs) are having to rely on food banks in order to
survive.

- Many young unemployed people are eager to work but there are no
jobs for them to go to.

Cracking down on benefit fraud is the reason for these cuts, despite only
0.8% of benefit spending being overpaid due to fraud. The cost of tax
avoidance schemes for the rich is much, much more.

Why does it have to be the most vulnerable that pay?



60
The question is: how bad do things need to get before people question the
way their country is run and seek to find an alternative?

Why does the public mindset persist that a status quo besieged with issues
is better than a future with great potential?

EITHER WAY, CHANGE IS INEVITABLE

Things are going to change after the referendum, whether people like it or
not. Many people are of the view that they are fed up of the
independence debate and have had enough or wish it would hurry up
and be over with so we can get back to normal. But things in Scotland are
going to be different either way the vote goes.

There are reports of an English backlash where the public south of the
border may want to see Scotlands public spending cut, and remove
Scotlands voice from matters outside of Scotland, despite the fact that
Scotland will still be paying. Westminster may wish to take revenge on
Scots after a No vote in order to undermine devolution.

So lets look at the options for the next UK government and Prime Minister
(pretty close contenders it seems right now): Ed Miliband for a right-wing
Labour (a sad oxymoron) party, perhaps Nigel Farage with increasing
popularity for his UKiP party (a bit more radical but people are
understandably sick of the old crews), then theres sell-out Nick Clegg.

And of course, Boris Johnson who wants to turn the screw on Scotland,
or David Cameron again for the Conservatives: we must remember that if
Cameron had wanted Scotland to be able to have more powers, he would
have allowed the Devo Max option on the ballot paper. This was
something declined by Westminster, with likeliness that the only reason the
referendum was going ahead was because he was sure Scotland would
swallow the lies and spin, and vote No.

Who will win?

Why cant everyone win? The point is that it doesnt have to be about
winners and losers. With independence everyone in Scotland can be
represented with its proportional votes to seats system.



61
MORE POWERS ACTUALLY NOT VERY POWERFUL

Another factor in the debate is that Scotland will be offered more powers
in the event of a No vote.

But what exactly are these powers that are mentioned so frequently?

Unfortunately, these powers are not particularly significant, incredibly
vague, and seem to only based on tax raising powers (really just more
responsibility than more power), Stamp Duty, and borrowing powers for
MSPs.

However, there is a list of things for which Scotland shall have no
increased powers, and these shall remain in the hands of Westminster:
Arguably, the issues regarding the majority of these areas are the reason
Scotland wants to leave the UK!

For the United Kingdom to be an effective union, it is critical that
certain core matters remain reserved to the UK Parliament. Those
which are not should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Essential
reserved matters include:
Financial and economic matters including monetary policy, the
currency regulation, debt management and employment law. Without
these we cannot have a single economy.
Foreign affairs (including international development) and defence, both
of which are central to what defines a nation state.
The core of the Welfare State pensions and the majority of cash
benefits. These allow the social solidarity that helps bind the UK together.
The constitution.

Other issues which the Commission has reviewed and concluded should
remain reserved are:
Immigration.
Drugs, drug trafficking and related laws
Betting, gaming and lotteries
Broadcasting.
The civil service
Abortion and analogous issues


Relating to the political, economic, and social issues that are affecting
Scotland as part of the UK (please see the first three sections), the fact
that these areas shall remain to be the responsibility of Westminster


62
means that there would be very little movement from the right-wing
policies that are currently being implemented in the UK.

One must beg the question: will Scotlands desire for more powers (small
as they may be) be much of a priority when the focus is on the general
election, with the UKiP and EU matters? Common sense argues that the
independence debacle shall simply be swept under the carpet, as many
issues so often are in Westminster. In the words of the ever charming, and
no doubt personally invested Piers Morgan on his twitter account:

OK, Scotland, you've had your fun. Now just quietly vote 'NO' and we'll
say no more about it.

SCOTLAND HAD ITS CHANCE

A significant argument which one must consider is that by voting No, you
are condoning that Westminster has treated the lower classes over the
years, that the vulnerable are being unjustifiably targeted for benefit cuts
when the rich enjoy being richer than ever, that public services are being
sold off to the highest bidder, and that British people have been
manipulated and lied to. Scottish people are not subsidy junkies reliant on
the rest of the UKs tax money, and Scotlands oil is not anywhere near
running out, but these are myths that have shaped Scots opinions of their
own country, and indeed themselves over the years, as well as the
opinions of those south of the border, warranted or not.

A No vote is essentially Scotland giving a green light to whatever
Westminster chooses to do, with regards to finance and the economy,
welfare, foreign affairs, immigration, everything mentioned above that will
not be in Scotlands power to change.

No doubt, the negative spin from the government and media would
continue, and as public service and social issues decline due to the
reduction of Scotlands budget from the UK Treasury, a fair prediction
based on recent events could involve seeing headlines such as AND
TO THINK SCOTLAND THOUGHT THEY COULD GO IT ALONE.

As the current media bias, lies and desperate scare stories from the UK
government indicate that Scotland really has got a good thing going on. It
is therefore incredibly sad to think that the further reduced self-belief of the
Scots people after a No vote will lead them to believe the stories, thinking
We never could have done it anyway.


63

A CALCULATED CHANCE

Young Britons are the most apathetic voters in the EU: disengaged with
the political system as they dont feel represented and dont simply want to
vote for the least worst party. Due to the political representation
differences between Scotland and the UK, Scottish youth has a far greater
opportunity to get involved in deciding their destiny under independence.

Of course, there are uncertainties. Nobody can predict the future. So we
must look at what we know: trends, a calculated chance.

Westminster have a proven track of prioritising financial gain over citizens
welfare, lying to the public, especially where Scottish money and oil
revenue is concerned, creating an overwhelming inequality between rich
and poor, and getting involved in illegal wars and projecting force to
maintain a global status. The future for most people in the UK looks pretty
bleak: reduced welfare while there are not enough jobs to go round, and
privatization and cuts in public services.

On the other hand, if we look at what the Scottish government have been
doing since devolution in 1999, for example reinstating the NHS as a fully
public service, we can see that the priority is the countrys people.
Scotlands Future is the vision for Scotland created by the current Scottish
government, that raises the bar for the standards that the countrys people
should live by. It asserts how Scotland and its people can do much better,
and the steps the government can take to achieve this by representing
each maximising Scotlands industrial potential, creating jobs, bringing
about greater equality and social justice, focusing defence on simply
preserving the countrys peace, and providing greater care for the citizens
of the country.


As Alex Salmond stated in Aberdeen earlier this year, the future after
independence involves building Scotland up.

The referendum is not about this party, or this First Minister, or even the
wider Yes campaign. Its about putting Scotlands future into Scotlands
hands. And a Yes vote in September is not a vote for an SNP government
in 2016.

It is a vote for a government in Scotland that the people of Scotland


64
choose, pursuing policies the people of Scotland support. Its a vote for a
government in control of tax, the economy, social security, employment,
immigration, oil and gas revenues, European policy and the range of other
areas currently under Westminster control. That might be the SNP. It might
be Labour. It might be a coalition.

I can tell you what it wont be. It wont be a government led by a party with
just a single member of parliament in Scotland. It wont be a government
dismantling the Welfare State, privatising public services.

In an independent Scotland we can give this guarantee: the era of Tory
governments unelected by the people of Scotland, handing out
punishments to the poor and the disabled, these days will be gone and
gone for good.









Further reading / other links

- 40 reasons to support Scottish independence this link is just to the
first three reasons but you can find subsequent links at the bottom
the webpage
- National Collective artists and creative for Scottish independence
- Duggy Dug a humorous but informative cartoon series about the
issues surrounding Scottish independence, voiced by actor Brian
Cox you will see many other videos in the suggestions on the right
hand side.
- http://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/ - a super blog


Some famous voices in support of independence:
- Why Noam Chomskys Yes is more interesting than David Bowies
No
- Leading Historian Tom Devine changed from No to Yes


65
- Ruth Wishart A Time for Visionaries
- Leslie Riddoch - journalist who founded Nordic Horizons