- 1 -

Introduction

This was started after a conversation with someone who said they were voting no but couldnt give any
strong reasons, other than Alex Salmond and anything from the Yes side was just rubbish. It was
originally intended as a short list of links and brief description of the reasons for independence and
addressing comments from those against independence but every day new articles were being published by
both sides, which were added to this document and it slowly grew into the monster it now is. It could easily
continue to grow if it didnt stop here and now (24
th
June 2014) although a sequel might follow. There is now
plenty to be reading here and maybe so much it might not get all read before the referendum itself!

This should not be regarded as a comprehensive listing of all points put forward by either side while as
many as points as possible have been included in here, its inevitable some may have been missed,
particularly anything published before this project started.

Furthermore, as a result of the huge number of references and quotes and that it was written by a self-
confessed below average writer, it might read a bit disjointed at times but an attempt has been made to
have the document flowing logically by placing the comments and references under a series of main
headings and subheadings.

The person this was intended for was very suspicious of pro-independence websites so as many
links/references as possible to mainstream newspapers and non-independence sources have been included.
However, some will be to independence websites (mainly Wings Over Scotland, NewsNetScotland, Bella
Caledonia and Business for Scotland although none are to the SNP or Yes campaign websites) primarily
because the articles they contain do an excellent job of demolishing the relevant unionist argument (its
recommended that you follow all links and read the references in their entirety since its better to read it
from the source than the poorly edited versions written here).

This document was written in the hope that if youre undecided or a No voter, it will persuade you to vote
Yes, or if remain a No voter that youll at least have seen the other side of the argument that is very rarely
presented in the mainstream media.

PS. A second document, part 2, has just been published and can be found here




- 2 -

What Are Your Current Views?

Firstly, what your current views of the state of the union are and do you agree with the following:

Do you agree that English MPs living in London and sitting in Westminster are better placed to make
decisions about Scotland than politicians in Scotland?
Do you agree with the current austerity measures such as the Bedroom Tax and welfare cap?
Do you agree with other Tory government policies such as immigration?
Do you want to leave the EU?
Do you agree that the UKs nuclear weapon arsenal should be based 30 miles from Glasgow?
Are you comfortable with 1 in 5 people and 1 in 4 children in Scotland living in poverty?
Do you agree that increasing numbers of families are being pushed into poverty? And do you agree
this is right?
Are you comfortable with 1 million people in the UK needing to use food banks and Red Cross
parcels which is increasing daily under the current government?
Do you agree the rich and multinational companies should receive tax cuts and deductions?

If you answered yes to all of the above then I would say that there is no need for you to continue reading
since the above questions confirm your reasons for voting No. However, if you disagree with any or most or
all of the above, please read on.


The Independence Argument
Youll hear a lot from the Better Together (BT) campaign about Alex Salmond and the SNP this is a hollow,
vacuous argument and its a central strategy of the BT side. They want to personalise and demonise the
independence campaign by associating it with Alex Salmond and the SNP, which many non-SNP (Labour
mainly) voters would naturally be against. According to Scottish Labour:



However, the independence campaign has absolutely nothing to do with the SNP or their current or future
policies except one a referendum on independence. There are many other people parties of different
political persuasions involved in the independence movement that Better Together would rather you didnt
know about:

1. The Yes Campaign is not affiliated to any political party the chairman of the Yes Campaign is
Dennis Canavan, a former Labour MP (see here)

2. There are many other, non-SNP groups fighting for independence, such as Labour for
Independence, Scottish Green Party, Scottish Socialist Party, the Liberal Democrat Voters for
Independence and even Scottish Conservatives (see here).

- 3 -



3. Even the individual Yes groups have no formal affiliation with either the SNP or the Yes campaign
theyre certainly not centrally controlled like the Better Together grassroots supporters are (or
astroturf supporters as theyre often referred to). In fact there were 314 indpendent Yes campaign
groups across Scotland as of the 20
th
June.
- 4 -




It is even being argued by Labour for Independence that a YES vote
will return Labour to its roots in Scotland (see Labour For Indy),
which will be discussed in more detail further on.

Allan Grogan, who heads up Labour for Independence, claimed it
was time to accept that the movements best chance of returning to
its social justice roots was to leave the UK. See The Press and
Journal


- 5 -

The independence campaign crosses all demographic groups, from the billionaire, to the schoolboy, to the
island farmer, actress, pacifist, Falklands veteran and aristocrat, all interviewed in the Telegraph.

Technically it can be argued that this referendum has nothing to do with economics either as the foundation
of this referendum is how Scotland votes for the government that chooses the policies to be applied to
Scotland, it is not a vote for any kind of economic policies being put forward by any parties. For example, in
an independent Scotland there is nothing to stop the Scottish people voting for a right-wing government that
will continue the austerity policies of the UK government. So when you hear about how Scotland can be a
more left-wing social and inclusive country after independence, that is entirely dependent on whichever
party has been voted into power in Scotland by the people in Scotland at the first Scottish election after
independence (the most important part being voted into power in Scotland by the people of Scotland).
Nevertheless, further on itll be demonstrated that Scotland is not only left-leaning and has been for many
decades, but is also now very intrinsically different from England, in particular, and the rUK (rest of the UK) in
general.

So if you hear of SNP policies that you dont agree with, or Better Together try to claim the referendum is
about Alex Salmond (while also insulting the 45% plus of supporters of independence), dont let this cloud
your judgement after full independence is achieved in 2016 there will be an election in Scotland soon after
where the Scottish people can finally vote for a government, whether Labour, Tory or SNP, that will have
control over far more policies than if Scotland remains in the UK.

Another way to look at it is would you rather suffer Tory policies under the union to avoid any possible SNP
policies under independence? While some try to claim that a vote for independence is a vote for the SNP
then surely a vote for the union is a vote for the Tories and their policies?

Independence could actually provide the best opportunity for Labour to return to Holyrood would Scotland
vote for Scottish Labour after a No vote, regardless of who gets into power in the UK? Current polls show the
SNP still has a significant lead over all other parties in Scotland (see here). If UK Labour win the next general
election (extremely unlikely now which is discussed further on), or even worse if the Tories win, then its very
unlikely that Scottish Labour will win Holyrood.

Whereas if Scotland became independent, Scottish Labour could regroup as a party of the left again, no
longer tied to the right-wing policies of UK Labour that Scotland has rejected since the SNP gained power.
Many former Labour supported have stated they have voted SNP because theyre the only left-wing party in
Scotland and they believed in independence. Furthermore, would the SNP still remain as a single party? They
are a broad collection of individuals on the political spectrum with mainly one aim independence for
Scotland. Once achieved, would they be able to remain together or even popular?

So the crux of the independence referendum is how Scotland elects its government and has nothing to do
with party policies, whether from Scottish Labour, SNP or Scottish Tories? However, other areas can
influence how you choose to decide on the way that Scotland chooses its government and I think these are
likely to be:

Economics
Currency
Defence
Politics
EU Membership
Healthcare
Education
- 6 -

Economics
A question that you might think has not yet been answered is whether Scotland can afford to be
independent. The answer that repeatedly comes from No campaign is that Scotland would be poorer outside
the UK union (too wee, too poor and too stupid as is often the phrase).

Scotland with its 5.3 million is similar in size to or even larger than 8 out of 10 and 16 out of 20 of the
wealthiest (and happiest) countries in the world measured by GDP per head. This clearly demonstrates that
there is no such thing as too wee (see Wikipedia). Incidentally, the UK comes in at 21st on this table with
Ireland ahead at 18th.

Larger countries are generally poorer per head and the reason why is thought to be that they cant react to
the needs of the entire country efficiently or quickly, whereas smaller countries tend to have smaller
economies that are easier for a group of people i.e. the government, to manage, resulting in a more focussed
approach to dealing with the issues and promoting the countrys strengths (see Financial Times and Wealthy
Nation).

In this Forbes article, another small country, Ireland, is ranked best country in the world for business and it
reinforces the view that small countries are wealthier and better able to adapt. Not only is Ireland top, but
most of the other places in the top 10 are countries similar in size to Ireland (and Scotland) with New
Zealand in 2
nd
place, 3
rd
is Hong Kong, 4
th
is Denmark, 5
th
is Sweden, 6
th
is Finland, 7
th
is Singapore, 8
th
is
Canada, 9
th
is Norway and 10
th
is the Netherlands, all except 2 countries with populations less than 10 million
(Ireland 4.6m, NZ 4.5m, HK 7.2m, Denmark 5.6m, Sweden 9.7m, Finland 5.4m, Singapore 5.3m, Canada
35.3m, Norway 5.1m and Netherlands 16.8m). In fact, 6 out of 10 have populations between 4.5m and 5.4m,
perhaps showing that this population size is the ideal, which puts Scotlands population size of 5.4 million
within this ideal range.

And with an exclusive economic zone stretching far into the Atlantic and the North sea, is Scotland still too
wee?



Further evidence for Scotlands potential wealth as an independent country:
As an independent country, taking into account all our resources, wed be the 8th wealthiest in the
OECD (described as the rich nations club). This compares to UK at 16th. (see here).
- 7 -

In terms of our total economic output per head we ranked eighth out of the 34 developed countries
in the OECD in 2011 (see here) this would put Scotland higher in the ranking than the UK currently
is at 19th (I think). This is using the UK governments OWN (GERS) figures so this is a fact, not an
opinion or lie. (Note that I have seen different placings for the UK and an independent Scotland
depending of what the list of countries are i.e. all countries, only OECD countries, etc. But even
though the placings are different between rankings, they all have an independent Scotland higher
than the UK.)

And below are some of the many articles that argue Scotland is far from being too poor:
10 key economic facts that prove Scotland will be a wealthy independent nation (see here)
In 2011-12 Scotland provided 9.9% of UK taxes and received only 9.3% of total UK spending (see
here)
Scotland generated 1,700 more in tax per person than the UK as a whole in 2011-12 (see here)
Scotland has a lower deficit than the UK. Scotlands is at 5.4%, while the UK deficit is 8.5% of GDP, as
of the 2011 IMF comparison. Scotland only spends 42.7% of Scotlands GDP on public spending. The
UK spends 45.5%. This demonstrates that Scotlands public finances are in a stronger position than
the UK as a whole (see here)
Scotland has paid 64 billion in UK debt interest that Scotland didnt need (see here for The Sunday
Times article)
Scotland overpays for UK debt see The Scotsman

The myth that England subsidises Scotland should have been dead and buried long ago Scotland subsidises
England and has been for the past 40 years, although judging from the comments of some pro-unionists,
they havent heard the news that the Scottish arent subsidy junkies. This YouTube video from the world
renowned economist Andrew Hughes Hallet, interviewed in 2010, confirms that Scotland subsidising rest of
UK. This BBC page here has a wealth of information regarding an independent Scotland (the BBC have
hardly been impartial so this page has very strong arguments) which reinforces the evidence that Scotland
subsidises the rest of the UK. For example, currently Scotlands GDP is over 4000 higher (at 26K) than the
current average value for the whole of the UK (at 22K). Take the oil and gas away then Scotland currently
has slightly below the UK average by just over 300 per person, but this is under current UK spending
patterns which would not be expected to occur under an independent Scottish Governments spending plans
(see below for more on this).

Scotland also currently has slightly below average rate of unemployment compared to the UK as a whole
7.5% compared to 7.8% for UK and for England so it could be argued that Scottish taxpayers are subsidising
the English unemployed.

Scotland's higher employment worth billions to Westminster see here

Even Douglas Alexander, Labour MP, agrees that Scotland subsidises rUK - My response to the claim that
Scots, as 8 per cent of the UK population generate 10 per cent of our GDP, is that this is something to be
grateful for and proud of the idea that we share what we have. (see Scotsman). Sharing what we have is
all well and good if we were wealthy, but with 1 in 4 children living in poverty and life expectancy worse in
some areas in Glasgow than in many African countries, were sharing what we cant afford.

- 8 -



And Labours leaflets used to promote a No vote (see here) believe that Scotland should subsidise the rest
of the UK:



The Financial Times stated here that If its geographic share of UK oil and gas output is taken into account,
Scotlands GDP per head is bigger than that of France. Even excluding the North Seas hydrocarbon bounty,
per capita GDP is higher than that of Italy. Oil, whisky and a broad range of manufactured goods mean an
independent Scotland would be one of the worlds top 35 exporters.

New figures from the Global Connections Survey demonstrate that Scotland is one of the worlds top
exporting nations with the economic strength to succeed as an independent country. Scotlands exports were
worth nearly 100 billion in 2012 alone, a 17% increase on 2008. The Scottish Government aims to increase
exports by 50%, which would create over 100,000 new jobs. An independent Scotland with control over
taxation, finance, business regulation and global promotion would be well placed to fully support Scottish
companies in the global market. In comparison, the UKs trading and investment wing failed to promote
Scotlands companies internationally. Business for Scotland found that not a single UK embassy in key export
locations held an event for St Andrews day. (see here)

Scotlands economy stronger than previously thought (see here)

- 9 -

The ACCOUNTING TRICK that Hides Scotlands Wealth. (see here)



Also, to address all those doom-mongers who say Scotland won't be able to raise finance on the
international markets, Standards and Poor have said that an independent Scotland would likely get the
highest economic assessment, even without oil:

Even excluding North Sea output and calculating per capita GDP only by looking at onshore
income, Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assessment. Higher GDP per capita,
in our view, gives a country a broader potential tax and funding base to draw from, which
supports creditworthiness.

We view Scotlands trend growth as closely matching that of the UK. While North Sea output
(again on a geographical, rather than population-derived basis) accounts for 16% of Scottish
GDP (calculated using data from the Scottish governments experimental national accounts
project), this does not, under our methodology, lead us to conclude that the economy is
excessively concentrated. We typically only adjust for excess economic concentration should a
single sector exceed one-fifth of a countrys GDP. (see here and International Business
Times)

Those comments couldnt be found on the BBC website. They're now well known for being biased towards
unionism (see here for example and more on this below) and they have been reprimanded once so far (see
here). Its likely they'll be reprimanded again but the process is so long that the referendum will likely be
over by the time it happens. So its recommended that you take what you see on the BBC, and newspapers,
and STV to a lesser extent, with a very large pinch of salt (and a cynical eye).

As the article Where does Scotlands wealth go? (see here) highlights, Scotlands distribution of wealth is
the lowest in the UK yet some of the regions producing the highest GDP per head in the UK are in Scotland
(darker areas in blue and orange/red are better for both):
- 10 -




But the Independence supporters are not the only ones who believe an independent Scotland could be
successful. A quote from a 2007 Daily Telegraph article by David Cameron, now UK prime minister, argued
that there was no point in trying to keep Scotland inside the union through fear of the economic
consequences of leaving. Supporters of independence will always be able to cite examples of small,
independent and thriving economies across Europe such as Finland, Switzerland and Norway, Mr Cameron
wrote. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent
country. (see Financial Times). Ironically, using fear of the economic consequences is EXACTLY what Better
Together and the UK government are now doing.

Even Alistair Darling said in May this year that Any country can be successful, size does not matter Alistair
Darling, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 21 May 2014 (col 4534) and Vince Cable seemed to agree
too Leaked speech sees Vince Cable accused of agreeing with the Yes campaign see the Independent

Others who agree include:
Tony Blair - Of course Scotland is capable of becoming independent
Michael Moore, LibDem MP - Youll never hear me suggest that Scotland could not go its own way
Ruth Davidson, Scottish Tory Leader I believe Scotland is big enough, rich enough and good enough
to be an independent country
So, the senior members of all 3 UK parties agreed at some point that Scotland could become independent,
and successfully at that, yet now are campaigning against it.

The UK Treasurys top figure, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, has claimed Scotland could prosper with a Yes vote
and get a very good deal in the EU see Google cached version here because mysteriously this article, which
wasnt listed on the front page of the Sunday Post, now cant be found anywhere on their website.

Yes vote could let Scotland flourish: THE scientist dubbed the father of the cloud, whose pioneering work
made Facebook, Google and Amazon possible, has claimed Scotland could thrive under independence.
Professor Stuart Parkin said it was possible for small independent nations the size of Scotland to flourish.
see the Sunday Times

Better Together claim that Scotland is better in the UK but does the UK really have Scotlands best interests
at heart?
UK slammed for charging Scots to promote whisky See here
In the 1970s the UK Government famously described the Scots fishing industry as expendable
when our fishermen were dragged into the deeply damaging Common Fisheries Policy See here

And in case you believe that the economic policies of the current government are helping the economy
recover, think again. The economy is barely recovering DESPITE the policies, not because of them this article
- 11 -

here argues that quantitative easing has been bad for Scotland in particular. And remember, when the
south-east property bubble expands again (which its now doing), interest rates will rise and affect everyone
across the UK (see the Guardian) possibly 6-fold in 3 years up to 3% according to the Telegraph and BBC
News.

Furthermore, both a surprise and not a surprise, 80% of all UK jobs created in 2013 were created in London
see e.g. The Guardian (The great migration south: 80% of new private sector jobs are in London), HR
Grapevine (London creates 80% of new UK jobs) and Channel 4 News (London calling - and creating 80 per
cent of new jobs)

Interest rate rise 'could hit Scottish economic recovery' See BBC News




Budget Cut for Scotland Remaining in UK
A vote for the union is not a vote for the status quo, budgets will continue to be cut under the Tory
governments austerity plans (more on this further on). A House of Commons report released a few months
ago stated that Scotlands budget will fall by 4 billion a year (see The Scotsman, Sunday Post, Herald,
Newsnet) this could be regarded as an absolute minimum since its not exactly helping the No campaign to
be broadcasting this number so the reality could be much higher. Blair McDougall, Campaign Director for
Better Together, seems to agree:

UK ministers are not going to fall into the trap of acting against Scotland UNTIL Scotland decides to stay
in the UK- Blair McDougall, Campaign Director for Better Together

In fact, after a No vote it would not be crazy to believe that the Tories would cut Scotlands budget even
further as punishment for considering to go independent, knowing that the next opportunity for Scotland to
do so could be decades later and knowing they dont have any useful support in Scotland to lose. Besides,
Tory policies have been crippling Scotland for decades now and the current government is no exception, and
is fast becoming the worst.

Scots will suffer if the vote is No, experts on Quebec warn see The Herald



- 12 -

Oil
To many independence supporters, oil is the icing on the cake, its not what an independent Scotland would
be dependent on. As stated on the BBC website mentioned above, Scotlands economy without oil would be
similar to rUKs under current priorities and economic policies. An independent Scotland would have
different priorities that would hopefully enhance the economy instead of spending money on unnecessary
items like nuclear weapons, an over-equipped armed forces (including aircraft carriers and submarines for
attacking other nations than defending our own) as well as morally dubious, if not illegal wars, high speed
rail links, etc.

However, if Scotland were independent, it could be argued that even without oil, having the power to
change policies to favour the local economy instead of being forced to dance to the tune of the south-east
Englands economy would bring a stronger and wealthier economy than Scotland currently has when the
south-east overheats, interest rates rise regardless of how badly it affects the rest of the UK.

Obviously discussing Scotlands future economic situation when independent is not something that can be
described in concrete terms, and this is a favourite line of attack from Better Together. But neither can you
describe Scotlands economic future within the UK in concrete terms either. If independent, Scotland would
receive all of the oil revenues (27 billion for 2011-2012) instead of, at best, approx 8% of oil revenues as a
proportion of the size of Scotland in the UK. Yes, this wont last forever, but current estimates of the
remaining oil range from 300 billion to 1.5 trillion. Surely having all that revenue for the next 40 to 100
years is better than having only 8% of it? Imagine if someone asked you to give them all your income and
they then decided how much to give back, say 8%, and even then telling you what you could and couldnt
spend that money on would you agree to it?

It has even been claimed that oil output has declined recently and could run out in a matter of years. While
North Sea oil has been declining recently, this has been for a number of reasons:
1. High tax regime by the UK government has meant that the more difficult fields have become
unprofitable (the UK government may even have done this deliberately in the run up to the
referendum to make it look like oil was declining or less profitable, which looks to have worked for
some). Oil firms warn jobs will go after tax hike (BBC News). Should the tax on oil fall from the
current 86% to more reasonable levels then production in these fields would likely restart again.
2. There has been recent massive investment in the Scottish oil industry and those costs have been
offset against the profits made by the companies and therefore the tax they pay on those lower
profits was also lower. However, this massive expenditure is now complete meaning that
production will increase, as will the profits (and tax) from the oil fields (oil companies dont invest
huge sums of money in rapidly declining fields)
3. North Sea oil is just that oil from the North Sea and doesnt include the oil fields now coming
online near the Shetland Islands and other potential areas such as the Firth of Clyde (see below).

Further reading regarding the state of Scotlands oil reserves:
The oil remaining in the North Sea is worth over 1 trillion at wholesale value see here
Scottish oil and natural gas will last for well over one hundred years see here
The Real State of Scotlands Oil and Gas Reserves see here
Why an independent Scotland could become the richest country on Earth see The Independent
Premier Oil granted approval for Catcher development in North Sea see BBC News (why would
there be a 300 million investment in a dying industry?)
Biggest oil-field in the world lies to the west of Lewis see here
BBC video that investigates the truth about Scotlands oil Truth, Lies, Oil and Scotland


Government confirms independence could generate west coast oil bonanza the Ministry of Defence
blocked a potential oil boom in the Firth of Clyde during the 1980s [...] Any Firth of Clyde drilling program
would potentially have interfered with MoD operations, including the operation of the nuclear weapons
submarine fleet at Faslane. This article here agrees with this too but also posits the interesting question
- 13 -

could an oil boom in the Clyde have saved some of the Clyde shipyards? With so much infrastructure needed
in the Clyde for an oil boom then perhaps much of this infrastructure could have been provided by the Clyde
shipyards and so its argued that the MOD helped to destroy the Clyde shipbuilding industry.

More reading on this block by the MOD can be found here:
West coast oil boom was blocked by MoD see Sunday Post
UK Defence Ministry Accused Of Blocking Major Find Of Oil on Scottish West Coast see Ria
Novosti

Furthermore, if the oil was running out prematurely, would the oil industry be investing vast sums in oil
extraction? See New 300 million plan for Sullom Voe terminal in The Shetland Times, for example.

Some oil companies are now coming out in favour of
independence, no doubt believing that the Scottish
Government will look after the industry better than the UK
government has to date (remember the windfall tax raid
on North Sea oil revenue a few years ago?):
Nearly one-fifth of oil firms think independence
will be positive this was higher than the number
of oil firms that thought independence will be
negative See STV News and Scottish
independence: North Sea firms confident See
The Scotsman
Senior oil & gas industry executive declares
membership of Business for Scotland & support for
Scottish independence see here
Most North Sea oil workers want independent
Scotland, survey finds See STV News


What would Scotland have been like if it had been allowed to gain home rule in the 1979 referendum? Since
1980, 300 billion pounds has gone to the UK exchequer and not to Scotland. Also see The Independent for
How black gold was hijacked: North sea oil and the betrayal of Scotland.

And of course there is the infamous McCrone report which shows just how much the UK government (a
Labour one at the time) will lie and deceive to hold onto the oil This is a story of Whitehall betrayal that
will satisfy the pre-conceptions of the most extreme Scottish anglophobe. The Independent. But to
summarise a few statements from the report itself:
Poor social and environmental conditions, especially in and around the city of Glasgow, accompany
this outdated economic framework and are as much a source discontent. Despite regional policy and
the efforts of planners, these problems have not been overcome, nor do they look as if they will be in
the foreseeable future. still very relevant today, despite being stated in 1974
Even after its discovery the full significance of North Sea oil was not immediately apparent and it still
remains in large measure disguised from the Scottish public
Up to now much of the Scottish public may have regarded the SNP figures as pretty wild and they
have been publicly condemned as such by Ministers. But authoritative support for the charge that the
Government has failed to do a satisfactory bargain with the companies [...]
Thus, all that is wrong now with the SNP estimate is that it is far too low; there is a prospect of
Government oil revenues in 1980 which could greatly exceed the present Government revenue in
Scotland from all sources and could even be comparable in size to the whole of the Scottish national
income in 1970.
Indeed, since none of the major companies operating in the North Sea are predominantly Scottish
owned, the Government revenue would be the major element
- 14 -

What is quite clear is that the balance of payments gain from North Sea oil would easily swamp the
existing deficit whatever its size and transform Scotland into a country with a substantial and chronic
surplus.
All the above figures are, of course, based on the estimated output of 100m. tons of oil in 1980. This
was the DTIs revised estimate in the early summer of 1973. Already it is beginning to look as if these
estimates may be too conservative.
it is hard to see any conclusion other than to allow Scotland to have that part of the Continental
Shelf which would have been hers if she had been independent all along
The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree and its currency
would become the hardest in Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian kroner.
Just as deposed monarchs and African leaders have in the past used the Swiss franc as a haven of
security, so now would the Scottish pound be seen as a good hedge against inflation and devaluation
and the Scottish banks could expect to find themselves inundated with a speculative inflow of foreign
funds.
North Sea oil could have far-reaching consequences for Scottish membership of EEC because of the
tremendously increased political power it would confer. Without oil other members might pay little
enough regard to Scotland; her voting power would not be large and it might indeed be argued that
she could exert more leverage on the Community as part of the United Kingdom. As the major
producer of oil in Western Europe, however, Scotland would be in a key position and other countries
would be extremely foolish if they did not seek to do all they could to accommodate Scottish
interests.
so long as Scottish GDP per head is only 70 per cent of the European average, the unemployment
and emigration rates among the highest and the country regarded by the EEC as one of its worst
problem regions, then Scotland is justified in using her own resources to rectify these problems rather
than relying on the generosity of others
North Sea oil has completely overturned the traditional economic arguments used against Scottish
nationalism. An independent Scotland could now expect to have massive surpluses both on its budget
and on its balance of payments and with the proper husbanding of resources this situation could last
for a very long time into the future.

Is it any wonder that the Labour government of the time suppressed this under the Official Secrets Act in
1974, which incidentally should only be used to protect the state, so how suppressing the truth about North
Sea oil revenue protects the state is anyones guess. Unless of course youre referring to protecting the
integrity of the UK since if this report had been known at the time would almost certainly have led to the
breakup of the UK. Furthermore, it was this oil that stopped the IMF bailing out the UK in the 1970s.

The Scottish Government has proposed a savings fund similar to Norways, which is currently at almost $500
billion and which now owns around 1% of the worlds stocks (see Daily Mail). Furthermore, Norway has no
debt, while the UKs debt is 1.27 TRILLION (or 1.4 trillion, depending on the source) and counting. Interest
payments alone have now reached 1 billion PER WEEK. Had Scotland been independent in 1979, it would
have most likely had a similar sized oil fund, given that the oil industry has paid at least 300 billion into the
UK Exchequer since the 1970s, and would have no debt either.

- 15 -


Shamefully, the UK, along with Iraq, are the only oil producing countries in the world not to have created an
oil fund.



- 16 -

In fact, in the past 30 years, Scotland has produced more oil than Adu Dhabi AND Dubai combined.



Is Scotland really Better Together with the rUK?



- 17 -

Pensions
Pensions are one of the four biggest areas that the Better Together campaign has been trying to scare people
on (the other 3 being general finances , EU membership and using the pound). However, despite their recent
billboard campaigns, this is one of those areas they are deliberately lying about.

The UK Department for Work and Pensions has already confirmed several times now that state pensions will
be continue to be paid by the Scottish state after independence and will remain unaffected, other than for
policy decisions made after independence e.g. retirement age, pension value, etc. Private pensions will also
continue to be paid and is a matter for the pension holder and the pension company.



Pension for Scots guaranteed after Yes vote - Older people will be entitled to the same level of state pension
after independence, UK Coalition Pensions minister Steve Webb has said. - See The Herald and YouTube

Anyone who really wanted to know the score when it came to pensions was already aware of the facts. For
well over a year, the DWP has been telling people who asked that they would continue to receive their UK
state pension regardless of the outcome of the referendum. See here

Given Scotlands current lower average life expectancy compared with the UK as a whole, people in Scotland
are effectively subsidising English pensioners. In an independent Scotland, the increase in the retirement age
from 65 to 67 could be postponed by 12 years as reported in the Sun and here (to 2039) or if maintained at
- 18 -

67 years, would mean a lower pension bill compared with the UK in general. Either way, Scotland wins in
being independent with respect to pensions.

However, the current UK state pension is nothing to be proud of and should be regarded as the absolute
minimum in a wealthier independent Scotland. The UK pension is the lowest pension in the EU and second
lowest in the OECD countries, with only Mexicos being lower? (see Daily Mail) If other small countries (most
without the natural resources Scotland has) can afford a higher pension than the UK then why cant an
independent Scotland?

Further reading:
My cut and keep guide to pensions if Scotland votes Yes to independence See Daily Record
Pensions: a well-informed, impartial man quietly explains See here




- 19 -

Pension Time Bomb
One of the scares around pensions peddled by Better Together is that Scotland faces a pension time bomb.
What those peddling the scare fail to point out is that the UK is also facing a pension time bomb, as is most
industrialised countries thanks to a demographic time bomb. The problems that all of these countries face is
the falling population growth state pensions are not saved in some big pot and paid out in the future like a
private pension fund or savings account, they are paid out of general taxation at that point in time i.e. all the
pensioners today are paid out of general taxation raised today, not during their working lives, regardless of
the lies Gordon Brown claims (the man who famously, repeatedly said No return to Boom and Bust) (see
Edinburgh News).

Note that his argument was based on secret files allegedly passed to him by the Department for Works and
Pensions which in reality sounds very dubious why would the DWP pass a secret file to an opposition
backbencher? Why would the DWP not just release these figures to show that Scotland would have
problems with pensions, if in fact thats what this file shows? And its very convenient for Better Together
that this file is allegedly secret so while theyre happy to divulge certain figures from it that allegedly support
their argument, they say they cant release the file in order to show the evidence of their claims or to allow
independence supporters to counteract the figures allegedly presented in this secret file. Very suspicious
indeed.

But back to the pension time bomb. As the number of babies born falls, the number of future taxpayers falls.
Combined with the longer life expectancy (unless you live in Glasgow though), the proportion of pensioners
compared to tax payers increases and so to counter this a government needs to do one or more of the
following:
1. Increase the proportion paid to pensions out of the entire limited tax pot resulting in other
areas being cut
2. Increase the proportion paid to pensions resulting in taxes hikes
3. Borrow more to cover the shortfall
4. Attract more tax payers to compensate for the fall in the tax-paying population
5. Increase the pension age has to increase, and/or
6. Reduce pension rates

To state again, these are decisions that affecting almost all industrialised countries are having to face. For
example, the UK government chooses to increase the pension age and cut spending in other areas, while the
Scottish government wants to attract new tax payers i.e. immigrants. Given that it is a fact that immigrants
claim less benefits and pay more tax on average than those already living in the UK (see here), the UKs anti-
immigration stance will actually harm pension rates in the future. And since theyre already the lowest in EU
it can only mean a more miserable pension in the future.

Now comes an interesting aside it can be argued that quite a few people who have currently 2 children
would like more but can't afford the costs, especially the childcare costs. Now if childcare costs were heavily
subsidised, as the SNP proposes, then perhaps the Scottish birth rate would increase, resulting in a baby
boom that would help to avoid the pension time bomb. Add in the fact that Scotland's wealth would be kept
in Scotland and not used to subsidise rUK, and that Scotland's spending priorities would mean not wasting
10's of billions (Scotland's share alone) on nuclear weapons, high speed rail links or other expensive
projects that won't benefit Scotland, then Scotland would become more wealthy, with potentially more
money going towards pensions.

Even if Scotlands birth rate doesnt increase, only the Scottish government seems to recognise that
something needs to be done about the pension time bomb and the SNP seems to be the only party in the
increasingly right-wing UK that acknowledges immigrants are needed to offset the pension time bomb
(although the Scottish Tories have previously acknowledged that immigration is needed for this purpose
see Daily Express). However, the current UK government wants to clamp down on immigration (driven by
UKIP support) and has no other plans to address the pension crisis see The Telegraph, The Telegraph again
and The Express.

- 20 -

A banker, a worker and an immigrant are sitting at the same table. There are also 10 slices of
cake on the table. The banker takes 9 slices and tells the worker Watch that immigrant, hes
after your cake.

I'm not going to waste your time or patronise you by preaching the benefits of immigration.
Instead, I want to ask you this. Who has caused our country most problems: the bankers who
plunged us into economic disaster, the expenses-milking politicians who have the cheek to
lecture us on benefit fraud, the wealthy tax-dodgers keeping 25 billion a year from the
Exchequer; the poverty wage-paying bosses and rip-off rent-charging landlords; or Indian
nurses and Polish fruit pickers? a quote from Owen Jones on the Independent website in an
article that raises many concerns about many UKIP policies, not just the anti-immigrant ones.



- 21 -

Currency
Another one of the Four Men of the Apocalypse from the No Campaign is currency, and this being one of
their biggest lies to date. While they claim that Scotland will not be able to use the pound, a senior
government minister has stated that "Of course there would be a currency union" (see The Guardian). There
has been no retraction of this statement so far, indicating that its not a lie.

Regardless, the decision by the UK parties to block Scotland using Sterling is entirely political (and a childish
tantrum) and has no basis in economics. If they were to do this then it is estimated that it would cost
businesses in the remaining UK (rUK) 500 million, simply because those in charge in the rUK took a strop
and tried to stop Scotland using a currency that is technically a shared asset. Would you want these churlish,
immature politicians, most of whom you didnt vote for, in charge of decisions that affect your life? This
certainly doesnt look like a union of equals, more like an abusive relationship where if someone leaves, the
other dominant party becomes verbally abusive and aggressive.

The big independence lie: Why Scotland could keep the pound. There is nothing stopping an independent
Scotland from declaring sterling sole legal tender and borrowing it on the financial markets to hold in reserve.
However much it may appear to be like having your cake and eating it, neither action requires the permission
of the rest of the UK. See City A.M.

Besides, they cannot stop Scotland using it independently this is not an opinion, it is an unarguable fact
that has never been addressed or countered by the No campaign. For example, after Ireland became
independent, they introduced their own pound (punt) which maintained parity with Sterling until 1979 (they
just printed their own notes, actually in England, which Scotland currently does anyway) and Sterling
continued to be accepted on a one-for-one basis everywhere in Ireland (see Wikipedia). The only reason they
broke parity with Sterling was because Ireland joined the European Monetary System, while the UK didnt.

Furthermore, previous countries and territories allowed to be in a Sterling Zone were the Federation of
South Arabia, Sudan, Australia, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Lesotho Basutoland, Bermuda,
Botswana, British Antarctic Territory, Guyana, British Guiana, Belize British Honduras, British Indian Ocean
Territory, Solomon Islands, British Somaliland Protectorate (left in 1964), British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Burma
(left in 1966), Cayman Islands, Dominion of Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Cyprus, Egypt (left in 1947), Falkland Islands,
Fiji, The Gambia, Ghana, Gibraltar, Tuvalu Gilbert and Ellice Islands (Kiribati and Tuvalu), Hong Kong, Iceland,
India (including Sikkim), Iraq (left in 1959), Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda,
Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis Leeward Islands, Libya (expelled in 1971), Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives,
Maldive Islands, Malta, Mauritius, Oman Muscat and Oman (Sultanate of Oman), Nauru, New Zealand
(including, Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau Islands), Nigeria, Israel British Mandate for Palestine (required to
withdraw in 1948 following the creation of the state of Israel & New Breed, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea,
Pitcairn Islands, Qatar, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) (expelled in 1965), Saint Helena, Tristan da Cunha Saint Helena
(including Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha), Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Namibia
South West Africa (Namibia), Swaziland, Tanganyika, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Oman Trucial Oman
(United Arab Emirates), United Kingdom Turks and Caicos Islands, Uganda, the Channel Islands, and the Isle
of Man, Samoa, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Windward Islands
(comprising Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), Zambia and Zanzibar.
The pound sterling, commonly known simply as the pound, is the official currency of the United Kingdom,
Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the British Antarctic
Territory and Tristan da Cunha (see Wikipedia)

Despite the rhetoric of the No campaign, everyone else involved in currency negotiations are preaching
common sense, including the Bank of England Governor Mark Carney (see here and here) and the unnamed
UK government minister mentioned above. Even Alistair Darling previously admitted that a currency union
was desirable and logical (see here).

Better Together adviser admits: advice ruling out currency union may be wrong See Herald
Why there will be a currency union see here
- 22 -

Independent Scotland 'may keep pound' to ensure stability See the Guardian

Scottish independence campaign gets boost from former senior diplomat: David Cameron received a blow on
the first day of a visit to Scotland when a former senior British diplomat said "tough but sensible"
negotiations would be held on forming a currency union in the event of a vote for independence. In a
challenge to the prime minister, who will reiterate his rejection of a currency union during his two-day trip to
Scotland, the former British permanent representative to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in
Europe accused the government of arrogant behaviour towards the people of Scotland. see The Guardian

And what the unionists would rather you didnt know is that the preferred currency option put forward in
the Scottish White paper (formal currency union) was recommended by the Nobel-prize winning Economist
Sir James Mirrlees (see here) and not just wish dreamed up by a politician, unlike the unionists petulant
refusal to agree to a formal currency union.

Besides, if Scotland is barred from a formal currency union with the rUK by Westminster politicians who
decide to have a strop and cutting their nose to spite their face then Scotland can still use the pound as
explained above and if so then there is no legal obligation whatsoever to take on any share of UK debt,
leaving Scotland anywhere between 56 billion and 140 billion better off from the start (debt figure from
the BBC website here though Ive seen as much as 140 million).

In fact, the interest bill on the UKs debt has now hit 1 billion per week (see The Telegraph). Why would an
independent Scotland, with a stronger economy than the rUK, find it more difficult to pay its debt than the
current UK? That makes no sense at all. And is having 1.27 trillion worth of debt, and paying 1 billion per
week in interest alone really being Better Together?

In fact, it could be argued that Scotland should have its own currency for this alone Scotland could be
disadvantaged tying itself to a Sterling that is continuing to fall in value (as it did against the Euro even
though the Euro was supposedly going through very difficult times) as Scotlands currency, with no historical
debt and North Sea oil as the icing on the cake economically would likely be a stronger currency (look at
the independent Norwegian Kroner for comparison).

The No campaign have also claimed that a lack of debt would somehow affect Scotlands credit rating - this is
nonsense as ratings agencies review a countrys economy to see whether it can repay any future debts, not
whether or not it willingly burdened itself with unnecessary debts. And of course if a country has no
historical debts then it will be able to repay future debts more easily than if it had to pay interest on
historical debts which is why the credit ratings agency Standards & Poor have said that Scotland would
qualify for their highest rating, higher than the UKs current rating.

In case you fall for the Scotland would have to join the euro nonsense, this article explains quite clearly
why Scotland cannot join the Euro (in fact the UK currently doesnt meet most of the criteria either) and its
particular nonsensical when those same unionists also claim that Scotland wont stay in the EU, since being
in the EU is a pre-requisite for joining the euro.

George Osborne, Britains premier towel folder, made the claim that Scots could run out of cash under
independence, as Scottish banks would no longer be able to print their own pound notes guaranteed by the
Bank of England. However, this has been debunked in this article and essentially Osbornes gambit is a
bizarre one, aimed at frightening people who have no idea of the technical ins and outs of how the UKs
currency works but an absolute nonsense to anyone who does. Scottish banknotes arent just conjured out of
thin air, theyre representations of Scotlands assets lodged in the BoE vaults, and will continue to be so
whether Scotland is independent or not.

Finally, this article shows (in not the most readable format) why the rUK would be in economic difficulty if
they didnt form a currency union with an independent Scotland.


- 23 -

Defence
In an ideal world, we wouldnt need nuclear weapons or an offensive standing army. In our current less-than-
ideal world, Scotland certainly doesnt need nuclear weapons (the majority dont want them either) or an
army capable of invading any country around the world, it only needs a defensive force. In fact, every single
European country, except the UK and France, have no nuclear weapons.

The UK spends around 35 billion per year on defence (see Wikipedia), with Scotlands share being around
3 billion, whereas the SNP proposes to spend 1 billion less than what Scotland currently contributes to the
UK defences and yet this will still result in more than 500 million more being spent IN Scotland (since the
difference is spent in England and on bases abroad). Even this figure is still considerably larger than what
non-offensive and non-nuclear and non-NATO Republic of Ireland spends at 693 million.

When budgets for education, health care, social welfare, etc are being squeezed very tightly, can Scotland (or
even the UK) afford to spend this difference on nuclear weapons that it doesnt want and to have an army
that has been involved in several conflicts, including an illegal war? Remember, like Norway, Ireland,
Sweden, and every other non-nuclear country in Europe including Germany (only France and the UK in
Europe have nuclear weapons), Scotland would be protected by the NATO umbrella even if its not a
member like Finland (who border Russia), Sweden or Ireland.

Dont be fooled by George Robertsons forces of darkness speech how could the UK losing 8% of its
population affect the remainder of the UKs global status? Unless of course the UK government are worried
about where they would locate their nuclear weapons, that is. They would have difficulty locating those
weapons in England, despite having places to do so e.g. Davenport, where the UK government and local
population objected to placing them there because there were 11,000 people within 30 miles of the base
that would be subject to a risk of accidental explosion or radioactive release (health and safety issue
apparently). However, they clearly have no concern for the 2.5 million people within 30 miles of Faslane and
Coulport in Scotland. In fact, risk evaluation determined that the lives of everyone in Glasgow alone
(592,820) would be at similar risk as those in Davenport in a similar nuclear accident. Thats a ratio of roughly
54:1 at a minimum, which seems to indicate how little Scottish lives are valued in terms of English lives by
the MoD. See Scottish lives considered cheap by UK defence bosses Daily Record

There have also been recent announcements from the UK armed forces about an independent Scotland
putting the Scotland and the rest of the UK at risk. Firstly, who do they think the rUK is at risk of? Who, in the
21st century, is going to invade Scotland or England via an independent Scotland? The Russians? Chinese?
North Koreans? Space aliens? And why cant they do it right now if thats their aim? Especially since
Scotlands defence forces are at their weakest right now compared with the increase in defence spending
that would take place in an independent Scotland?

Ireland has no fighter jets, no nuclear weapons and is not a member of NATO yet they have not been in the
past 100 years since they became independent. In fact, in their entire history the only nation to invade
Ireland was England. And that applies Scotland too the only country to invade Scotland was England. So
maybe Scotland should actually be concerned about defending itself against the rUK?

While the argument can legitimately be made that Ireland is still protected by the NATO umbrella even when
its not a member, the same would apply to an independent Scotland. Even if it didnt, by Better Togethers
logic, New Zealand shouldnt exist (see here). It too has no fighter jets, no nukes and is NOT a member of
NATO. In fact, its halfway around the world on the very edge of the Pacific (with China not too far away) and
yet it hasnt been invaded either, except for the British Empire, that is (theres England involved in invasions
again).

The First Sea Lord Admiral George Zambellas stated that I believe that independence would fundamentally
change maritime security for all of us in the UK and damage the very heart of the capabilities of the Royal
Navy this is ironic given that there are no Royal Navy vessels based in Scotland or patrolling Scottish
waters right now. In 2011 a Russian aircraft carrier and a number of battleships anchored in the Moray Firth
- 24 -

(see Daily Mail) and a Royal Navy destroyer had to sail from Portsmouth to intercept it. What this Daily Mail
article doesnt report is that the Russian vessels were anchored in the Moray Firth for 2 days before the
Royal Navy was alerted by a Tweet from a journalist, and it then took another 24 hours for the Royal navy
vessel to sail up to the Moray Firth (so the Russians had 3 days in UK waters before being intercepted).

Furthermore, since 2010 alone, Westminster have made 20,000 soldiers, 6,000 sailors and 5,000 RAF
personnel redundant (see The Mirror for how theyve treated one particular soldier and here for the broken
promises to keep soldiers based in Scotland). So far from weakening the UK defences, an independent
Scotland with concern for its own territorial waters, will actually strengthen the defence of its border
significantly better than the army and Royal Navy currently do (not difficult when much more defence money
will be spent in Scotland than currently). This is a good example of one of the many outright lies made by the
Better Together campaign, more of which will be discussed further on.

This and more are listed in 12 Defence facts that the No campaign dont want you to know

Another statement made by the unionists, including Labour who want to keep the nuclear weapons in
Scotland, is that removing the Trident nuclear missiles and submarines from Scotland would cost anything
between 6000-19,000 jobs in and around Faslane, with the actual numbers depending on who says them and
when (see here and here). However, as reported in the Herald in 2012, Rob Edwards wrote (Labour and
Tories under fire for inflating Trident job losses) Figures released by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) under
freedom of information law reveal that only 520 civilian jobs at Faslane and Coulport near Helensburgh are
directly dependent on Trident. This contrasts with the 6000-11,000 jobs that pro-Trident politicians claim are
at risk. And again, it ignores the current Scottish governments proposal to base the Scottish defence
headquarters there, thereby actually increasing the number of jobs in the base and the surrounding area
(see here)

The UK government (and Scottish Labour) is also committed to replacing Trident with new nuclear weapons
(see The Guardian), which is estimated to cost upwards of 100 billion is that what Scotland, or the UK,
needs to spend when every other budget is being drastically cut (30% of cuts so far, another 70% on the way)
and more people (including children) are being pushed into poverty and have to rely on food banks and Red
Cross food parcels? Scotlands contribution in this cost could be 10 billion and the weapons would
continue to be situated in Scotland, regardless of what a Scottish government within the UK wants (both UK
Labour and the Tories have no plans at all to relocate them due to cost and opposition from English voters).

- 25 -







Even the US would prefer the UK abandon nuclear weapons so that the conventional military can be
strengthened see The New Statesman (America tells Britain to pick: replace Trident, or be a "real military
partner")



And if youve read any of the scare stories about the USA wont be friendly towards Scotland after
independence because Scotland will be kicking out the nuclear weapons (particularly after the comments the
UK government pretty much forced from Obama), you might want to read a letter from someone here from
someone who works high up in the US military debunking all that nonsense.
- 26 -

Political
In the past 69 years, Scotland has had to endure 38 years of Conservative governments (over half) which
Scotland never voted for, but has suffered (and is suffering) the economic policies of successive Tory
governments. Scotland has also suffered at the hands of Labour governments but at least the majority of
Scotland voted for them at the time.

It has been argued by some UK Labour supporters that Scottish MPs are needed to prevent an eternal Tory
government. Certainly historically there has only been 2 instances (1964-1966 and for a few months in 1974)
where the Scottish MPs would have made a difference in the form of the UK government (see here):



All other times, Scottish MPs made no difference at all, especially since 1979 when Thatcher came to power.

As an aside, is this not the definition of a colony? Where a state receives a government and policies imposed
on it regardless of the government and policies they want? Better Together talk a lot about how the UK is a
partnership between Scotland and England (forgetting about Wales and NI) inferring as if its an equal one.
But how can a partnership where one is over 10 times the size of the other be equal? If the number of MPs
on both sides of the border were equal then the partnership would be equal and Scotland would influence
the party of the UK government as much as England would, but that would be unfair to England with their
much larger population. The only situation where Scotland and England can be equal is with equal sizes of
populations, which is obvious fantasy as this has never been the case and never will.

It is possible to have a situation where large and small countries might co-exist in a union if there are other
large countries to offset the dominance of one large country in that union or many small countries that can
group together to make up a larger voting block, and such an example is the EU. However, what the UK has is
a single massive country (relatively speaking) greatly outnumbering in population and voting power the
other small countries combined, effectively creating a mini-empire with colonies (which it always has been
since 1707) and could explain one of the reasons why London is so unwilling to let Scotland go other than
the financial reasons (contrary to the subsidy junkie myth), they view Scotland as one of their remaining
colonies and hate to see it leave the empire. Successive UK governments have killed tens of thousands
since 1945 trying to keep their overseas colonies in the British Empire see The Guardian for an interesting
article on colonial atrocities.

- 27 -



Besides, arguing that Scotland should stay in the UK because it might influence future UK general elections is
ridiculous why should Scotland suffer Tory governments it doesnt want in order to save England from its
own voting mistakes? Surely if the majority in England vote for the Tories then thats the government they
should get and Scotland shouldnt be the factor that inflicts a Labour government on them against their
voting wishes? You can bet they would complain about those Jocks if it happened they werent exactly
complimentary to Gordon Brown when he was Prime Minister and often referred to his Scottish nationality
as if it was a derogatory condition while never referring to the nationality of their English PMs, especially
unpopular ones. There is a good article on this here.

In fact, as this article here eloquently puts it, The frightening thing is that the next time around we could see
the nightmare scenario of Scottish votes turning what would have been a small Tory majority into a
minority, meaning that the Tories end up having to form a coalition with a gaggle of UKIP MPs to stay in
power.

Nevertheless, youll still hear this argument occasionally about Scotland needed to help Labour win UK
elections and even Labours Michael Kelly on Newsnight Scotland agreed with this when he said that Scottish
Labour MPs and MSPs would to a person back Ed Balls refusing a currency union, even if it damaged
Scotland, because otherwise Labour might lose a UK election (see here).

Brian Wilson, Labour MP, once claimed that Labour can't win in Britain if it doesn't win in Scotland See The
Independent. In this article, he berates Labours decision to legislate for a parliament, patronises Donald
Dewar and makes it clear that Scotland to him is merely a platform for Labour winning at Westminster.

However, in a well thought out article recently in the Daily Record Joan MacAlpine argues that a No vote
would actually increase the chances of the next government being Tory. Besides the opinion polls
increasingly showing this will be the case anyway, she argued that in the event of a No vote David Cameron,
the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party, would style himself as the saviour of the union and would
therefore be more attractive to those voters down south (and maybe a few of those unionists up north too).
Whereas a vote for independence would be more likely to force David Cameron, the Prime Minister who
lost Scotland, to resign before heading into the next UK election, thus throwing the Tory election campaign
into chaos (remember the UK general election less than 8 months after the Scottish referendum).


More Devolved Powers
There has been a lot of talk about promising new devolved powers if Scotland should vote No in the
referendum. Scottish Labour released their Devolution proposals in March, with the Tories promising
something but not telling us what (and nothing being mentioned in the Queens speech). However, the
- 28 -

Labour proposals quickly turned into an almighty mess that not even the Labour Party knew what was being
devolved and not devolved. Scottish MPs and MSPs gave explanations that contradicted Johann Lamont and
to this day there has been no clarification. However, as Johann is leader of the Scottish Labour Party, you
should note what she said to Gordon Brewer on Newsnight Scotland (see here):

LAMONT: I want the power, and the flexibility, to make those decisions, but that is again subject to the
agreement of the people of Scotland in an election. Thats what we would discuss ahead of 2016.
BREWER: But not to lower them?
LAMONT: No.
BREWER: Im what on Earth is the logic of that?
LAMONT: What you of course have already got the power to lower taxes across all over the bands, and
we think theres an argument which says if youre going to lower at the top rate you can lower all of at
the levels. But what we dont want is a position, the concern of course around Corporation Tax is tax
competition. We took the judgement that actually there might be an issue, if you had the flexibility to cut
as well as raise the top level, you might create a degree of tax competition across the United Kingdom.
Again, the balance is, the extent to which the sharing union, the co-operative, the sharing pooling risk and
resources, actually holds the United Kingdom together, which is why we dont want to import too much
responsibility onto the Scottish budget, but equally we dont end up in a position thats a race to the
bottom on taxation.
BREWER: What happens if, lets say, the Scottish Parliament decided to put the top rate of tax up to 50p,
and lots of high earners just left or based themselves in England, and they thought Ooh, well that wasnt
a very good idea, lets put it back down again, would they be forbidden from doing that?
LAMONT: No, they can do that.
BREWER: But I thought you said they couldnt put it down?
LAMONT: What they cant do, they cant reduce it below what the level is set at a UK level.
BREWER: Ah, so its the UK that determines it?
LAMONT: Well, we have accepted that, were part of the United Kingdom.
BREWER: What if Ed Balls should become Chancellor of the Exchequer and he says Right, Im going to put
the top rate up to 50p, can the Scottish Parliament say no, were not going to do that, well just keep it at
45?
LAMONT [after pause]: I wouldnt have thought so.
LAMONT: Why would we, you know, why would we do that?
BREWER: Well, would we have the power to do that, thats what Im asking.
LAMONT: The power weve got is not to cut below what the UK rate is, so the UK rate is set and then
we cant cut below that.
BREWER: So if they put taxes up, we have to put them up?
LAMONT [strangled]: Yes.
BREWER: And if they put taxes down
LAMONT: Well, to the top rate, yes.
BREWER: if they put the top rate down, we dont have to do that?
LAMONT: Well, they establish, its quite basic, because of course, were still part of the United Kingdom,
weve accepted that macro-economic policy should be decided at a UK level, what we want round about
that is flexibility.
BREWER: It just seems its a very peculiar way to run a tax system.
LAMONT: Well, you may think its peculiar, but then what we have here is an interesting combination of
us being part of the United Kingdom, which shares and pools risk and resource, but also gives the
Scottish Parliament accountability

And you can read here how some Labour MPs and MSPs dont agree with the above. Even the UK Labour
MPs cant agree how much should be devolved, as if it would make much of a difference anyway one
senior UK Labour MP told The Scotsman: We were happy for it to go from 10p to 15p, but no more.
Another added: There is no appetite for devolving more income tax powers.

- 29 -




- 30 -

The Scotland Act 2012 had already proposed to devolve more, very limited, powers to Scotland even before
the Scottish Labour party released their devolution document and it didnt mention preventing the tax rate
being lower than the UK rate. Therefore, Labours proposals could be seen as even more restrictive than
what has been planned for Scotland since before 2012, regardless of the outcome of the referendum.

Even Johann Lamont cant be consistent in an interview with the Northern Echo she claimed that The
North-East has nothing to fear from "devo max" for Scotland and that Ms Lamont urged people in the
North-East not to believe "propaganda" about extra powers and riches heading to Edinburgh (see Northern
Echo). Bear in mind that it was her and the Better Together campaign that were talking about extra powers
heading to Edinburgh so she was in fact warning the Northern English not to believe Better Togethers own
propaganda.

In the same interview, she also said that Scotland would not be getting more money, it will simply be
accountable for raising more of its money. I hope that dispels some myths. So agreeing with what was said
in the Gordon Brewer interview, that if Scotland raises more money through income tax rises, the block grant
from Westminster will be cut accordingly.

Also note Johann Lamonts comment about sharing and pooling risks and resources in the Gordon Brewer
interview above it seems the UK is happy to share the risk of Trident nuclear missiles with Scotland, while
pooling Scottish resources for the UK as a whole (and this is also another admission that Scotland pays more
than its fair share in the UK).



Besides, you need to be very wary of devolved income tax powers this is the one area that Scotland is
lower than the UK average (due to lower the lower pay rates in Scotland, not unemployment which already
stated above slightly lower in Scotland than the UK average). The proposed devolved powers do not include
the multitude of other taxes that any country needs to control in tandem any changes to income tax e.g.
corporation tax, national insurance, fuel duty, alcohol duty, VAT, motor tax, airport passenger duty, etc, and
even national insurance (most of which Scotland outperforms the UK average). If Scotland made any changes
to income tax e.g. raised it then Labour are on record as mentioned above stating that this will reduce the
block grant given to Scotland so that in effect there is no net increase in the money available to spend in
Scotland, only the result that more income tax will be paid by people in Scotland with no benefit. As Lamont
also stated in the Gordon Brewer interview:

- 31 -

BREWER: Now, you say the Barnett Formula should continue, which is fine for you to say. Can you
imagine a situation where a Scottish Government says Right, were going to be bold, were going to have
a Baltic states policy on taxation, were going to cut tax across the board 5p in the pound which would
mean that the Barnett money, while it might be the same, would be a greater proportion, obviously, of
reduced tax revenues in Scotland and everyone in the rest of the UK is going to say Oh, thats
absolutely fine?
LAMONT: Well, I think Barnett Formula works for the United Kingdom. Clearly if youve got a tax-cutting
agenda
BREWER: But if Scotland did that, surely even a Labour government in London would say You must be
joking?
LAMONT: a tax-cutting agenda, if you had a tax-cutting proposal, Barnett adjusts round that. You
dont, you would take the risk to yourself, of cutting taxation.

So there you have it Scottish Labour have said that they would not raise the income tax levels in Scotland
compared with the UK as it would be uncompetitive for Scotland (theres no argument there under
devolution). However, they have also said they wont lower the income tax to be more competitive with rUK
(and will prevent them being lowered by legislation) and the above explains why i.e. the Barnett formula
would be adjusted to compensate for any changes to Scottish tax rates. So therefore Labour will do nothing
at all with the devolved tax powers, meaning that devolving 5%, 15% or 100% of income tax is a waste of
time and money since the structures and costly bureaucracy have to be in place for tax changes even if those
changes will happen.

Labour have also argued against lowering corporation tax in an independent Scotland as being too right-wing
and cosy with big business. However, they ignored the fact that the previous Labour government, with
Gordon Brown as chancellor, did exactly that they lowered the corporation tax in the UK twice as well as
introducing a lower tax band (see here). Besides, surely having differing corporation tax rates across the UK
is no different from varying the local rates for businesses?

But why are the SNP suggesting cutting corporation tax rates compared to rUK? England, and London in
particular, has a geographical advantage that Scotland could never have being closer to the continent (its
no accident that the largest city in the UK, by some distance, is located closest to the continent and not the
industrial heartlands). Therefore, Scotland needs some other advantage to attract businesses. The SNP
proposes to attract those businesses by having a slightly lower corporation tax rate than the rUK (a few
percent lower), which will be compensated by having more people in employment and therefore more
paying income tax. There is a lot of shouting about this by Labour regarding a race to the bottom but they
conveniently forget 2 things:

1. Ireland already has a much lower corporation tax rate (12.5%) precisely because they acknowledged
that being an island off the coast of another island on the very edge of Europe meant that they had
to attract businesses for reasons other than geographical handiness. This is one of the reasons that
Irelands economy was doing very well before 2008 (the reasons for the economic difficulties are
many and most would not apply to an independent Scotland), still has a much higher GDP per head
than the UK, has better economic growth than the UK (see Irish Times and BBC) and now has lower
borrowing costs than the UK (see Financial Times).

2. The SNP policy for corporation tax is just that it is an SNP policy. It is not a policy that has to be
enacted as a condition for independence (there are no conditions for independence). If Labour
disagree with this policy and are voted into the first Scottish government in 2016 instead of the SNP
then there is nothing to force them to enact that policy, although given their comments mentioned
above about not wanting to vary tax rates with respect to the rest of the UK, they probably wont
change anything at all to avoid upsetting their (former?) masters in London.


Expecting more devolved powers after voting No is a dangerous gamble it was the UK government that
refused to have a third option for devo max (whatever that is) on the referendum ballet paper, not the
- 32 -

Scottish government. Also, the Better Together campaign cant even agreed what those powers might be
There will be no cross-party announcement on further devolution for Scotland before the referendum, the
leader of the Scottish Tories has said (see BBC). David Cameron has refused to commit to an enhanced
devolution bill in the first Queen's Speech after a No vote (there was nothing in the recent Queens speech
regarding this. Reporting Scotland, 15 May 2014). In fact, since 2012 David Cameron has visited Scotland 4
times now promising more devolution and providing no details at all.




See here

No further tax powers for Scotland, says David Cameron See the Scotsman

Economist: No camp's pledge of enhanced Holyrood powers lacks credibility see The Herald

And in case youre now being taken in by Camerons recent pronouncements about giving more power over
income tax to Scotland, think about this do you really believe he will? Perhaps not for the following reason:
1. The Tories never expect to control the Scottish Parliament. They expect, quite reasonably given that
Scotland hasnt voted Tory for almost 60 years, that for the foreseeable future it will always be
controlled by either the SNP or Labour.
2. Therefore, its not in the Conservatives interests to ever do anything to make it stronger, because all
its ever likely to do is get in the way of a Tory government at Westminster and cause trouble.
3. Therefore, anything the Tories actually propose will in fact be designed to have the effect of
weakening the Scottish Parliament so that it can be less of thorn in Westminsters side. This isnt
- 33 -

particularly evil, just sensible, pragmatic politics. (In this particular case, the mechanism of
weakening is to impose a large burden of additional and pointless bureaucracy in order to administer
an abstract and unusable power and put extra strain on the Scottish budget, limiting its ability to
introduce or maintain social-democratic policies at odds with Tory ideology.)

This article here explains well why Camerons promise of new powers is an empty one nothing has been
announced that resembles a credible guarantee that any powers at all will be delivered if Scotland votes No.
This is a response from the Scottish Green party regarding more devolved power - Neither would we be able
to address employment rights, broadcasting, energy policy or set about writing our own constitution. The
reality is if we say No we're relying on whoever wins the UK General Election in May remembering that
Scotland exists. See here

Maybe you should trust the LibDems and their promise to be the guarantor of more devolution? (see
Public Finance). But then, how many election pledges have they kept since forming a coalition government
with the Tories? Heres a top 10 listed in the Huffington Post of which Ill just mention a few tuition fees,
VAT increase, falling living standards, failed to implement the mansion tax and police numbers. Do you still
trust them with more devolution, the minority party, who are on course to be annihilated at the next general
election? Besides, they have been talking about federalism for over 100 years now and nothing has come of
it.

Danny Alexander warns it's 'unlikely' unionist parties will agree on more powers for Holyrood before
referendum see Daily Record

Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael admits no guarantee on more powers see here

Tory Scottish chairman wrecks devo consensus see Herald (24
th
June)

In fact, all the unionist politicians have only stated that more power might be on offer after the referendum.
There is still no definitive commitment from the parties that have the power for further powers from
Scotland.

And as this article here explains, Labour are certainly no guarantor of more powers and have always tried to
devolve as little as they could get away with.

This article claims that Alasdair Darlings special adviser Catherine Macleod implies we have to stop this
obsession with Scotlands constitution after a No vote. Does that sound to you like the basis for an improved
Devo Max settlement? After all, with 8 months to the UK general election, all the policiticians will be
thinking about is that and certainly not more powers for Scotland. After the UK election? Well, whoever wins
will not require pacifying the restless natives in North Britain anymore given theyll have won the UK
election.

This article here makes for some interesting reading too and below are a few choice comments:
In 1992, the then Leader of the House of Commons, the late Robin Cook (also a Scot), stated that
Britain was the most centralised state in the EU
Many would argue now that the UK is one of the most centralised states in the world. Indeed the
Economist once suggested that the UK was the second most centralised country in the developed
world after New Zealand. By contrast, in most developed countries the capital city is not even the
largest city and so only in the UK does the largest city dominate politically, economically and
demographically
What are the chances of such a federal arrangement being considered let alone implemented in the
UK? I would say approximately nil. The same London-based elites referred to above would ensure
that it never happened since their loss in power and influence would be enormous.

Devolved powers are decided by Westminster, not the Scottish Parliament so if Westminster say no then it
won't happen regardless of what the Scottish government or parliament demands. Besides, going from 10p
- 34 -

to 15p is barely above the powers Scotland currently has - Labour seems to have a different definition of
"max" in "devo max" than the rest of us (federalism it certainly isn't). Even Scottish Labour's proposal is
laughable - what about corporation tax, fuel duty, VAT, alcohol and tobacco duty, road tax, North Sea oil
revenues, etc, etc? And what about removing Trident from Scotland, reducing military spending, social
welfare, etc, etc? All areas where Scotland disagrees with rUK on and would certainly have different policies
to the current Tory government and any future UK Labour government.

Even if the UK graciously grants Scotland devo-max along the lines of federalism (no doubt still leaving
them the ability to revoke any or all of it), it still leaves defence and foreign policy in the hands of
Westminster, so there would still be no control over whether Scotland should be involved in wars, or
whether the nuclear subs should be replaced and where they should be based i.e. they would continue to be
based 30 miles from Glasgow because theyd be too dangerous to locate anywhere in England.
Independence is the only devo-max worth choosing.

And do you remember the promises made before the 1979 referendum about granting more power to
Scotland? Absolutely none of that came about for another 20 years when the Scottish parliament came into
being, and even then it was forced upon whatever government happened to be in power contrary to what
Labour say, devolution wasnt given freely by them but was forced upon them by the EU Committee of
Ministers (see here), and this was why the UK PM Tony Blair refused to attend the opening of the parliament
and actually referred to it in his memoirs as a damnable nuisance.

The empty promises of more devolution has all happened before and itll happen again if you believe them.
For example, in 1885 Keir Hardie stood on an independent Labour platform for Home Rule. When
Labour formed their first Westminster Governments in 1924 and 1929, Prime Minister Ramsay
MacDonald told his Scottish colleagues that there was no appetite for Home Rule within his London
cabinets. The promise of Home Rule was denied.
In 1949, the Scottish Convenant (a petition) was formed calling for home rule and by 1951 it had
over 2 million signatures out of a total population of 5.1 million (including under 18s). This was
simply ignored.
In The Declaration of Perth, 1968, former Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home committed the
Conservative party to support Scottish devolution. Then they backtracked and opposed a Scottish
Assembly in 1979. In that same referendum Labour scuppered their own devolution proposal by
imposing a confusing 40% threshold. Although more Scots voted Yes than No, the vote was
rejected.
Margaret Thatcher had promised a better form of devolution if Scots voted no, but this also failed to
materialise. Subsequent campaigning for devolution and the Constitutional Convention was ignored
by Westminster governments in 83, 87 and 92.

- 35 -



It was Labour who introduced the 40% rule in the 1979 referendum that, because of the out of date
information in the voters register, ultimately meant that the errors in the register, such as the dead and
absent, were counted as no votes, despite the majority of those who voted voting Yes. In fact, the only way
that the Scots could achieve devolution was for a near maximum turnout. In the history of democracy in the
United Kingdom there has never been a situation where all those eligible to vote have voted. The actual turn
out during the 1979 devolution referendum was a respectable 63.8%. Many people favoured devolution but
were concerned that the proposed bill did not allow tax raising powers. The No campaign seized on this and
claimed rightly that any parliament without tax raising powers was just another expensive layer of
bureaucracy. Many voters who supported the concept of devolution concluded that without tax raising
powers a Scottish Parliament would fail. Their decision to vote against the proposal was further bolstered by
an assurance from Alec Douglas Home, former Prime Minister and peer, that a future Conservative
government would revisit this issue and address the controversy over taxation. This assurance was not
honoured by Margaret Thatcher or her newly elected government a few months later or at any time in the
future. Of the 63.8% of the electorate that turned out to vote 51.6% voted in favour of devolution but that
figure fell short of the 40% rule that was slipped in at the last minute by the then Labour Government. The
Yes Campaign was furious and pointed out that under the same system that was used in Westminster for
hundreds of years the devolution bill would have been passed. They argued that this 40% rule was
undemocratic and had never been used before. Indeed no British government or Prime Minister has ever
been elected on the basis that more than 40% of the electorate had to vote for them. The Scottish National
Party also argued that the electoral register in the city of Edinburgh was out of date so it would have been
impossible to achieve that undemocratic 40% rule. Their protests fell on deaf ears because the whole reason
for the Labour government putting that last minute clause in was to prevent devolution from happening.

- 36 -

Finally, all power lies with Westminster under The Scotland Act - all Scottish power can be removed by
Westminster in a Commons vote, where Scots MPs are outnumber 10 to 1, including all devolved powers. In
fact, there have been suggestions that powers would be taken away by Westminster after a No vote and its
certainly happened before Fury after unelected peers strip power from Scotland (see here). Holding out
for barely any increase in taxation powers from a party not currently in power, and less likely to be in power
as each day goes by, while the party in power is openly hostile to Scottish devolution, is a much more
dangerous game to play than choosing independence. There is no certainty in staying in the union, except for
more austerity, more budget cuts, increase in poverty, and increasingly another Tory government, etc.

Quotes that make a very uncertain future for the Scottish Parliament:
When Yes loses, as it will, its supports should not be awarded the consolation prize of additional
powers for Holyrood. That will simply keep the argument open and continue the slide away from the
Union. Losers should lose. The dream consequence of this loss should be a steady erosion of
Holyroods powers until it can be abolished and the previous efficient unitary form of governance
restored. Michael Kelly (see here)
Once we get our No vote in 2014, well rip so many powers from those Neo Natz that they might as
well meet once a month above a pub, for all theyll have left to talk about Ian Davidson, Scottish
Labour MP for Glasgow South West (see here)
Devolution, the Calman Commission, the Scotland Bill, the Edinburgh Agreement, all of this and
more you have, is because Westminster parties are scared of the SNP. If you vote NO you massively
change the balance of power and they will not only give you nothing, but will probably take powers
away from the Scottish Parliament as quoted from Andrew Neil, not exactly a fan of independence
(see here)
I dont think folk realise it, but the Scottish Parliament is only a temporary institution, and it can be
abolished at any time by Westminster Willie Rennie, member of Better Together

Devolution is power graciously bestowed on the Scottish parliament by Westminster, which can be taken
back at any time by Westminster. Independence is power taken from Westminster by the Scottish people
and can never be taken back by Westminster.


- 37 -






- 38 -

Government Policies
There are a huge list of policies that Scotland as a whole didnt agree to but is either currently subjected to,
or will find it increasingly difficult to resist due to continuing budget cuts. Some of these are:

Bedroom tax and other welfare policies
Welfare cap
Tuition fees
Prescription charges
Privatisation of the NHS
Elderly care costs
Nuclear weapons (and with them sited in Scotland)

How many of these did Scotland vote for? How many are being implemented in Scotland regardless? And
how many are at risk despite the current (SNP) Scottish government resisting attempts to change them?
Certainly the Scottish Labour leaders comments on the something for nothing culture show that theyre
not safe under Labour (see STV News).

More people, including children, are being pushed into poverty every day, all victims of the failed economic
experiment called austerity 1 in 5 people and a shocking 1 in 4 children in Scotland. Meanwhile the Post
Office and other state bodies are privatised as a fraction of their true cost and cronies of the government
make a killing in the process. The NHS in England is slowly being privatised with friends of the government
benefiting most through owning the companies that NHS services are being farmed out to.


NHS Privatisation
The NHS in England is slowly being privatised and the only thing stopping it happening in Scotland, for now, is
that the NHS in Scotland is a separate body, outside the control of Westminster.



Fury as Tory party donors are handed NHS contracts worth 1.5BILLION under health reforms see Daily
Mirror

- 39 -

Just some of the articles published on the privatisation of the English NHS:
Could you be charged up to 25 just to see your GP? Doctors to vote on making patients pay for
appointments See Daily Mail.
In five years England will not have an NHS as you understand it, and if we vote No, in ten years
neither will we. See a YouTube talk by Dr Philippa Whitford, an NHS surgeon working in Scotland.
David Cameron has left NHS in ruins after breaking pledge to cut the deficit, not the health
service See The Mirror
Privatisation of the NHS by Allyson Pollock on YouTube and the impact it has on the Scottish NHS
see here
NHS patients 'could be forced to pay bed and board' See The Telegraph
Coalition Attacks on the NHS Will Return Britain to the Age of the Workhouse See here
The depth of corruption in the Conservative Partys new, privatised health system See here
Voting No could be bad for your health See Daily Record
Call for 10 a month fee to use NHS and 20 a night to stay in hospital: Former Labour health
minister says out-of-date service needs the cash See Daily Mail. And this from a former Labour
health minister!
Thinktank proposing monthly fee for NHS is funded by private healthcare companies see here
Should we pay a monthly membership fee to the NHS? BBC News



And while the NHS in Scotland is currently protected from privatisation by the SNP government, while
Scotland remains in the UK this will be at threat. The block grant given to Scotland is calculated using the
public spending figures in England.

As the NHS, and other public services are privatised (sold to Tory part donors or family members), public
spending will fall in England (with poorer services and financing coming directly from the patients). This will
reduce the block grant given to Scotland, resulting in further cost-cutting decisions needing to be made by
the Scottish government. Eventually, the SG will have to decide whether they can continue offering free
- 40 -

healthcare to Scotland, at the expense of other areas like education, while England charges for healthcare.
The same also applies to free higher education eventually, under the UK, Scotland will have to introduce
university fees.

But is the NHS in Scotland all its cracked up to be? Is the privatised NHS in England better? A Canadian Heath
watchdog reported here has praised Scotlands NHS as a model of success. Is the NHS in Scotland worth
fighting for? Or should it be privatised like the service in England?

Ill be voting Yes to save the NHS See an article here written by someone whose life was, and still is, being
saved by the NHS

A Facebook posting from a nurse who works in the Scottish NHS:




And if you think privatisation of the NHS in particular, or public services in general like electricity, gas, Royal
Mail, etc is good then read this article (The Greatest Financial Scam of All Time) it raises some very
interesting points, of which a few chosen excerpts are listed here:
We are expected to believe that after the sale, the magic of private enterprise, the wonders of
competition, will deliver a better, more efficient service. At a lower price. Not only has this never
actually happened, if you think about it for five minutes its clear that it cannot possibly happen.
Because the new owners are taking essentially the same organisation and extracting from it not only
the grossly-inflated boardroom salaries and bonuses were now all so familiar with, but also profits
for their shareholders. The salaries and bonuses might be scandalous, but the shareholder profits
represent a vastly bigger impost.
Everybody knows how much electricity prices have risen in recent years, and whilst rival companies
may offer you a few pennies discount on your tariff if you choose them over their competitors, youre
still paying twice as much, as a proportion of your income, for electricity than you were when it was
publicly owned. Even with the energy saving light bulbs.
Public transport never makes money. Its not really meant to. Its infrastructure, its there so
everyone else can make money, so that people can get to work, goods can get delivered and the rest
- 41 -

of the economy can function. So what happens when you privatise say a railway company which costs
millions to run? Well, nobody is going to buy a loss-making concern, are they? That would be silly. So
governments are forced to offer guaranteed profits, in the form of subsidies, otherwise they simply
couldnt be privatised. The new owners do their usual tricks of cutting staff and raising prices, but due
to the need to suck more cash out in profits than can possibly be saved that way, they still come up
well short of the revenues the government has guaranteed them. So we see the bizarre spectacle of
privately owned enterprises costing us, the taxpayers, more in subsidies than they used to cost us to
run when we owned them!
Who does this benefit? Well, that is clear. Certainly not the customers. The only beneficiaries are the
owners of these privatised entities. Therefore there is only one possible explanation it is the
deliberate transfer of literally trillions of pounds worth of assets from the public sector (which is you
and I) to the private sector (which isnt). Often at prices which turn out to grossly undervalue those
assets. And theyre doing it again. Theyre not even bothering to hide the fact that Westminster
politicians, and very often their relatives, are positioning themselves to profit from the creeping NHS
privatisation that threatens to engulf the English part of what might arguably be described as the
UKs greatest social achievement.

Another comment about electricity and gas prices Between 1997 and 2013, UK households saw combined
electricity and gas prices rise by 54% in real terms. In contrast, family income has fallen in real terms by
approximately 7% over this period. see The coalitions attitude to renewables and Scotland is a risk to
national security

What about the fire service? Should that be privatised too? Fire sale: Secret Government bid to privatise fire
and rescue services revealed see The Mirror



As an aside, Scotland has also become the playground, and tax haven, for the rich with the rich world's
greatest concentration of land ownership. Fifty per cent of the private land in Scotland is in the hands of
432 people The Guardian, Reid Foundation and Ian Davidson, Labour MP

UK Party Politics
However, as much as the Tories are disliked, theyre just doing what theyve always done anti-immigration,
tax breaks for the rich, harsh on the poor, privatisation, corruption, etc. With a Tory, you get what you see
- 42 -

a right-wing fascist who likes to be tough on the poor, underprivileged and immigrants, while extracting as
much money as possible for himself, his family and his friends from the state.

Whereas Labour, they were the party of the poor, formed to help the disadvantaged and make society more
equal. They created the best of the UK the welfare system, the NHS and state pensions. However, since the
death of John Smith, theyve become the party of the rich, getting too close to the media moguls and the
financial centre, relaxing the regulations that created the banking crash, invading Iraq, introducing university
fees, prison privatisations, kick-starting the privatisation of the NHS, introducing the ATOS administered WCA
regime for the disabled, refusal to invest in much-needed social housing, Private Finance Initiatives that left
the state paying for schools, hospitals, etc for decades, neglecting the poor and doing the minimum
necessary in their constituencies where their supporters have no-one else to vote for (although its
noticeable that where there is an alternative in Scotland i.e. the SNP, Labour lose large sections of their
support).

Incidentally, the Daily Record has the story Nurse makes heartfelt apology after Atos forced her to trick
disabled people out of benefits but fails to mention it was a Labour government that introduced them...
Funny that.

Labour have treated Scotland (and many working-class areas of England) with contempt, believing they could
do the minimal necessary in their heartlands its said that even a monkey with a Labour rosette could be
elected in many of their constituencies. Even now, the Scottish Labour Party continue to treat Scotland with
contempt: "We're not genetically programmed in Scotland to make political decisions" said Johann Lamont,
Leader of the Scottish Labour Party (see YouTube)

As well as preventing devolution in 1979 by inserting the 40% clause in the referendum, Labour have also
been guilty of concealing the McCrone Report, handing over 6,000 square miles of North Sea from Scottish
jurisdiction to English jurisdiction without the knowledge or consent of the people of Scotland and handing
over ultimate jurisdiction of Scottish legal matters from the High Court in Edinburgh to the Supreme Court in
London without the knowledge or consent of the people of Scotland.



And everyone seems to forget it was Gordon Brown who abolished the 10% tax band in his last budget in
2007, to reduce the basic rate from 22% to 20%, increasing tax for 5 million people and, according to the
calculations of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, leaving those earning between 5,000 and 18,000 as the
biggest losers (see Times archived article)

At one time we had 50 Labour MPs out of 79 MPs in Scotland and they couldnt do a damned thing to
protect this country from Margaret Thatcher Jim Sillars
- 43 -


And they have now publicly stated they will continue Tory spending cuts if they get into power (see the
Scotsman), have apologised for getting immigration wrong (see BBC News) and voted with the Tories for
an arbitrary welfare spending limit, thus pushing more people into poverty (see ITV News).


Gordon Brown didnt even turn up to vote either way in that vote.

New Labour have become the Red Tories. They are now chasing the same right-wing anti-immigrant vote
that the Tories are (the UKIP voters) and will continue to lurch to the right they have no choice to have a
chance of power again as the demographics in England are obvious and irreversible. The English voter,
particularly those floating voters in the south-east, are becoming increasingly right-wing and its those voters
that determine which party holds power not the poor areas in England who have no choice but to vote for
Labour as there are largely no alternatives (they wont vote Tory and now wont vote LibDem because they
formed a coalition with the Tories although UKIP is gaining support in some of those areas despite their
extreme right-wing policies).

Its why New Labour voted with the Tories on the welfare spending cap, to show theyre tough on benefit
scroungers, despite benefit fraud accounting for a tiny percentage of legitimate claims, and its why their
policies will continue to the right, regardless of what they claim to represent, and this reason alone is why
Old Labour is truly dead and will never be resurrected in England again.

Miliband: Young jobseekers must train or lose their benefits see The Independent or the Suns version:


- 44 -

This is despite claiming in November 2013 that Labour denies planning to strip benefits from under-25
'Neets' see the Guardian. But where could they have got the idea for this policy from anyway? Perhaps here
Under-25s would not be able to claim benefits under all-Conservative government, David Cameron says
see the Telegraph. Continuing to move to the right, trying to attract right-wing voters, while abandoning
their left wing support and those in need .

Maybe theyre just trying to attract those voters who believe the welfare system is larger and more generous
than it really is:


Even worse, Ed Milliband is openly styling himself on Thatcher in order to attract those right-wing voters:
Ed Miliband vows to govern 'with same conviction as Thatcher' (see The Mirror)
Ed Miliband: Margaret Thatcher was a 'unique political figure' (see The Telegraph)
Ed Miliband praises Margaret Thatcher in drive to reform 'unresponsive' public services (see The
Telegraph)
'I'll govern like Tory leader Margaret Thatcher,' says Ed 'Red' Miliband (see The Express)

Ed Miliband even tried to attack the SNP claiming that they were not doing enough to tackle zero hours
contracts (see Daily Record and here) conveniently forgetting how his party sided with the Tories to block
Plaid Cymrus attempts to ban them for care workers in Wales (see here, here and here. Or how about the
fact that Tony Blair, in 1995, said A Labour government will be part of the European Social Chapter. Part-
time employees will no longer be treated as second class citizens. There will be an end to zero-hours
contracts. Labour were in power for 13 years and they failed to deliver on that promise. And then there are
the 62 Labour MPs who employ members of their staff on zero hour contracts.

- 45 -




Scottish Labour MP Anas Sarwar (son of millionaire and expenses fraudster Mohammad Sarwar) stated
there is no point funding free care for the elderly when half the people in the poorest parts of Scotland do
not live long enough to take advantage. See here and Daily Record. Now that seems crass and cold-
hearted. Johann Lamont also views free prescriptions, free eye tests, free university tuition, free bus passes
for the elderly, etc as a something for nothing culture and she has said Labour will abolish these if they get
power (see STV News).

Even if Scotland wins its independence Labours Michael Kelly has stated that Labour MPs, including Scottish
Labour MPs, will support rUK against Scotland during negotiations (see YouTube video here at 17:50). He
also mentions the fallacy yet again that Scotland would need to join the Euro when joining the EU, which is
complete rubbish as already explained above (see here again) and finishes off his nonsense by insulting SNP
supporters by claiming they hate the English (many SNP and independence supporters are English, as well
as a multitude of other nationalities).

The Labour party of old is long gone, replaced with a cabal full of Red Tories. If they can attract and accept
politicians who were fully paid up members of the Conservative party right up to 2003 (for an example, see
Wikipedia) then they are not the Labour party they used to be. This article here explains very clearly the
"New Labour are Left Wing" Myth there are too many reasons to list them all but a few are the Iraq war,
introduction of "Workfare" schemes, planning to privatise the Royal Mail, prison privatisations, kick-starting
the privatisation of the NHS, introducing the ATOS administered WCA regime for the disabled, refusal to
invest in much-needed social housing, and many more.

- 46 -



However, much of the above is irrelevant Labour will almost certainly not win the next UK election. Recent
polls put the Tories 1 point ahead as reported in the Huffington Post, even a Labour website here, and at the
Guardian. What they all failed to mention though was that UKIP gained 15%, so together with the Tories,
both right-wing, anti-EU parties have almost half the UK vote in this poll at 48%. And Ed Miliband compares
poorly with the other UK party leaders in the leadership rating on the Guardian page he comes last, behind
Nigel Farage and even Nick Clegg.

But what about the recent EU elections? Do they disagree with the poll above? Actually, they agree very well
with it, with over 50% of voters in England voting for either the Tories or UKIP. The chances of a Labour
government are looking slimmer by the day, especially with Ed Milliband as party leader. This amusing article
here explains why the EU elections (and local elections in England) were bad news for Labour as does this
article (which points out that Labour won almost nowhere except in London), while this article explains why
Labour are unlikely to win the next election on the basis that the majority of UKIP supporters are actually ex-
Tories (52%) with only 15% being ex-Labour, while 66% thought David Cameron would make a better prime
minister than 25% who though Ed Miliband would be best. So if those UKIP supporters switch allegiance in
the general election, theyll switch back to the Tories, especially as the Tories are promising one of the
biggest things that UKIP supporters want - a referendum.



- 47 -

And what about the recent Tory win in the Newark by-election? Conservatives see off UKIP challenge to win
Newark by-election BBC News. While the Tories saw off UKIP, there are 3 points to make about this result:
1. It is unusual for a governing party to do so well in a by-election, especially when the previous
governing party MP resigned due to corruption
2. UKIP came second AND they polled over 10,000 votes, meaning that the right-wing votes came to
27,000 (20,000 ahead of Labour) and a massive 70.5% of the vote
3. Labour, on the other hand, only polled 6800 votes, 17% of the vote and most importantly, they were
DOWN 4.6% from the last general election. While you might say that this could be expected in a safe
Tory seat, Labour actually won this seat in 1997 so its not a seat that has always stuck with the
Tories (see The Guardian).

More proof about how the Tories will win the next election can be read here in this long-range forecast by
Stephen Fisher at the University of Oxford, who calculated that the Tories have the highest probability of
forming having a majority at 34% with Labours probability trailing at 20%. Furthermore, while his probability
of a hung parliament is quite high at 46%, he calculates that the Tories will have the largest party (59%)
compared to Labour at 40%. So even if the Tories dont win outright, theyl most likely to have the largest
share and so will be best placed to form a coalition with either the LibDems again, UKIP or even the Ulster
Unionist parties (Tories plotting to form a coalition with Northern Ireland MPs to avoid sharing power again
with Clegg see Daily Mail)

And as mentioned previously, it can easily be argued that a No vote would actually increase David Camerons
ratings since, as leader of the Conservative and Unionist party, he could be seen as the saviour of the union
and (he would certainly argue as much) and would therefore be more attractive to those voters down south
(and maybe a few of those unionists up north too).

Unchallenged by craven Labour, Britain slides towards ever more selfishness see The Guardian

And what does David Blunkett say is likely to happen if the Tories win the next election? Labour could find
itself in the political wilderness for another 15 years if it does not win the upcoming general election, former
cabinet minister David Blunkett has warned. see the Guardian

And the final nail in the coffin may be that Ed Miliband has now made a powerful enemy. Initially he had his
photo taken with the Sun, as did David Cameron and Nick Clegg, celebrating England see below:



- 48 -

However, as reported in the Huffington Post, The Sun Absolutely Tears Into Ed Miliband After Labour Leader
Apologised For Holding Promotional Paper. He has now managed to make an enemy of Rupert Murdoch,
while David Cameron and Nick Clegg have not. As anyone knows, if you dont have the Murdoch press on
your side during an election campaign, you dont win general elections in the UK. Its difficult to see how Ed
Miliband can win the next UK general election, with the polls and now the Murdoch press against Labour.

If none of these facts worry you then presumably youre a right-wing, anti-immigration, anti-EU Tory voter
looking forward to the next Tory government (possibly in a collation with UKIP) and soon to follow departure
from the EU (more on this further on).

Finally some Labour supporters are starting to realise that David Cameron will win the next election -
Bombshell Daily Record poll shows Scots will back independence if they think David Cameron will remain
Prime Minister (see Daily Record). Why its taken them so long, and why they still seem unsure is anyones
guess, especially since they wont know for sure wholl win the next election until AFTER the referendum.

In the another poll reported here, two-thirds of the Labour voters polled believed that Labour were going to
lose the 2015 UK general election while a majority at 46% wanted Scottish Labour to back a Yes vote (27%
were undecided and 27% didnt want them to back independence).

Like many Labour supporters who are now realising that the only way for Labour to return to its left-wing
roots is to vote for independence, some involved in the Better Together campaign have jumped ship:
Anum Qaisar, Head of Muslim Friends of Labour defects to Yes See The Herald
Gary Wilson (Better Together coordinator within the Edinburgh East Labour Party see here)
Mike Dyer (constituency Chairman of Anniesland Labour Party see here)
Jamie Kerr (Vice-Chairman of Renfrewshire South see here)
Pat Kelly (former STUC president see BBC News)
Even sitting Labour MP, George Mudie (described as "a fantastic MP" by Labour leader Ed Miliband) said If I
were in Scotland I would be voting for an independent Scotland. see STV News. While not a large number
(yet), you might see more and more move to the Yes campaign closer to the referendum date, especially if
the polls start showing a majority for Yes.





- 49 -

EU Membership
Another one of the Four Horsemen of the Better Together apocalypse, EU membership is complicated simply
because there is no precedent for it. Manuel Barroso had his opinion broadcast widely and freely by a very
compliant and biased media but what they forgot to say what that it is simply his opinion, and worse, based
on a comparison with Kosovo which is an entirely different situation to Scotland. Kosovo was never in the EU,
was never a nation in its own right at any point in its history and it declared itself unilaterally independent
despite the country it was in (Serbia) refusing to accept its independence (it still hasnt been recognised as
independent by many countries).

Scotland, on the other hand, formed before England, was an independent nation for almost 1000 years
before it decided to join a political union of countries with England, Wales and Ireland. It still is a country in
many respects (independent legal system, education system, health system, etc), just a country in political
union with another three.

Yes, there will be new EU treaties to sign and existing ones to be modified but it will be far easier for
Scotland to join the EU than it ever was for East European states, which incidentally have all been accepted
into the EU. Of course, there might be some countries objecting to Scotlands entry but contrary to Barrosos
claims, Spain is not currently one of them and either will the rUK:

In a rare moment of common sense, David Cameron told STV that as Prime Minister of rUK he would
"absolutely" support an independent Scotland's application to join the European Union. (see here).

Besides, to argue that someone might possibly object in the future with no proof whatsoever of that
objection should not be taken into account when deciding Scotlands future. Besides member states have to
give good reasons for a new state not to join, not to just object because they feel like doing so, especially
when the citizens of that country have already been EU citizens for 40-odd years.

Bear in mind the chaos that Scotland being kicked out of the EU would cause Scottish nationals living in the
EU would suddenly require visas to continue working in those countries, as would EU nationals living in
Scotland. This same situation will apply when the UK votes to leave the EU in a couple of years.

After the EU membership scare tactics, many have countered Barrosos and the No campaigns claims,
including the No campaigns newly appointed adviser, Jim Gallagher, who has claimed that its likely that an
independent Scotland will be an EU state after accelerated negotiation (see here). More counter
arguments on this page, including the statement that if Scotland was an independent member state of the
European Union, our farmers could receive an additional 850million in agricultural funding.



A similar situation affects Scottish fishermen too:
- 50 -




Even a former Labour First Minister of Scotland says that Manuel Barroso has made a monumental blunder
in his remarks about Scotland and membership of the EU. He has either been misled into making such
inaccurate comments or does not understand the context or the nature of the debate (see Daily Record),
Barroso was also slated by ex-European Court judge Sir David Edward, who branded his comments absurd
(same page), a Tory MEP claimed in Twitter that scotland referendum borosso statement more bark than
bite? Would commonsense not fall on Spanish to allow Scots in? No EU leadership No backbone (see here)
and from the English newspaper the Guardian Barroso's remarks on Scottish independence are as ludicrous
as his record in office (see The Guardian). Spain itself would have something to lose access to a massive
area of fishing grounds in Scottish waters should Scotland not continue in the EU.

If Scotland were to become independent it would be with the UKs agreement rather than by unilateral
secession. In practice, its status in international law and that of the remainder of the UK (rUK) would depend
on what arrangements the two governments made between themselves before and after the referendum,
and on whether other states accepted their positions on such matters as continuity and succession. But there
are a number of legal considerations. (see The Scotsman)

Another Portuguese politician also had something to say about Scotland being in the EU former
Portuguese deputy prime minister Antnio Vitorino stated that Scotland will accede to full EU membership.
He was quoted as saying that in the event of a Yes vote in September, the EU will potentially have 29
members instead of the current 28. He also stated that he expected Scotland to negotiate membership of the
EU simultaneously with negotiations with Westminster on independence. (see here)

More articles on supporting Scotlands presence in the EU:
Scottish independence: Think tank report backs EU membership See BBC News
By far the most important is the key change adopted by David Martin MEP in relation to our
membership after a Yes vote. It was, to be blunt, stating the obvious but it finally blew away the
synthetic hysteria of Better Together that Scots would lose their EU citizenship see here
Labour and Lib Dem MEPs confirm independent Scotland's place in EU see here
Labour MEP: 'independence no barrier to EU membership' See The Herald
Independence referendum: New report backs Scotland to stay in EU after Yes vote Daily Record
Scottish independence: Think tank report backs EU membership BBC News
EU would welcome Independent Scotland say MEPs see The Scotsman

Barroso is the only EU politician to come out against Scotlands membership in the EU ask yourself, does he
have any vested interest in doing so? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the UK government was
supporting his bid to become the next NATO Secretary General? See The Herald. Could a deal have been
done between David Cameron and Barroso for this reason? Ironically, Barroso lost out on the NATO head
position to the ex-Prime Minister of Norway, a small, independent, non-nuclear country.
- 51 -


Another fact to consider regarding Barroso if you agree with the Better Togethers opinion of him as being
unimpeachable with regard to Scotlands EU membership, and only Barroso is right about Scottish
membership of the EU while everyone else is wrong, then surely youd then have to accept his opinion that
David Camerons plans to claw back UK powers from Brussels are doomed to failure as all 28 member
states would fail to back Britains unreasonable demands, European Commission President Jose Manuel
Barroso has warned. Barroso poured scorn on the Prime Ministers plan to bring legislation from the EU back
into the UKs control, insisting that it would only be achievable by reviewing over 150,000 pages of EU law on
a case-by-case basis. see archived Huffington Post article.

And another indication of the EUs increasing frustration regarding the UKs position can be read in this
article. Put simply, the UK governments have hampered and held back what many continentals see as the
way forward for the EU and I would doubt that they would be willing to continue to be so accommodating
with the UK in future negotiations.

If EU membership is an important factor in your decision, in response to the rise of UKIP the current Tory
government have promised to hold a referendum on EU membership after the next election (theyve just
launched a poster campaign stating so) while Labour have not ruled it out they claim they wont now but it
wasnt that long ago they said they would (see Reuters) and will probably re-introduce it soon enough now
that UKIP have gained the largest number of seats in the recent European elections.

David Cameron has also stated on the BBC News that the Conservatives are the party for those who want
Britain out of the EU see YouTube. Hes also been threatening to take the UK out sooner by bringing the EU
referendum forward - Cameron warned UK might quit EU over president BBC News

Talking about the EU election results, what has been more disappointing than Scotland electing a UKIP MEP
is the response from the unionists they have been gloating that apparently Scotland is no different from
England in electing right-wing, bigoted, sexist racists with the majority of the Scottish mainstream media
trying to paint the result as a blow to the SNP (see here):

- 52 -




Note that Murdo Fraser is a Scottish Conservative MSP and Kezia Dugdale is a Scottish Labour MP and how
Anas Sarwar (Deputy Leader of the Scottish Labour party) retweeted that last one...

However, these articles here and here highlight several basic facts ignored by the unionists:
1. UKIP came 4
th
place in Scotland, barely winning the 6
th
seat from the SNP, who already had won 2
seats, while coming first in England by a good margin
2. The SNP didnt lose not only did they win the most seats and votes, they actually increased their
number of votes by 70,000, which is rare for a party in government for over 7 years. Usually a
governing party suffers at local or European elections.
3. In the 2009 European elections, UKIP got 16.5% of the vote in the UK as a whole, and 5.2% in
Scotland a gap of 11.3%. In this years election the tallies were 27.5% in the UK and 10.5% in
Scotland a gap of 17%. The result of this that the degree of difference has substantially increased,
by 55%. That is, while UKIPs share in Scotland increased a bit, it increased much more in England.

- 53 -

So the bizarre and immoral argument being used by unionists that Scotland is just as morally bankrupt as
England and so should stay in the union is wrong, plain and simple (good article here about that):





So if an EU referendum is held once the next Tory government is back in power, what is likely to happen? A
study by the University of Edinburgh (see here) examined support for remaining in the EU across the UK and
found that the majority (40%) of respondents in England wanted to leave the EU compared to 37% who
wished to remain, whereas in Scotland the majority (48%) of people wanted to remain in the EU compared
to 32% who wanted to leave. So by staying in the UK, Scotland has a very high chance (a certainty?) of being
dragged out the EU even though it doesnt want to.

Another, more recent poll as reported in the Guardian agrees with this British people favour leaving the
European Union, according to poll: Opinium found a total of 48% would definitely or probably vote to leave
under present rules, while 37% said they would definitely or probably vote to stay in.

Finally, this article here clearly explains why the argument for being in the United Kingdom is hypocritical
when an independent Scotland could be part of a much bigger union, the EU, but with much greater control
over policies than any kind of devolution could offer.


Punching Above Our Weight
There have been numerous claims that Scotland punches above its weight (or similar phrases) being in the
UK. This article here looks at how the UK and Scotland punch above their weight in the world, and how that
would, or could, be affected by Scottish independence. Its a very interesting article and worth reading in full
but essentially states that membership of NATO, the UN, EU, WTO, IMF and OECD is open to ALL countries,
including an independent Scotland, and while the UK may be larger, its still a small country in terms of
population (22nd largest).

Whatever the level of the UKs influence, with minor exceptions, Scotland has no representation, no
separate and distinct input, and no veto in regard to UK international conduct and policy, and this has
various consequences. One consequence is that there is not a single initiative or foreign policy goal that is
identifiably Scottish; that could only have been achieved with Scotlands participation.
- 54 -


A further consequence is that UK conduct and policy is often detrimental to Scotlands interests. For
example, in order to retain its permanent seat on the UN Security Council, the UK must retain its nuclear
weapons at Faslane and Coulport as well as maintain high defence expenditure at the cost of other spending.
Another example is that in international negotiations, particularly with the EU, Scotlands interests are often
ignored or negotiated away. Scotlands role, therefore, is merely to reinforce UK influence through its human
and physical resources, often adversely to Scotlands own interests.

An independent Scotland, disinclined to military intervention or aggression in pursuit or defence of status
and influence will not have the enemies the UK creates, making Scotland a safer place - not creating enemies
is a good defence policy. It is notable in that regard that, with the exception of the last few months of its Civil
War, ever since Ireland became independent in 1922 it has never been at war, while the UK in the same
period has virtually never been at peace.

Independence gives Scotland important influence that it does not have as part of the UK, some of the most
important being control of its own national political, economic and defence policy, tailored to its own needs,
and the protection it gives from the influence of unwanted, inappropriate or damaging UK policy - such as a
possible UK exit of the EU or the presence of the UKs nuclear weapons making Scotland more of a military
target.

An independent Scotland would also have important influence through its own place at the international top
tables: in Europe and the European Union in particular. It would be a member state of the Organisation for
Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and would hold the chairmanship for one calendar year, as each
member state does in turn. In the Council of Europe, Scotlands Foreign Minister would be a member of the
Committee of Ministers and hold a six-monthly presidency, as other members do in turn, and Scotland would
send its own parliamentary delegation to its Parliamentary Assembly. An independent Scotland, as with all
other EU member states, would have its own representative in the European Council, commissioner in the
European Commission and government minister in the Council of the European Union. Scotland would also
take its turn in the Presidency of the Council of the European Union for six months. It should also be noted
that, as from 1 November 2014, voting in the Council of the European Union requires either unanimity or a
majority of countries of either 55% or 72%, depending on the nature of the vote.

In the European Parliament, Scotlands 6 MEPs would rise to a similar level to Irelands 12 MEPs. A Scotland
joining the euro would also have its own member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.

This article shows quite neatly why an independent Scotland would actually benefit the rest of the UK in the
vote in the Council of EU Ministers. Scotland would probably be given 7 votes in this council while the rUK is
likely to keep hold of its existing 29 votes. The 29 votes currently as part of the UK sounds good but only if
Scotlands interests align with the rUKs. If Scotlands interests are against rUK, as part of the union, then
none of those 29 votes will be made for Scotlands benefit as Westminster control all of them. Whereas if
Scotland was independent then we would at least have 7 votes, as well as separate representation at the
Council that would allow us to persuade other members to vote with Scotland, even if its against rUKs
interests.

But even those 7 votes could benefit the rUK if Scotlands and the rUKs interests happen to align then both
votes combined amount to 36, more than what the UK alone currently has. Plus, the rUK will have another
EU member state on its side.

Scotland remains near the bottom of the EU allocation share of the vital European Maritime Fisheries Fund
(EMFF) despite receiving a slight increase. Scotlands share of this will be 110 million which is 1.9 per cent
of EU allocation despite the Scottish fishing fleet catching 8 per cent of the total EU landings. See here

- 55 -

Education
Currently students in England have to pay tuition fees of up to 9000 per year. The introduction of student
fees was actually by the previous Labour government and the increase to 9000 was recommended by them
and would have been enacted it if they had won the election. Instead the Tories increased it for them and
are looking to increase it further. England currently has the highest tuition fees in Europe and recent reports
claim that many students might reach their 50s before they pay off their student debt while others may
never pay it off.

Scottish students currently pay nothing as a direct result of an SNP government. If Labour had been in
power in Scotland, Scottish students would have been paying the same as those in England (tuition fees were
a Labour policy). Even with an SNP government for the next 10 years or so, eventually Scotlands budget
from the UK will be cut so much that its unlikely they will continue to afford it.

Only a Yes Vote Can Preserve Scotland's "Right to Offer Free Education" (see Huffington Post)
Professor Murray Pittock from the University of Glasgow, speaking at the launch of Academics for Yes, said
he is voting Yes because a no vote would put increasing pressure on the Scottish Government to make the
Scottish education system more like that of England. (see YouTube Video)

Real threat to research in Scotlands universities is the Union See here

Gordon Brown has also threatened the independent nature of the Scottish education system, calling for an
end to it The former Labour leader called for an end to Scotland's centuries old education system and for
common UK exams and qualifications. see here



- 56 -

Vested Interests, Deception and Lies, and Media Bias
You might have heard that this campaign is not as fair and clean as it ought to be. While there might have
been exaggeration and selected quotes from both sides of the campaign, from this side of the fence the
attempts to sway public opinion with deception and outright lies from those with vested interested abetted
by a very compliant and willing mainstream media has been shocking. You might think that these complaints
are groundless and everything is fair game in a referendum. However, this is such an important decision that
it should not be swayed or influenced by so-called facts that turn out to be nothing but propaganda and lies.

Vested Interests
In any discussion, especially a political one, you need to ask what are the vested interests, if any? What does
someone have to gain from arguing their point of view?

Why are the UK parties campaigning so hard to keep Scotland in the UK? If Scotland are subsidy junkies (as
many of them tried to claim, and some still do) then why not cut it loose and save the English taxpayers
some cash? The simple and obvious reason is that its because its a lie propagated by the UK government
(Labour or Tory, it makes no difference) to stop Scotland thinking (correctly) that its better off on its own
and to keep the 27 billion per year in oil revenues alone (never mind the revenue generated by Scotlands
higher than average GDP output). In fact, given the % return Scotland received before the figures stopped
being calculated in 1921, between 17% and 49% (see below and here) well BEFORE oil was discovered in the
North Sea, you have to wonder what the real figure will turn out to be (it could be significantly higher than
even the SNP claim given they under-estimated the North Sea oil revenue as highlighted in the McCrone
report):



- 57 -



This article in The Courier (If we were such a liability UK Government would be desperate to ditch us)
reinforces this view that the rest of the UK needs Scotlands wealth and are fighting tooth and nail to keep in
it their hands.

Another question to ask is who personally has the most to lose if Scotland votes for independence? Labour
have 41 Scottish MPs who will all lose their cushy, all expenses paid jobs in London, as will the 11 LibDem
MPs and the single Tory MP.

Not only that, if all those Scottish Labour MPs lose their UK seats, where do you think theyll be headed?
Most of them will head straight for the Scottish parliament, meaning that Scottish Labour MSPs, who are no
doubt seen as lower in the pecking order, will almost certainly not be reselected for their current seats so
that those senior ex-MPs can get back into a less but nonetheless cushy job rather than having to join the
real world. It will be a very messy fight for whatever seats there are in the next Scottish elections (currently
38 Labour seats in the parliament, leaving potentially 41 Labour politicians out of a job).

In fact, its almost certain many Labour MSPs will be out of a job in 2016 regardless how Scotland votes - if
Scotland votes No then with the UK election in 2015 returning a right-wing party (almost certainly the Tories
but it makes little difference if its Labour) then the SNP is likely to gain even more seats in the 2016 Scottish
election Scottish Labour could be punished hard (especially if its a Tory UK government). If Scotland votes
yes then all the UK Labour MPs will be looking for Scottish MSP seats to take up, pushing the MSPs out
anyway.

But what about the 6 SNP MPs at Westminster? They are actively campaigning to make themselves
redundant so not exactly vested interests there. Also, the SNP MSPs in the Scottish parliament are unlikely to
lose their seats if they fail to win the referendum and they will gain nothing more than they currently have if
they win independence, other than going down in history as the party that helped Scotland win its
independence (along with the Scottish Greens, SSP, Labour for Independence, etc). The same applies for Alex
Salmond all he will receive is going down in history as the man who brought independence to Scotland, not
any dictator-for-life job that the mainstream media, Labour and Better Together try to claim. Besides, this is
yet another irony given that the SNP is the only party in the government within the UK which has been
democratically elected with a clear majority, unlike the Tories or LibDems in the UK parliament or Labour in
the Welsh parliament.

The only positive case for the union thats been made is a positive case for the Scottish Labour and LibDem
MPs. Perhaps thats what Better Together communications chief Rob Shorthouse meant when he told a
public meeting in Dunoon in March that what the independence debate meant to him was that it pays my
mortgage (see the Dunoon Observer).

- 58 -

And coming back to that great EU bureaucrat Manuel Barroso? What was his vested interest in claiming
Scotland would find it difficult getting back into the EU? As mentioned previously, it now looks like he said
what he did about Scotlands membership so that the UK government would support his bid to become the
next head of NATO (see The Herald).

Reports from UK government departments, NIESR, etc will inevitably be tainted by bias as they try to scare
Scotland into staying in the UK. Even the UK civil service has become involved, completely contrary to what
they are permitted to do, and since they have gone unpunished for it, Paul Flyyn, a Labour MP, has
complained about it (see here). It is now impossible to take what they say at face value as they have shown
repeatedly that they are the British civil service and will do everything to keep Scotland British.

Weir Group several announcements have been made from this company, who currently have a number of
MOD contracts. The chief executive recently stated that If there is a Yes vote, there is a real risk that
investments will be put on hold. We operate in over 70 countries all over the globe, investing 120 million
last year and never had to worry about which currency I will get my return in, but that is the reality of a Yes
vote. This makes no sense at all since they admit they operate in over 70 countries and have no concerns
about currency so what is another country added to that?

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that board has close connections with the UK government and
that Lord George Robertson is a member of the board?

Standard Life they have came out with various statements regarding independence although to be fair to
them, until recently the worst they have said is that they had begun to set up additional registered
companies in England to which it could transfer part of its operations if it was necessary to do so. This,
however, was mis-reported by the BBC and other media as Standard Life's announcement that it may move
operations outside Scotland in the event of independence has sparked a political row, and ignores the fact
that the instability they are concerned about is being created by the refusal of the UK politicians to provide
some certainty in the event of a Yes vote. Nevertheless, the following are the board of directors, a group I
doubt youd be surprised to find are pro-unionist and Conservative in their politics:

Keith Skeoch, Executive Director of Standard Life, is on the Board of Reform Scotland, the neo-
conservative lobby group which wants to abolish the minimum wage, privatize the NHS and
pensions and restrict trade unions further.
Crawford Gillies, Non Executive Director, Chairman of Control Risk Group, of London, the security
consultancy of choice heavily peopled by ex MI5 and MI6 officers
Garry Grimstone, Chairman, lead non-executive at the Ministry of Defence, London
Noel Harwerth, non-executive Director, Director of London First
David Nish Chief Executive, Member of the UK Strategy Committee of TheCity UK. TheCity UK
being a body of the City of London.
John Paynter, non-executive Director, was vice chairman of JP Morgan Cazenove until the 2008 crash

CBI the CBI claimed that they were coming out against independence and as a result they were effectively
forced to register as official No campaigners with the Election Commission. Despite claiming to have
consulted with their members many, who had to remain impartial or actually didnt agree with their view,
and resigned from the CBI, except for the BBC which is mentioned further on. The CBI later claimed that a
junior member of staff made the application to the Electoral Commission, despite statements from senior
board members contradicting this. And now this BBC article reports that the campaign chief signed the form.
The CBI have lied consistently throughout this entire debacle and have lost any legitimacy and any comments
from them should be regarded with deep suspicion.

CBI silent after documents reveal inconsistencies in Cridland submission to Electoral Commission See
here

- 59 -

But why should the CBI be against independence? Perhaps it could have something to do with John Howie,
their Chairman of CBI Scotland, who also happens to be managing director of Babcock marine, which has a
multi-million pound MoD contract at Faslane. Perhaps John Howie was initially indifferent to independence
but was persuaded by the MoD to back pro-UK stance as reported by the BBC and the Financial Times

Business for a New Europe as this article here describes, now that the CBI cannot be taken seriously as an
independent and unbiased commentator on Scottish independence, it seems a new business organisation
has come to the fore. However, what you wont read about Business for a New Europe is that not only are
they quoting a very old and long discredited report as recent news, the chairman and founder of Business for
a New Europe is a Roland Rudd, whose first job was as a policy advisor to David Owen and the SDP. He later
developed links with New Labour, and worked closely with Peter Mandelson. Roland also has close ties with
Nick Clegg, kindly offered to help Tony Blairs son out with his first Saturday job and advised Tony himself.
Rolands family are politically well connected too, with his sister being a Tory MP.

Amongst its board of advisors, Business for a New Europe boasts Leon Brittan the former Tory Home
Secretary in Thatchers government, Roger Carr the former director of the CBI, former Chef de Cabinet to
Neil Kinnock and ex-UK senior civil servant Andrew Cahn, a former British ambassador, and a veritable roll
call of individuals whove stepped out of UK public service into well paid jobs on the boards of companies.
None of whom have any other interest than telling Scottish voters the truth.

So yet again we have a supposed apolitical and totally neutral business group that turns out to be completely
staffed by unionists.

B&Q Ian Cheshire, chief executive of Kingfisher (which owns B&Q) claimed that investment would "pause"
in Scotland following a "Yes" vote as you can read on the BBC News website. However, what this attempt at
scaremongering by BBC News failed to mention is that Ian Cheshire is a former advisor to David Cameron
(mentioned in this UK government webpage), and who recently received a knighthood (see Mirror and
Huffington Post). So perhaps Sir Ian Cheshire is not as neutral as the BBC, or any other unionist media, makes
out.


There are quite a few others that, on the surface seem to be impartial, but after a little digging around look
anything but impartial and have some kind of personal gain from Scotland being kept in the union (not
exactly looking out for the poor or the common good).

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

JK Rowling the multi-millionaire who donated 1 million to Better Together made many headlines and
articles. However, what most of those articles in the mainstream media failed to mention is, not only is she
personal friends with Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah, but very single point she raised in defence of the
union had already been shown to be nonsense, more of which will be discussed further on.


Deception and Lies from Better Together
Every campaign suffers from deception and even lies but the volume that come from Better Together is
breathtaking. There are many examples, only some of which are included here.

For example, as part of a public education campaign, Yes Glasgow had been inviting No speakers to take part
in the Glasgow debate held on Thursday 1st May. Theyd contacted every single MP and MSP from a Unionist
party representing a Glasgow seat, asking them to participate. They offered from the very beginning to let
Better Together co-organise and co-host the debate, which would be chaired by the neutral Electoral
Reform Society Scotland. But they refused. However, what was disturbing was how they claimed that it was
- 60 -

a Yes event and that everyone on the platform was a Yes supporter (although it turned out speakers for the
No side were found at the last minute) see here


And why wont Better Together debate in public anymore? Why are all their events closed, invitation only
affairs? What have they got to be afraid of?

The other thing worth mentioning is the other name for Better Together, which is Project Fear this is not
some derogatory name created by independence supporters but was actually penned by someone in the
Better Together campaign. See Wikipedia.

The Deputy Leader of Scottish Labour himself, Anas Sarwar, claimed that Labour wont look to switch
powers over inheritance or corporation tax. We do not want a race to the bottom on corporation tax where
big business benefits and the workers on the shopfloor dont. That might be nationalist politics, Conservative
politics, not ours. See Sunday Post. However, as mentioned above, Gordon Brown stated in 2008 We have
cut corporation tax twice and I want to go further. We will reduce the tax again when we are able. see The
Telegraph

Better Together continue to deceive over pensions and immigration (see here , here and here), and a
currency union (see here). In fact, the leaflet entitled The Facts You Need is riddled with these and other
lies, all of which are explained here. Even now they continue to peddle the same discredited scare stories on
the home page of their website (and which has already been discredited above):



They claim that Nobody is arguing that we wouldnt get into the EU if we left the UK., according to a Better
Together spokesman (see here). However, their recent mailshot was claiming EXACTLY that. Furthermore,
during a debate at Edinburgh University, Better Together director Blair McDougall said it looked
increasingly unlikely that an independent Scotland would be welcomed into the EU.

They have also been arguing that If Scotland was independent today we would have no option but to cut
spending on services like schools and hospitals or put up taxes or probably both. Today as part of the UK
we dont have to do that. (Alistair Darling) and Whatever the Scottish government says now, the
- 61 -

government of an independent Scotland would be forced to raise taxes and cut public services. We are better
off together. (Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury). Really? Public services are not being
savagely cut in the UK right now (Financial Times and Daily Mail), with tens of billions of pounds (Telegraph)
of further savage cuts still to come for at least the best part of another decade (BBC News), if not forever
(Telegraph)?

Or how about the claim, in a national newspaper (Telegraph), that Contrary to its media image, the
campaign to save the United Kingdom says it has more boots on the ground than its nationalist opponents?
The article continues that Rob Murray, Better Togethers grassroots organiser, boasts he has 30,000 activists
on the ground across Scotland more than the opposing Yes Scotland campaign. They are organised into 250
groups overseen by eight local campaign organisers and are charged with winning over the 34 per cent of the
population most of whom are in Glasgow and Fife who are yet to definitively make up their minds. But as
this article points out, 30,000 activists divided into 250 groups of 120 people per group. Some cynical people
have gone along to see how many people actually turn up at Better Together leafleting events and found
that mostly none and at best one single person attending a few of these events.

Another incident to surface was when Better Together tried to claim that Labour for Independence was an
SNP front by publishing a photo of SNP supporters in front of an LFI stall, gleefully and dutifully reported by
the Daily Record here (SNP supporters caught posing for pictures as part of LABOUR yes to indepedence
campaign group). However, this article Labour for Independence photo was doctored by Better Together
(see here) shows that it was not all it seemed. Moreover, as pointed out in the article It is ludicrous to claim
that Yes Scotland campaigners, who happen to be members of the SNP, are masquerading as LFI members
just because they are seen holding LFI banners proclaiming Yes to independence. Many people congregate
around and hold both Yes and No banners because they support the respective constitutional stance and not
to pass themselves off as members of the organisation who made the banner. Are Unionists now saying that
campaign groups cannot support one another and be photographed doing so?

Gordon Brown has also been making very loud noises recently this is the man who effectively destroyed
final salary pensions, abolished the 10p tax rate, plunging hundreds of thousands of low paid workers further
into poverty, who stood shoulder to shoulder with Tony Blair over the war in Iraq and privatised so much of
Scotlands public services using punitive PFI contracts, who as Chancellor claimed he had ended the boom-
bust cycle of British capitalism just before it all went bust, and is now calling for calling for an end to
Scotland's centuries old education system and for common UK exams and qualifications (see here)? Gordon
and his good friend Alistair were responsible for regulating the City of London while they were in power.
Since then there has been no substantial reform to the financial sector enacted, either by Labour or the
current Coalition, nor are there any significant new proposals from any of the three largest parties. Nor have
we seen any attempt to pursue the perpetrators of a raft of criminal acts that led to the collapse of banking
across the UK, not just RBS but HBOS, Barclays, Lloyds and many others. This YouTube video 10 ways
Gordon Brown is wrong about the 'best of both worlds destroys Browns attempts to argue that Scotland
should stay in the union.

A former(?) Labour Party members view of a recent showing from Gordon Brown:
- 62 -


Interesting comments from former MSP Colin Fox (the whole article here is worth reading):
For Labour now believes, as their Scottish leader Johan Lamont infamously put it, that universal
benefits represent the something for nothing culture. They also vote voted against the SNPs
abolition of NHS prescription charges here in Scotland and they support further cuts in public services
and welfare payments to the poor. Browns hero Jimmy Maxton must be birling in his grave! Of
course no one, whether they have an immense intellect or not, would claim the SNP are socialists,
but then neither is the Labour Party. Unlike Gordon Brown however the nationalists did not vote for
the Coalition Governments welfare cap.
For Labour now believes, as their Scottish leader Johan Lamont infamously put it, that universal
benefits represent the something for nothing culture. They also vote voted against the SNPs
abolition of NHS prescription charges here in Scotland and they support further cuts in public services
and welfare payments to the poor. Browns hero Jimmy Maxton must be birling in his grave! Of
course no one, whether they have an immense intellect or not, would claim the SNP are socialists,
but then neither is the Labour Party. Unlike Gordon Brown however the nationalists did not vote for
the Coalition Governments welfare cap.
My daily experience was to be reminded by the Presiding Officer about what we couldnt talk about
there. We couldnt talk about unemployment, we couldnt talk about the national minimum wage
and the low pay epidemic affecting 680,000 Scots, we couldnt talk about social security or pensions,
or the worst anti-union laws in the whole of Europe, we couldnt talk about Europe or Foreign Affairs,
we couldnt talk about the Scottish soldiers dying in illegal wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, we couldnt
talk about the obscenity of Trident nuclear weapons stationed on our soil we couldnt talk about
any of these issues they were all reserved for Westminster.
- 63 -

A Yes vote on September 18th will not change that but it will rearrange the political balance of
forces across the UK and beyond. It will embolden working people in the rest of these isles and
internationally. Such a defeat for the UK ruling classes at the forefront of neo-liberalism and
warmongering the world over will assist the struggle for socialism worldwide. In the last analysis
Gordon Brown is not defending the interests of the working class and he never has. He is again
standing shoulder to shoulder with the neo-liberal British state and its political elite


And what of their leader, Alistair Darling? How has his record been?





MPs' expenses: Alistair Darling billed us for two homes at the same time see the Telegraph

And since his time as chancellor? Well, hes been keeping busy ensuring he has a regular income, even while
being chairman of Better Together. In the past year he has raked in more than 170,000 for addressing a
string of private events. Darling was paid a total of 172,550 in fees for just 15 speaking engagements
- 64 -

between November last year (2012) and October (2013). He received two payments of 15,300 each in a
single day in May when he spoke at two conferences in London a total of nine hours work. (see Daily
Mail). He also continues to be paid as an MP and as chairman of Better Together nice work if you can get it.


And there could be a lot more about to come out in a book being published about how he handled the
financial crisis (Darlings reputation shredded over lost 50bn revelations in new book see here).
Besides, who should you really trust on economic advice?



And what about claiming independence will destroy the shipbuilding industry?


Also, Geoff Searle, BAE Systems Type 26 Global Combat Ship programme director, said the company was
only looking at a single site solution to build the next generation of warships and that all of their planning is
based on the assumption that we will build at the revamped Scotstoun facility' on the Clyde. Mr Searle made
clear that BAE Systems had 'no plan B' for the build of Type 26 elsewhere in the United Kingdom if there is a
Yes vote - reflecting the fact that they are ending shipbuilding capacity at Portsmouth and focussing on the
Clyde, regardless of the referendum result (see here and IHS Janes 360)

- 65 -

And those threats from Better Together and the Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael that Scottish shipyards
wouldnt get contracts from the UK to build ships for the Royal Navy? Thats now shown to be complete
nonsense. For example Scottish independence: Dockyards to carry on building warships even if there is a Yes
vote see The Independent

What about the bank bailouts? Surely the UK saved Scotland from being bankrupted by Royal bank of
Scotland? Well, this is yet another lie peddled by the unionists and is not correct for several reasons. Firstly,
if Scotland had to bail out RBoS then Scotland would have to have been independent, probably since 1979. If
so then Scotland would likely have accumulated an oil fund similar to Norways $1 trillion fund. If so then
Scotland could have afforded to bail out RBoS, had a few hundred million quid to spare AND still be in
surplus, not heavily in debt like the UK.

Secondly, and more importantly, RBoS would have had a registered office in England if Scotland was
independent. Therefore, with the bulk of their business in England, it would have fallen to the English (rUK)
government to bail out the banks interests in England. Thats why the UK government hasnt bailed out
RBoSs operations in other countries. In fact, the US has provided by far the largest bailout for them and the
other British banks:


See Huffington Post for more detail on this.

JK Rowling (yet another millionaire Better Together supporter who is out of touch with the levels of poverty
in Scotland) came out claiming repeating the same old arguments that have already been dismissed as
nonsense (see here), including an independent Scotland being too poor to bail out the banks. However,
these articles here and here address this (and her other statements about fringe of nationalists who like to
demonise anyone who is not blindly and unquestionably pro-independence, EU membership, etc) and
explains better than I probably have:

The cost borne by the UK of the RBS bailout was about 43 billion. Doing the roughest of sums,
Scotlands share of this was less than 4 billion. Scottish GDP for 2008 alone was just under 150
billion. So of course it would have been tough had Scotland borne this cost alone, but since 2008 was
hardly a high blip as far as Scottish GDP goes, we could undoubtedly have afforded our share.
- 66 -


The real point is there: we could have afforded our share, because whether or not Scotland could
have afforded the entire bailout alone is irrelevant. Banks are bailed out by the countries they
operate in, not the ones where a building has a plaque on the side. Thats why when it came to that
English bank, Barclays, it was the United States of America and Qatar who funnelled money in, to the
tune of some 550bn and 6bn respectively. Whether Scotland was independent or not, London
couldnt have afforded not to bail out RBS, though you have to wonder if an independent Scotland
would have allowed the risky gambling so prevalent in the UK capital.

The National Collective have also written an open letter here in response to JK Rowlings announcement and
is well worth a read. And one final comment from someone who also responded to JK Rowling:



While the Scottish media had a frenzy over the offensive comments made to JK Rowling, they made failed to
report the torrent of comments made against the Weirs when they donated to the Yes campaign. The Weirs
had won the Euromillions a few years ago and had made several large donations to the Yes campaign. Many
unionists complained that this was unfair (see here) while ignoring the Tory millionaires bankrolling their
own campaigns (see below), and some went so far as to be abusive to the Weirs. For example George
Galloway posted the following on Twitter:

- 67 -


Comments from ordinary unionists on various Facebook pages and Twitter feeds were far worse though.
However, none of this was reported with the same zealousness that the abuse of JK Rowling was reported.
More details of this incident can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

The pro-independence website that reported this, as well as the Claire Lally incident, is now the target of a
smear campaign by various unionist media and organisations. For example, see here and here.

There was also a scare about cancer research in an independent Scotland by a Nobel-prize winning research
scientist (see here) who claimed that Scottish independence would damage cancer research. However,
Cancer Research UK's corporate affairs manager for Scotland Gregor McNie countered this by stating As we
fund research in a number of Scottish Universities and there is an enormous amount of public support for our
work, Scotland is an integral part of our charitable activities. It is in everyone's interest to see this research
continue, regardless of the referendum outcome. Decisions around cancer care in Scotland are largely taken
in Scotland. We currently work closely with the Scottish Government on these. Unfortunately there seems to
be a news blackout regarding these comments from Cancer Research UK and so the only website reporting
them is the SNP website here.

Bob Doris, Deputy Convener of the Health and Sport Committee, also said Already several bilateral
arrangements exist between the UK and the Republic of Ireland; joint funding arrangements between the UK
Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Irish Research Council for Humanities and Social Sciences and
an agreement giving the universities of Ulster and Queen's University Belfast access to the Republic's
scientific research funding scheme work very well.

Better Together have also claimed that talk of independence would harm the Scottish economy as a result of
uncertainty over Scotlands future. However, as the Scotsman here reports, Foreign investment in Scotland
highest since 97. So even with the risk of independence, foreign investment is not deterred and might in
fact be looking forward to an independent Scotland.

Finally, try to keep a track of the scare stories that come out of Project Fear they are usually 4 main scares
(Four Horsemen of the Independence Apocalypse) repeatedly released in a cycle:
Currency union
EU entry
Defence
Pensions
Once you spot this cycle, youll become more cynical the next time they release another one of their scare
stories.



- 68 -

The Claire Lally Incident
A recent story to make the newspapers and Better Together hysterical was regarding a woman called Claire
Lally. The story started when the SNP Media Advisor Campbell Gunn sent an email to the Daily Telegraph
pointing out that Claire Lally was no ordinary mum, given shes a member of Scottish Labours shadow
cabinet and also suggesting she was the daughter of ex-Glasgow Labour leader Pat Lally. However, when this
turned out to be wrong, what then followed was a veritable frenzy by the mainstream media and Better
Together with them demanding that Campbell Gunn be sacked since Claire Lally had subsequently received
abuse allegedly from cybernats (that term again).

Personal insults directed to anyone involved in the campaign should be rightly condemned. However, as
having already been selected by Scottish Labour as a member of their National policy Forum (not elected by
the general population, youll note), she had chosen to be in the public eye and as anyone in the public eye
will tell you, you will receive unwanted abusive messages. Granted, the exposure of inferring that she may be
the daughter-in-law of Pat Lally, and therefore was not impartial or ordinary, almost certainly brought a brief
amount of unwanted attention, Campbell Gunn did try to rectify his mistake by offering to apologise in
person to Claire Lally but she instead decided to make as much of a fuss and political capital from this
incident by refusing to accept his apology.

Claire Lally has tried to portray herself as an ordinary mum supposedly fighting to save the NHS by keeping
Scotland in the union (how will staying in the UK supposedly save the NHS from both Tory and Labour
privatisation since the Tories are only continuing what Labour had started it when they were in
government?). She has also been willingly abetted by the Daily Record when they described her in August
2012 as having no political experience and there was still no mention of her political work in this article here
dated 11
th
June 2014 (continuing to try and reinforce the ordinary mum image). However, STV News found
that she introducing and launching Johann Lamonts Scottish Labour leadership bid in November 2011 (see
here) and furthermore as mentioned above she is a member of Labours National Policy Forum 2015 (see
here for her political publications), so not exactly a newcomer to Scottish politics nor ordinary member of
the public.

The greatest insult Claire Lally received from Campbell Gun is being called the daughter-in-law of Pat Lally.
Given the hurt this caused Claire, you have to wonder what Pat Lally thinks of being tarred in this way
(theres a very amusing article here about that, written by a carer who doesnt have the time or money to
immerse themselves in party politics, unlike Claire Lally). And you have to wonder about the morals of
someone who uses their own disabled children to try and hide their own political ambitions. And despite the
moral outrage by Claire and Better Together, there has been no evidence whatsoever of any abuse that
Claire allegedly received despite repeated requests for it (see here). The only comment found independently
to come close, calling Claire a liar and collaborator, was actually made in a private conversation (meaning
she wouldnt have seen it) and only became public when one of those privy to the conversation re-posted
the comment publicly. Even the Sunday Post has risen to the defence of Campbell Gunn as can be seen here.

Better Together have been trying to make as much noise about this and the JK Rowling incident claiming
abuse by cybernats and sadly they are being helped very willingly by the mainstream media.

- 69 -



Ironically many of the trolls who'd left the abusive messages on her page were flagged up among Yes
Campaigners as "unionist trolls" and people were advised to avoid them (this and other dirty tricks by the UK
state has also been suggested by Jim Sillars in the Independent). However, the mainstream media have been
almost completely silent on the abuse by Britnats who have been abusing SNP ministers or Yes
campaigners. In a poll for the Scottish Sunday Express conducted in March, it was found that 21% of those
planning to vote Yes have received abuse or threats compared to 8% of those planning to vote No see
Express. An extremely small number of the abuse is shown below:


- 70 -




- 71 -



Or what about Susan Dalgety who seemed to be attacking Wings Over Scotland for their involvement in the
Claire Lally incident? She had been reported in the Herald previously as
A top civil servant who once compared the SNP to the Omagh bombers has quit weeks after the
Nationalists win in the Holyrood election. Susan Dalgety, one of the key officials in charge of the
Scottish Executives Malawi initiative, has walked away after Labours defeat last month. She has
refused to comment on whether her departure is linked to her describing the SNP as being full of
oddballs and out-and-out racists.

Dalgety was a high-profile civil servant who joined the Executive after Jack McConnell became
first minister. A one-time Labour councillor, she became one of McConnells press aides and
acquired a reputation for being one of his closest confidantes. She was then rewarded with the
plum post of international communications manager, which involved her working on the
Executives policy of sending aid to Malawi.

However, she was said to be gutted after the SNP won last months Holyrood election and was
unsure whether she had a future under the Nationalist administration. Her Labour loyalties and
queasy attitude towards the SNP are said to have informed her decision to quit last week. The
Sunday Herald understands her resignation was made around the same time her new bosses
were reminded about a column she wrote before joining the Executive.

Written in 1998, when she was a Labour councillor, Dalgety stated: I detest the Scottish National
Party and everything it stands for. She continued: Scratch below the almost acceptable surface
of Smarmy Alex Salmond and his small band of MPs and his barmy army is exposed as an
assortment of oddballs, extremists and out-and-out racists. Dalgety then compared the SNP to
the IRA: We need to look no further than the butchery of Omagh to see for ourselves what
happens when nationalism gets out of control. Innocent children die. She concluded: Readers
- 72 -

might find my gut reaction to the SNP overdramatic, but I love Scotland too much to stand by
and watch it succumb to the intolerant, adolescent demands of bigots.

Yet during her recent media interviews, none of this had been raised by the mainstream media. It appears
that its OK for Susan Dalgety to label SNP supporters as terrorists, extremists, oddballs and racists, but very
wrong for an independence supporter to claim that Claire Lally is a member of the Scottish Labour Shadow
Cabinet is a politician with loyalties to the Labour Party and incorrectly claims shes related to Pat Lally. As
this article here indicates, its One rule for Yes and none for No.

More disturbingly the leader of Better Together himself, Alistair Darling, has accused Alex Salmond of
behaving like a North Korean dictator and likened the peaceful and democratic campaign for independence
to Nazism he referred to supporters of independence (45% plus now of Scotland) of a blood and soil (see
New Stateman), which is a rather infamous slogan used by the Nazis racial ideology that refers to purity of
lineage (see here). Linking Scottish independence with German Nazism is a very common theme for many
Better Together campaigners you only have to visit some of their Facebook pages to see dozens of
comments stating exactly that (its easy to abbreviate Scottish nationalism to Scottish Nazis you see), but
youll rarely see that reported in the mainstream media, nor the comments about them resorting to
violence:



More, much more, can be found here at Twitter - https://mobile.twitter.com/BritNatAbuseBot

And from Ian Davidson, Scottish Labour MP for Glasgow South West Once we get our No vote in 2014, well
rip so many powers from those Neo Natz that they might as well meet once a month above a pub, for all
theyll have left to talk about (see here). And another one where he claimed that SNP supporters should be
bayoneted in the event of a No vote see the Times.

- 73 -

However, there has been no apology for his comments from Alistair Darling to Alex Salmond or those in
Scotland who support independence but are in no way Nazis, never mind his resignation. And there has
certainly been no condemnation of those Britnats either from Better Together who accuse independence
supporter of being Nazis, yet the unionists believe that the Yes campaign is somehow responsible for
cybernats?


Or how about a letter from Better Together who have asked for more donations while referring to attacks
from nationalist extremists




And while they try to demonise Yes supporters, unionists are going around beating up old folk (see
Edinburgh News), sending death threats to Nicola Sturgeon (see Express) and wishing Alex Salmonds father
would die (see Express), although these dont seem to be mentioned as much in the Scottish newspapers.

Meanwhile, the spokesman in the Better Together campaign, John McTernan, who has been pontificating
about Campbell Gunns minor briefing error has previously stated:
We have to go back to Iraq to rescue democracy. After all, as Margaret Thatcher said at the time of
the Falklands, why else do we have armed forces?
If youve not been to Sweden before, I think youll really like it its the country Scotland would be if
it wasnt narrow, Presbyterian, racist etc. etc. Social democracy in action.
Muggers. Sex offenders. Burglars. Vote SNP. That would be one side of my campaign leaflet if I was
running Scottish Labours campaign."
Tell the truth: Scotland has been indulged for too long"
- 74 -


More on these words of wisdom can be found here and his recent pronouncements on the draft Scottish
constitution, the piece of written legislation that outlines the rights of its citizens and takes precedence over
all other pieces of legislation? The government's draft interim constitution represents a return to "dodgy
regimes with bogus constitutions." There is a far more detailed analysis of his factually incorrect statements
here regarding the rest of his comments published in the Scotsman.

This article here also lists the many attempts at smearing the SNP over the past few years and its worth
reading.

This whole episode seemed to mark the point when the smear campaign from Better Together kicked up a
few gears and became really nasty (see here), although according to these articles here and here, Scottish
Labour do have form with smear campaigns. Has it gotten worse because the support for independence is
now only 4% behind the pro-unionist support? That when an undecided or even No voter sees facts from
both sides theyre likely to move to supporting independence but rarely, if ever, the other way? Is panic
setting in with the UKOK, Better Together, No Thanks campaign?

The Independence Debate isnt Toxic, but Better Together is. see here





- 75 -

Deception and Lies from the UK Government
Bearing in mind that the referendum is supposed to be between Scots wishing self determination and Scots
wishing to remain part of the Union, with arguments presented from each side to voters, the UK government
is supposed to be impartial and neutral. However, it has been doing its fair share of spreading lies and
deception too Revealed: the Foreign Office Devo unit's drive to kill off independence see Herald

UK Government accused of intimidating companies to back No Campaign see here and BBC News

David Cameron claimed on the 20
th
May that every school vote to date has come out in favour of the Union.
However, as this YouTube video shows, it is complete nonsense.

Even the LibDems have been caught lying, with Danny Alexander claiming that there was no prospect of a
change to the Barnett formula, yet the 2010 Scottish LibDem manifesto stated that they wanted to replace
the current Barnett formula and their 2012 recommendations on federalism stated that the Barnett
formula was only ever intended to be a temporary measure at the end of the 1970s see here

As mentioned before, the First Sea Lord Admiral George Zambellas said that I believe that independence
would fundamentally change maritime security for all of us in the UK and damage the very heart of the
capabilities of the Royal Navy this is ironic given that there are no Royal Navy vessels based in Scotland or
patrolling Scottish waters right now. Furthermore, since 2010 Westminster have made 20,000 soldiers, 6,000
sailors and 5,000 RAF personnel redundant so far from weakening the UK defences, an independent Scotland
with concern for its own territorial waters will actually guard its waters much better than the Royal navy
currently does.

The UK government factsheet issued by the Scotland Office claims that On the basis of independent
analysis, the UK Government has estimated that an average annual mortgage payment in Scotland could
increase by 1,700 (see UK Gov PDF). However, 2 days later George Osborne declared to the Scottish Affairs
Select Committee that For the average mortgage in Scotland, there would be 5,400 more [in] mortgage
payments a year (see Scotsman). As this article explains of course, a 217% rise in the official UK
government scare figure in the space of 48 hours doesnt mean anything actually changed. It just means that
the Treasury pulled both figures out of its backside at random because they dont even respect you enough to
get their lies straight. There is no conceivable reason for anyones mortgage to go up at all in an independent
Scotland. Mortgages are not a national transaction, theyre an individual one the banks lending money to
YOU, not to Scotland. Mortgage rates would continue to be based on the Bank of England base rate, which
would continue to be set exactly as it is now and on exactly the same principles, which have nothing to do
with mortgages.

This article explains in simple economic terms why George Osbornes claim that Scots could run out of cash
under independence, as Scottish banks would no longer be able to print their own pound notes guaranteed
by the Bank of England is complete nonsense.

Cameron slammed after misrepresenting BoE Chief's currency stance see here

This article here confirms, from the UK government, that the Scottish Office has been involved in promoting
pro-union, factually incorrect statements, against the rules (civil servants are supposed to be neutral). In fact,
this particular Buzzfeed article depicting Lego figures has become ridiculed around the world from the
Guardian here (the list seems to portray Scots as shoeless, sun-starved, football-obsessed fish supper
addicts, with poor grooming habits and such limited imaginations that their favoured activity at the
Edinburgh festival is eating hotdogs.) to the Washington Post (see here). Even Andrew Neil criticised it:

- 76 -



You may recall recently that a poll was commissioned by the UK government but the results not released (or
you might not recall as it wasnt mentioned much in the mainstream media but at least was reported in the
Herald). Someone who claimed to work for the polling company stated that the results were favourable to
the Yes campaign but when requested to release the details of the poll, the UK government refused, even
after several Freedom of Information requests (see here). The UK government claims that the poll results fall
under national security, but its not clear how unless the results were indeed against the union. But whats
most interesting is that one of the questions, who the results were shared with, was ignored. Now while this
is complete speculation, why the question was ignored may be that the details were shared with Better
Together, something that should not have happened as this would have given them a tax-payer funded
advantage over the Yes campaign.

As reported here Alistair Carmichael claimed in an interview with the impartial daughter of John Smith,
Sarah Smith, that there has never been a time, Sarah, since we started this devolution project, where part of
the United Kingdom has asked for powers for a parliament or an assembly where this has been denied..
However, as pointed out by this article, the majority of the Scottish parliamentary committee urged
Westminster to (1) give Holyrood power to vary income tax thresholds and banding (2) to raise excise duty on
alcohol (no doubt with one eye to the 1725 malt tax riots) (3) air passenger duty (4) corporation tax (5)
regulation of firearms (6) more authority over the Crown Estate - and so on, and so on. Therefore, none of
the demands were actually met, while weak powers over income tax have been offered.


What staying in the United Kingdom means for Scotland
Yet again, the UK government, who is supposed to remain impartial, has produced more pro-union
documentation, this time the document What staying in the United Kingdom means for Scotland. This is a
publication so full of deception, lies and misleading statements (many already debunked previously) that it
seemed necessary to counter them again here, rather than simply refer to the website that has already done
so here.

More businesses and jobs.
Many thousands of Scottish jobs are connected to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. For
example, 200,000 Scottish jobs are supported by banking, insurance and finance, and the industry itself
estimates that nine out of ten customers live in the rest of the UK.

- 77 -

So? Those people are still going to want their insurance and their bank accounts, so why would
independence affect those jobs in any way?

All the advantages of the pound
As part of the United Kingdom, Scotland has one of the oldest, strongest and most stable currencies in
the world, backed up by 31 million taxpayers and the strength of the Bank of England. It would not be
possible to recreate todays currency arrangements across two separate states. Staying within the UK
is the only way to keep the pound we have now.

Not possible? Isnt that in fact the exact opposite of what Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England
actually said recently about a currency union? Didnt he say that whatever was decided between the two
nations, the Bank would make it work?

Lets just check, shall we?

Any arrangement to retain sterling in an independent Scotland would need to be negotiated between
the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments. The Bank of England would implement whatever monetary
arrangements were put in place. see Mark Carneys bank of England speech "The economics of
currency unions

Yeah, thats what we thought he said.

A bigger economy that protects us all.
The United Kingdom economy is the sixth largest in the world. Our collective size, strength and diversity
allow us to grow and succeed together, and help to protect jobs in difficult times. In 2008, for example,
we were able to provide Scottish banks with support worth more than twice Scotlands national
income.

None of those words are actually related to each other. Large economies are no more inherently secure
than small ones, and most of the worlds most successful and agile economies are small nations like Norway,
Denmark and Switzerland. And protect jobs in the same breath as banks? Hmm.

As reported in the Guardian last year, By the end of this year, Britains four biggest banks will have
axed 189,000 jobs around the world in the five years since the financial crisis broke. Royal Bank of
Scotland Holdings has axed 78,000 jobs since its 45bn taxpayer bailout in 2008.

Well, lucky we had the big strong UK protecting us, eh?

Cheaper bills.
The United Kingdoms financial standing helps keep interest rates low. That means cheaper loans and
mortgages for you and your family. And because the costs of investing in Scotlands energy networks
and renewables are shared across the whole of Great Britain, staying in the UK would keep future
energy bills for Scottish households up to 189* a year lower.

*Source: Scotland analysis: Energy, HM Government, May 2014

A cunning little piece of sleight of hand, this. Heres a dubious claim, but its okay because weve linked you
to the source! Which is, erm, us. That one gets a few airings throughout the course of the document, so
watch out for them.

Safe savings and pensions.
With Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, your savings in any UK bank or building society are
protected by a guarantee of up to 85,000. And State Pensions are more secure because costs are
shared by 31 million taxpayers across the UK.

- 78 -

The 85,000 savings protection is a function of the EU, not the UK. It would be completely unaffected by
independence, because its compulsory in all EU member states. Of course, if Scotland stays in the UK, it
risks finding itself outside the EU. The pensions line is a flat-out lie. The UK taxpayers who pay for pensions
arent just doing it out of charity they want their own pensions too. And as people in the rest of the UK live
longer than people in Scotland (see here), sharing the costs means that Scots get less out, in relative terms,
than they put in.

Shared public institutions.
Scotland benefits from over 200 United Kingdom institutions and services, including: the BBC, the
National Lottery, Her Majestys Passport Office, Research Councils UK and the DVLA. An independent
Scotland would need to create new public institutions, which would be complex and expensive.

Heavens above, this one? Still? See this article here which lists a few departments Scotland wouldnt need
but currently pays for. Also, this Guardian article confirms that BBC could be shared with independent
Scotland, says Treasury secretary. It also mentions sharing the National Lottery.

Lower taxes, higher public spending.
As part of the United Kingdom, Scotlands finances are much stronger with lower taxes and higher
public spending. The UK Government estimates that the long-term financial benefit of staying in the UK
is worth 1,400* every year to each person living in Scotland.

*Source: Scotland analysis: Fiscal policy and sustainability, HM Government, May 2014

Oh look, its that We say this, and as proof heres us saying it scam again. But wait a minute lower
taxes? Who does Scotland have lower taxes than, exactly? They cant mean anywhere else in the UK,
because taxes are the same across the UK. They cant be talking about higher-tax states like Norway, because
we definitely dont have higher public spending than them. And they cant mean a future independent
Scotland, because even the Financial Times admits it would be in a stronger economic position than the UK
(see here). So who?

More support for public services.
As part of the United Kingdom, Scotland benefits from public spending that is around 10% higher than
the UK average. This helps fund vital public services like health, education and transport. By staying in
the United Kingdom, Scotlands public services are more affordable.

You do have to admire their persistence in sticking with a claim thats been debunked a thousand times.
Scotland DOES get higher public spending per head (by around 1200) than the UK average, but as noted by
the FT it also contributes far more per head in tax revenues (by around 1700), and has done for as far as
records go back (see here).

Scotland subsidises the UK, not the other way round by the UK governments own admission, and by the
calculations of prominent Unionist economists. Independence will make Scottish public services more
affordable, not less. The figures arent in any dispute whatsoever. The UK governments claim is a bare-faced
lie.

An influential voice in important places.
The United Kingdom is a leading member of the UN and the only country in the world that is also a
member of NATO, the EU, the Commonwealth, the G7, the G8 and the G20. As one of the EUs big
four nations, the UK is more able to protect Scottish interests in areas like agriculture and fisheries.

Ah, influence, also known as the old punching above our weight on the world stage argument, again. Can
you remind us how that one tends to pan out, someone?

Protecting our people and promoting our interests.
- 79 -

For centuries Scottish people have been at the heart of the United Kingdoms armed forces, which keep
us safe at home and abroad. You can rely on help from over 200 embassies and consulates around the
world if you get into difficulty. Scottish businesses are supported around the world by the UK. This
includes successfully promoting Scottish exports such as whisky.

The UK promotes Scottish exports if Scotland pays for it. And just as with savings guarantees with banks,
diplomatic assistance abroad is a function of EU membership, not the UK. Any embassy or consulate of an EU
member state is obliged under EU law to help a citizen of any other member state to exactly the same
degree it would help one of its own citizens.

Help for the worlds poorest.
The United Kingdom is the second largest aid donor in the world. Our collective influence and reach
means that we are helping to end extreme poverty, saving lives during humanitarian crises and making
vital contributions to international peacekeeping missions. In response to Typhoon Haiyan in the
Philippines, the UK helped one million people by providing food, water, shelter and lifesaving
medicine.

The Scottish Government is already committed to maintaining and increasing aid.

We all benefit from being together.
Collectively, the United Kingdoms four nations contain more than 60 million people and nearly 5
million businesses. This larger community provides more opportunities to succeed and greater financial
security.

No it doesnt, because its part of the EU, which contains more than 748 million people in 28 nations. An
independent Scotland will be part of that larger community, just as it is now, so whether it stays in the UK
or not is completely irrelevant. (Unless, as weve noted already, the UK leaves the EU.)

A successful family of nations.
For over 300 years, Scotland has flourished as part of the United Kingdom. Together with England,
Wales and Northern Ireland, Scotland has created one of the worlds most successful families of
nations.

(1) Were interested in the future, not the past.
(2) Define successful. The UK is one of the developed worlds most unequal nations and over 1.2 trillion in
debt, and Scotland has some of its lowest life expectancies.
(3) Who are the other families of nations in this league table, anyway?

A strong Scottish Parliament.
Scotland already has its own Parliament that makes decisions about hospitals, schools, policing and
other important matters. From next year, the Scottish Parliament will be getting even more powers to
set tax rates and decide if and when to borrow money.

So we get to take on more debt, but we cant use our own abundant resources to pay it off, and have to
instead keep sending all our wealth to Westminster and then taxing our people more to fill the gap? Great.
Except that we cant actually tax anyone more, because you cant have different tax levels in a unitary state,
so all well be able to do to repay that borrowing and the costs of the useless new tax bureaucracy is cut
public services.

The referendum on 18th September means making a big decision that affects everything: how you live
and work, what money you use, the tax you pay, the laws you abide by and the passport you carry.

The UK Government believes that by staying united we have much more to share and much more to
gain.

- 80 -

Theres little doubt that those things are both true. But Wings Over Scotland (website that this has been
taken from) advises readers to carefully note the usage of you and we in the two sentences.

There is also a leaflet from Better Together still claiming that the SNP have refused to set out a plan B for
what will replace the UK pound:



As pro-independence supporters now tire of stating, plan B is continuing to use Sterling (because its a fully
tradable currency and the rUK cant stop Scotland doing so), something even the unionists have admitted
elsewhere. Furthermore, another blatant lie shown above is a separate Scotland would use the Euro. As
already dismissed previously, Scotland does not meet the criteria to join the Euro and would not meet it for a
number of years.

And just to finish this section on a lighter note, The 10 Daftest Scare Stories from the No Campaign (see
here)

Say goodbye to your pandas
As one Westminster official helpfully pointed out: No one has fully understood the ramifications for
the pandas of any bid for Scottish independence.

Mobile phone bills will skyrocket
In June last year, the Westminster Government claimed that people in Scotland would be forced to
pay mobile phone roaming charges when travelling south of the border just days after the European
Commission announced its intention to abolish the charges from next year.

Scotland would be vulnerable to attacks from space
In comments to the media, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond predicted that Scotland would be
financially responsible not only for the decommissioning of Faslane, but also for the cost of
establishing a new base in England or Wales, at a cost of tens of billions. Mind you, on his next visit
he also warned that independence would make Scotland vulnerable to attacks from space.

The Trident nuclear base at Faslane would be annexed
Faslane has been a popular topic for the scaremongers. Last year Government sources told The
Guardian they were examining plans to designate the military base on Gare Loch as sovereign UK
territory in the event of a Yes vote. The following day Downing Street flatly denied the plan as neither
credible nor sensible.

Visiting Auntie Betty in Grimsby? Best pack your passport
Home Secretary Theresa May told the Scottish Conservative Party conference that an independent
Scotland would result in a literal and figurative barrier with passport checks to visit friends and
relatives. Really? Even though no such border arrangement exists anywhere else in Europe, and a
common travel area is already in operation between the UK and Ireland?
- 81 -


It will be the end of the world as we know it
Labour peer Lord Robertson declared that an independent Scotland would be cataclysmic for the
West, threaten global stability and be welcomed by the forces of darkness. No risk of exaggeration
there then

Youll never see Doctor Who again
Former Westminster Culture Secretary Maria Miller claimed that viewers in independent Scotland
would not be able to watch Doctor Who. Never mind that you can currently watch Doctor Who in 75
countries around the world from Angola and Australia to Uruguay and Venezuela.

No you cant, yes you can
In March 2014 the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems joined forces to rule out a currency union. Only weeks
later, a senior Westminster government minister, who reports suggest would play a central role in
independence negotiations, gave the game away by admitting that a currency union would be agreed
to ensure fiscal and economic stability on both sides of the border.

Youll need to drive on the other side of the road
Last September, Labours Westminster shadow health secretary Andy Burnham warned that he didnt
want to have to drive on the right when he came to an independent Scotland. So ludicrous was this
story that the Guardian newspaper decided to run it as an April Fools Day story this year.


And as if the 10 scare stories arent daft enough, the Young Scots Against Separation have tried to claim that
Christmas would be banned in an independent Scotland!




Start-up Costs Debacle
Danny Alexander had been caught lying again, this time exaggerating the start-up costs for an independent
Scotland by 12 TIMES. While you might think that its the SNP thats claiming its 12 times, youd be wrong, it
was the author of the original report, Prof Patrick Dunleavy of the London School of Economics, who has
complained that the Deputy Minister for Finance (doesnt look like hes any good with numbers) has grossly
exaggerated the true cost from 225 million to 2.7 billion:
- 82 -


The Treasurys figures are bizarrely inaccurate. I dont see why the Scottish government couldnt do this for
a very small amount of money. see Financial Times, Scotsman, BBC News and the Independent.

And even worse, the Treasury have been caught lying twice on the same day, first above and then in trying to
cover their tracks. They claimed that the 2.7bn that appeared in its briefing paper last week did not
represent its official calculation. Instead it says it is focusing on the figure of 1.5bn, which it says is based on
research by Robert Young, politics professor at Western Ontario university. - see Financial Times

However, Prof Young told the FT the 1.5bn estimate was not his, but rather was extrapolated from the top
of a range of estimates provided by academics looking how much it would cost Quebec to separate from
Canada. The lowest of those estimates would put the cost at 0.4 per cent of Scotlands output, equivalent to
600m.

You really couldnt make this up and blows any credibility or impartiality that the UK government might have
had. This articles here, here and here are very good reviews of this debacle. In addition, this episode has
provided yet more evidence of the bias of the media which will be discussed in more detail below but suffice
to say that other than the Financial Times, no other newspaper available in Scotland had this major story on
their print or online front page when this monumental gaff occurred (see here)

Professor Patrick Dunleavy of the London School of Economics (LSE) released a further report recently where
he stated that "Every transition to a new state has some uncertainty and a degree of risk. But there are no
bases for extreme anxiety about an independence transition in Scotland. The Scottish governments record
in public management is a good one, its published plans for transition are relatively specific and reasonable,
and the long-run viability of a Scottish state looks strong. The main current uncertainties arise from the
London governments apparent reluctance to do any planning for, or to make clear to Scottish voters, how a
transition to independence would be handled at their end." - see here (LSE Professor applauds streamlined
government structure for independent Scotland) and BBC News (Scottish independence: Prof Patrick
Dunleavy makes 200m start-up claim)

Bear in mind that whatever the cost of creating the new structures in Scotland needed for an independent
Scotland, the jobs it creates (in reality effectively moving them from London) will be within Scotland so tax,
NI, VAT, road tax, fuel duty, stamp duty, etc paid by those employed in these new jobs will be paid to a
Scottish Treasury, not the UK Treasury. Furthermore, an independent Scotland would not have to subsidise
expensive projects in England that would never benefit Scotland, or contribute to replacing Trident, resulting
in Scotland being around 20 billion better off. Surely 200 million, or even a billion, is worth it if Scotland
can save 19 billion or more in the long term?


Deception and Lies from Labour
As well as those lies from Labour mentioned above (Zero Hours contracts, etc), Ed Miliband claimed that his
proposed VAT cut will help families by up to 450 per year. As explained here, here and shown on the
Sunday Politics Show, this is nonsense as youd need to spend more than the average income on nothing but
goods at the highest VAT rate to save this amount of money per year.

Ian Davidson, Labour MP for Glasgow South West, when accused of abstaining from the bedroom tax, denied
it and claimed here to have voted against it (see here). Yet the parliamentary records show that he was
absent from the vote.


Dirty Tactics
The Better Together campaign are employing many dirty tactics. As mentioned previously, theyve been
trying to make out that nasty comments from alleged independence supporters have been orchestrated by
the Yes campaign, while the media ignores those very nasty comments from the No campaign.
- 83 -


They are also trying to personalise the attacks against Alex Salmond, while ignoring the wider independence
community. This is because they know that a majority for independence will have to include Labour
supporters and so by trying to link the independence movement only to the SNP and in particular Alex
Salmond, they hope to put Labour voters off voting for independence. However as Labour for Indy, the
Greens, etc show, the independence movement is much more than just the SNP and Alex Salmond (as
mentioned now a few times above). Again, watch out for anything that tries to demonise Alex Salmond as its
a ploy to tarnish the whole independence movement, such as Alastair Darling claiming Alex Salmond is like
the brutal North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il (see The Guardian and here) (and not for the first time), which is
ironic given that Salmond is the only leader in the UK that had been given a clear democratic mandate to
form his government. And straight from the horses mouth:



Tied in with this is how the mainstream (unionist) media describe those supporting independence.
invariably theyre described not as those supporting independence but as separatists. Its a subtle but
important difference as the term separatist is slightly negative and could be described as isolating,
whereas independence is a positive word. The term separatists is never used in pro-independence
websites for this reason, except occasionally tongue-in-check when parodying unionist comments. Its a
deliberate attempt to demonise independence supporters in the eyes of undecideds and No voters. Just look
out for it and youll see what I mean.

The unionists have also tried to compare Scottish Nationalism with UKIP for example, Danny Alexander
claims that The "narrow-minded nationalism" of both UKIP and the SNP is the wrong direction for Britain.
What he, and others, are trying to hide is that Scottish independence is most certainly not narrow minded
nationalism - it about allowing Scotland to flourish on the international stage. It is British nationalism
espoused by UKIP that looks inwards and seeks to disengage from Europe.

More reading on the demonization of independence supporters:
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-bully-pulpit/
http://wingsoverscotland.com/cybernats-and-phantoms/
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/7305-death-threat-comedienne-refused-to-
appear-on-newsnight-scotland
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-smear-wars/#more-52831
http://wingsoverscotland.com/whats-that-secret-youre-keeping/#more-52889
http://petewishart.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/peace-and-reconciliation/

Better Together Told to Clean Up Their Act After Attempted Smear Hits The Buffers
Yes win will leave a 'deeply divided Scotland', claims Better Together chief Blair McDougall, official
campaign director for Better Together, said that a narrow victory for Yes would be "the worst of all worlds"
and would leave a "deeply divided Scotland". However, Blair doesnt speculate on what kind of divided
Scotland would exist after a narrow victory for No, funny that.
- 84 -


Yet in all stories claiming abuse from cybernats, when you dig a little deeper such as asking for actual
evidence, none is available. Also bizarrely, when someone is threatened you would expect them to go to the
police but that rarely seems to be happening.

Better Together had informally named their unionist campaign Project Fear? Does this not indicate the
level of disdain they have for people in Scotland and the emptiness of their arguments, that they can only
resort to scaring people to voting to stay in the union? Who would want to stay in a union with a partner
that scares you into staying? It sounds like an abusive relationship than some kind of mutually beneficial
union.

"David Cameron's government will use the same tactics that they're using in the Scottish referendum. In
other words they will try and scare people rigid about the consequences of leaving the European Union"
Michael Portillo on This Week


Better Together Funding
Financial support for the unionist campaign is mired in controversy in April, Better Together disclosed
1.1 million of donations to its campaign (see here). Almost half of that sum came from one man - Ian Taylor,
a long-term Conservative Party donor and Chief Executive of oil-traders Vitol plc. More worrying, his
company Vitol, while he was chairman Admitted Paying $1 million to a Serbian Paramilitary Leader and
was Guilty of Paying Kickbacks to Saddam Husseins Iraqi Regime For Oil Contracts.

See also The Herald Controversial background of No campaign donor The donor of half the 1.1 million
raised by the No to independence campaign Better Together can be revealed today as a controversial oil
trader who stands accused of cash-for-access to Downing Street.

And do you think everything is above board in Better Together? The company of the man who jointly
founded Better Together has been paid 30,000 of taxpayers cash by the UK Government. see here

Vote No Borders is another organisation with dubious funding (Ill go into details below) but suffice to say
that this grassroots organisation is funded by Malcolm Offord, a millionaire investor and fund manager
who has previously donated substantial sums to the Conservative Party (see here). This article here shows
how Acanchi, a consultancy firm who claim they ahve worked with the UK government, have been involved
in setting up this website.

And this article here explains how the vast majority of their donations to Vote No Borders (93%) are deeply
suspicious while 1% of donations were less than 50 and just over 6% less than 50, over 93% of the
donations were over 500. More importantly, almost 74% of the total donations fell in the range of 7000-
7500. This is very important because firstly, who donates such large sums of money and why would it be
the vast majority of the donations? Secondly, and more importantly, the source of anything below 7500
only has to be declared after the referendum, whereas anything above 7500 must be declared before. This
certainly looks like a large number of large donations deliberately made just below the threshold to mask
who the donors were.

Furthermore, the following graphic shows that the majority of the unionist campaigns are registered in
England, not Scotland, whereas the independence campaigns are all registered in Scotland. Why would that
be? Could it be that the English-based establishment has something to lose through independence and
something to gain through keeping Scotland in the union? The most frightening thing about the funding is
that so far it seems to be coming predominantly from the Tories and you have to wonder what they hope to
gain from Scotland staying in the union because, with only one Scottish MP, its not political.

- 85 -




Media Bias
It should now be obvious to even the No supporters that the mainstream media in the UK is almost entirely
pro-union and anti-independence. This includes the BBC as well as the Scotsman, the Daily Record, Daily
Telegraph, The Guardian, etc. All of this pro-union bias is no doubt a result of who owns the Scottish media.
All major newspapers are owned by large non-Scottish companies and many of the owners are personal
friends of whoever happens to be in power in UK. So its no surprise that almost all of the UK media has been
brought to bear down on the pro-independence movement, similar to what happened in 1979 and 1999. The
only surprise has been how the Sunday Herald has came out in support of independence, although its sister
daily paper still appears resolutely unionist.


Source

There are many examples of subtle, and not so subtle, of bias towards the union and against independence
(or separation as the media like to refer to it) and only a few have been provided here. A general summary
from ex-BBC radio presenter Derek Bateman regarding the bias and duplicity of the main stream media is
here.
- 86 -


This article here explains how something innocent (in this example immigration figures) can be manipulated
by the mainstream media to make it appear the Scottish Government is making a bigger claim than it really
is. For example, it was reported that Scotland would need to attract an extra 24,000 people per year to
meet the Scottish Governments economic targets. However, as the article explains, this is wrong current
average immigration for Scotland is around 22,000 so only an increase of 2,000 per year is needed.
Furthermore, there isnt any explanation as to why this is required and why the same reason applies to the
UK (pension time bomb, see earlier).

This article shows how one major English newspaper thought that the UK Treasury estimate for the costs of
independence was worth putting on their front as already mentioned above (Treasury figure for cost of Yes
vote badly misrepresents key research says academic whose own work it was based on), yet NONE of the
Scottish newspapers thought it was worthy. If the situation was reversed, and the Scottish Government had
been caught exaggerating some kind of costs by 12 times, you can bet it would have been splashed across
the page of every Scottish newspaper as the main story.

Another example is the reporting of a poll that puts the Yes vote at 46%, or should that read where there
was no reporting. Strangely though all the newspapers mentioned in this article, including the Sunday Post,
seemed more concerned that a poll found that the English and Welsh were backing the union

Views of the general media over a survey that claimed English businesses reject Salmonds currency union
plan have been shown here to be nothing but nonsense and should in fact have read 61% of English and
Welsh businesses think Scotland should keep the pound See here

TV coverage damages Scottish independence campaign, say researchers See The Guardian

And as mentioned previously, the media were trying to portray the European results for the SNP as a major
defeat, rather than as a resounding win as discussed in this article here:
SNP in the line of fire
In the aftermath of the Euro-vote in Scotland, two parties are looking down the end of an election
barrel. One is, of course, the Liberal Democrats, who were virtually wiped out, losing their only seat and
falling back into sixth place behind the Greens. The other is the Scottish National Party. reported in
the Times

This is despite the fact that the SNP had the largest share of votes in Scotland, gained 2 seats and lost the
third by only, and actually secured 70,000 more votes than in 2009, which as mentioned previously is very
rare for a party in power for over 7 years.

Even something as innocuous as Alex Salmond holding the Scottish flag after Andy Murray won Wimbledon
was twisted into lies when a comment from Andy produced the following, differing quotes claiming to be
from Andy in the national newspapers:

- 87 -

BBC
There has been a huge amount published regarding the bias of the BBC, so much so there is a Facebook page
dedicated to it. Ive provided a only few articles that highlight this bias below.

Videos released on YouTube have appeared to cast significant doubt on the willingness and ability of the
BBC to cover the independence referendum in an impartial manner See here

It's a No to the BBC's referendum coverage see here

This article shows not only the length of time it took the BBC to change the headline and body text of its
story about Lord Trimbles comments on the impact of a Yes vote on Northern Irish politics, three days after
the original and two days after the peer himself told BBC Radio Scotland that it totally misrepresented his
views, but also how they continued to make it anti-independence AND doctored the publication date.

What was behind BBC Scotlands attack on the Scottish NHS? See here

BBC bias and the Scots referendum See here

Academic study reveals Good Morning Scotland favouring No campaign see The Guardian and here

BBC Propaganda Hits New All-Time Low articles published here and here on how the BBC reported on the
grassroots Vote No Borders campaign (more of which is further on)

And what about the comments from President Obama? Well, its fair to say that almost every media outlet
took snippets and quoted him out of context, while ignoring his other comments, or just lied about what he
actually said (for example here). But what is more disconcerting about the whole affair is that its now been
shown that the UK government asked a BBC reporter to ask Obama about the referendum (see here about
how this broke the law), and that Obama had been asked by the UK government to prepare a statement
beforehand, as reported by Sky News. As this article here points out (and many others that I havent linked
to), its ironic that a country that fought against British Imperialism, and will be celebrating the anniversary of
independence from the UK next month, is claiming that a union they did not want to be part of is from the
outside at least, it looks like things have worked pretty well. Looks like his advisors havent informed Obama
of the high levels of poverty and low life expectancy in Scotland.

And how deep (and prepared) was the alleged conspiracy? Well, it certainly didnt take long for Better
Together to print out leaflets and for the BBC to proudly display them on the news:



- 88 -

Bear in mind that the above screenshot was taken from the BBC news on the very same day that Obama
made his comments.



The Obama and the Chinese premier episodes are the results of David Camerons attempts to garner
international support for the UK see Revealed: the Foreign Office Devo unit's drive to kill off
independence in The Herald

Even the UK ambassadors are at it and theyre supposed to be neutral:


TV coverage damages Scottish independence campaign, say researchers See the Guardian

A YouTube video summarising the Bias in the BBC and Lies from Better Together can be found here

The lack of a Scottish Six OClock News is a major democratic flaw this article highlights how UKIP
managed to get far more exposure in Scotland than they should have been entitled to, probably resulting in
them winning the 6
th
EU seat in Scotland.

- 89 -

Even something as seemingly innocuous as the weather forecast could have a detrimental effect on how
Scots see Scotland:



And to refer back to the Better Together campaign, it turns out that their adverts were filmed in a BBC studio
not exactly the image of impartiality that the BBC should be displaying see Better Together film made in
BBC studio The Scotsman and here.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/quoted-for-nazis-again/

Kerry Gill in the Scottish Daily Express under the headline BBC isn't biased against Alex Salmond, but it
SHOULD be wrote:
Think back to the Second World War, as we have all been doing this month in commemoration
of the DDay landings. The BBC was foremost in selling the rightness of Britains eventual victory
to the rest of the world. It was most certainly not unbiased or objective.

If it had been, the German Gestapo and their Axis colleagues would not have spent all their days
and nights trying to stop anyone from listening to BBC broadcasts.

Of course, you will say, the independence referendum is entirely different. We are not at war
with each other. We are discussing the merits or otherwise of separation in a, mostly, sensible
and grownup manner.

It is the BBCs duty to report all that is said and done without bias, and without favour to either
side whether Unionists or Nationalists. But, for the reasons above, I dont believe this should be
so.
- 90 -

So Kerry has written that the BBC should be biased against independence because it was biased against the
Nazis. Again a link not only to BBC bias but also equating Scottish independence to Nazism.

And finally (for now anyway) there was a demonstration at the BBC Scotland headquarters on the 1
st
June
regarding the bias described above (and others not mentioned here). While the Evening Times briefly
mentioned it, there was absolutely no reporting of it whatsoever in the BBC Scotland news or the BBC News
website. Given there was a decent sized crowd, it seems deliberate that they avoided mentioning it
anywhere in their news outlets:







- 91 -

Vote No Borders Grassroot Campaign
This is a whole story on its own Vote No Borders was reported by the media, especially the BBC, as a
grassroots campaign. However, while none of the mainstream media did any further investigation of this
group, some independence websites found that far from the grassroots campaign groups established to
campaign for a Yes vote, No Borders is the brainchild of Malcolm Offord, a millionaire investor and fund
manager who has previously donated substantial sums to the Conservative Party (see here and here). Their
website is a laugh, full of weird statements supposedly supporting the union (see here):

To ensure Scotland can afford free university education and health prescriptions for all - policies which
were implemented by the SNP and which Labour are committed to removing
I don't want to have to apply for a visa to stay in France; there's enough paperwork as there is! do you
have to apply for a visa to visit Ireland?
"As a Scot living in Scotland I want the best for my country" so no reasons for thinking being in the UK is
best for Scotland?
"A global and powerful network of embassies!" since when has having less embassies hurt Norway,
Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Holland, Ireland, etc, all those countries with populations similar to or smaller
than Scotlands? This one has legs as they tried claiming that a Scotland supporter who loses his passport
would be stranded in Brazil. However, EU law states that any EU embassy must give the same service to
another EU national as they would to their own. So you could walk into any EU embassy, including the
UKs (only while the UK is still in the EU) and get home (see here).
"Because we're British, because a yes vote would be change for change's sake, because we don't know
what an independent Scotland will look like, because we have strength in numbers." its not a vote for
changes sake, its a vote for a better future, to directly elect the politicians that impact on our lives.
Besides, we have no idea what Scotland will look like after 6+years of more austerity from either the
Tories or labour, or even whether the UK will be in the EU.
I'm proud to be part of a country which fights tirelessly to alleviate and cure HIV, TB and Diabetes to
name a few, with a world class and coordinated research from leading universities and institutions
throughout the UK and how will that change after independence? If anything Scotlands biotech sector
could become world-leading with a government concerned about it instead of a UK government that
couldnt give a damn about anything north of Watford.
Because relying on 'our' oil, a fast depleting natural resource, as an economic boom is going to backfire in
50 years they actually said 50 years! If it lasts that long then well have had all the income generated
from the oil for those 50 years, not the pennies Westminster throws our way
"This referendum should not be about the unpopular Conservatives in England v SNP, we would do better
to think about how we could reform the Union, to make it more accountable and transparent for all our
citizens. We must stand firmer together if we are to survive the fast changing world around us." firstly,
its not about the SNP and the Tories, its about how we elect those who best represent our interests i.e.
Scottish government or UK government. Secondly, we cant reform the union the Tories (who are in
power) dont want to touch it and would prefer to remove devolution completely, while Labour offer
minimal (and confusing) changes to devolution. While the LibDems prefer federalism, they dont have the
power to introduce it and besides, it still means that the UK government sets defence and foreign policy
so the nukes will stay a blast radius away from Glasgow (and well within radiation cloud dispersal range)
and Scotland would be dragged into more wars, some no doubt illegal.

This is not the comments of regular visitors but those the website chose to highlight as the best examples
(though the authenticity of them cant be proven). One of their voices of the week, Farah, was very amusing
shes equated the bloody sectarian partition of India and Pakistan with independence. Why not compare
the independence of India instead? Was India (and all other former colonies) wrong to seek independence?
Should they rejoin? Funnily enough, of the 140-odd countries that have become independent since 1945, not
a single one has reversed that decision. She also talks about a border between Scotland and England same
old tired nonsense that has already been debunked.

It would be easy to believe that its a parody if it wasnt bankrolled by a Tory-supporting millionaire. In fact,
this story also illustrates the BBCs blatant bias who reported it without question, which has been expertly
summarised here (its becoming more like the North Korean news every day).
- 92 -


The controversy even reached the Scottish Sun:




Not content with just lying outright about passports, borders and making general factually wrong statements
about the NHS (see here), Vote No Borders chose to lie specifically about Scots access to Great Ormond
Street. GOSH, on the other hand, got so angry they publicly complained about it - Scottish 'no' campaign
NHS ad pulled from cinemas after hospital complains See The Guardian and even the Scotsman and here

And more worryingly, they appear to have been playing to the anti-immigration feeling by claiming that
anyone in Scotland who has English relatives, or vice versa as illustrated in their campaign, will suddenly find
themselves with foreign relatives, as if suddenly becoming foreign was something bad (see here). It
neglects to take into account the many people in Scotland and England who already have relatives who
werent born in the UK (foreigners, in fact) and it makes no difference whatsoever to those people where
their relatives were born. This article here explains this very well, and also mentions that Tony Benn and Ed
Milliband agree with the idea that becoming foreign is something to be avoided.

Also mentioned above was how this website and grassroots movement is being funded not just by Tory
party donor millionaires but also by dubious online donations and by now you should see that the main non-
BT movements are simply fronts for Tory millionaires (and you have to ask yourself the question, why is
that?)



- 93 -

2014 Truth Team
Another informative campaign that has apparently been resurrected is a Twitter feed called 2014 Truth
Team. While this would normally be under the radar for most people, the statements made in this
resurrected feed have been addressed here and given how wrong all of those statements are in attempting
to address the Top 20 Nationalist Assertions according them, it seemed necessary to repeat most of what
this article said about these statements from the Truth Team.

1. SNP Statement - An independent Scotland would be financially better off.
Truth Team Response - The most recent available statistics show Scotland received 9.3% of UK
spending to run our services (for 8.3% of the population) but generated 9.1% of UK taxes. In 2012/13,
Scotlands finances were weaker than the UKs as a whole by 468 per person.

While this is technically true, it is highly misleading. In 2012/13 Scotlands finances were abnormally
poor due to a one-off shortfall in oil revenues caused by massive investment by the oil industry being
offset against taxes. In every other one of the last 30-odd years, Scotlands finances have been in a
better state than the UKs, and all forecasts are that they will continue to be in the future in
February, the Financial Times proclaimed that An independent Scotland could expect to start with
healthier state finances than the rest of the UK.

2. SNP Statement - We will keep the pound ().
Truth Team Response - You cant leave a country and keep its currency. A currency union has been
ruled out and the nationalists have no Plan B.

A flat-out lie. Of course you can leave a country and keep its currency - Ireland did it for decades
after becoming independent and many countries do it today, including several territories in the
British Isles that arent actually part of the UK, like the Isle of Man and Channel Islands.

3. SNP Statement - The Bank of England would still be our central bank and our lender of last resort.
Truth Team Response - Even if the UK agrees to guarantee an independent countrys debts, this
would mean Scotland would be part of the UKs economy with no say in the UKs decision making,
how is this better for the people of Scotland? Do we want a separate country setting our interest
rates?

This is exactly what happens now anyway. Although whether Scotland would have formal
representation on the Bank of Englands Monetary Policy Committee would in fact be a matter for
negotiation, in practice it would make no difference either way. The MPCs decisions now are
dictated by whats best for England (quite properly so, as it comprises the overwhelming majority of
the UK), so Scotland has nothing to lose.

4. SNP Statement - We will remain a member of the EU on the same terms as the UK.
Truth Team Response - Leaving the UK means Scotland would have to reapply to be in the EU. The
average time it has taken to do this since 1995 is 9 years. Experts have said 2019 is the earliest
accession date. A yes vote also means the end of the UKs rebate which means being in the EU would
cost every Scottish household about 900 more.

A whole barrage of untruths here. Its very far from certain that Scotland would have to reapply for
EU membership. The most likely outcome is that there would be a renegotiation of terms to ensure
that Scotlands membership continued unbroken within the 20-month period between the
referendum and Independence Day, because the alternative is unimaginable chaos for the entire EU.
Every EU citizen living in Scotland and every Scot living in Europe would lose their rights of residence
overnight and have to be expelled. Every business trading in either direction between the EU and
Scotland would suddenly be subject to new regulations and restrictions and tariffs.

The economic damage to the whole continent would be catastrophic. And then itd all have to be
undone to let Scotland back in. We note that the experts citing 2019 as the earliest possible
- 94 -

accession date are not named. Even the academics employed by the UK government to assess the
ramifications of a Yes vote have described the 20-month timetable for securing EU membership as
realistic.

A Yes vote would have no effect whatsoever on the UKs rebate, as the rest of the UK would likely
be treated as a continuing state, so the terms of its membership would be unchanged. To the best of
our knowledge nobody has EVER said Scottish independence would end the UKs rebate, because it
wouldnt.

5. SNP Statement - An independent Scotland would be ranked four places above the UK in the OECD
list.
Truth Team Response - The SNP conveniently ignore that the paper they rely on also says that public
services in the UK reduce inequality more than almost anyone else, and this impact has increased
over the 2000s under Labour Governments in Westminster and Holyrood.

What does that have to do with the assertion? Even if the UK was good at reducing inequality, that
doesnt mean Scotland couldnt be even better. But in fact inequality INCREASED under the last
Labour administration:



6. SNP Statement - An independent Scotland will reduce corporation tax by 3% to create 27,000 jobs.
Truth Team Response - The reality is that this tax cut to businesses would cost Scotland 385 million
in revenue. Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Winning Economist and member of the First Ministers Council of
Economic Advisors, rejected the idea that lowering corporation tax would lead to greater investment
saying:
Some of you have been told that lowering tax rates on corporations will lead to more investment.
The fact is thats not true. It is just a gift to corporations increasing inequality in our society.

So, if reducing Corporation Tax is so bad, why did Gordon Brown do it TWICE in the last Labour
administration by a total of 5p, not the SNPs proposed 3p and promise to reduce it even more as
soon as he possibly could?

7. SNP Statement - We will have all the same welfare benefits that we have now.
Truth Team Response - Scots are financially better off remaining part of the UK. Benefit spending per
person is higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK. We spend over 20% more on disability benefits.
An independent report published last year also said that if Scotland gained control over welfare
benefits and pensions then it would need to raise its taxes.

- 95 -

Again, this independent report isnt identified, so nobody can verify it. But once more, the
response is curiously irrelevant to the assertion even if it were true that Scotland spent more per
person on benefits, how does that disprove the claim that We will have all the same welfare
benefits we have now? If anything, it seems to prove that Scots would be better off.

8. SNP Statement - Pensions would be better protected in an independent Scotland.
Truth Team Response - Scotland has proportionately more pensioners than the rest of the UK. Last
year Professor David Bell estimated that the number of pensioners in Scotland is set to increase by
80% between 2010 and 2060.

The idea that anyone knows what will happen half a century into the future is laughable. The last
time Labour predicted the Scottish population (in 2001), they thought it would fall below five million.
In fact its grown at the fastest rate ever, and is now at the highest level ever.



The demographic challenge that Scotland faces is best met as part of the UK because it has more
pensioners and its population is ageing faster. A no vote safeguards our pension benefits. And yet
again, an empty assertion that being in the UK is better, unsupported by any sort of facts or
reasoning. Being tied to a large country is grand if that country is in a strong economic state. If it isnt
and the UK is knee-deep in debt and getting deeper by the day.

9. SNP Statement - We will continue to trade freely with the rest of the UK.
Truth Team Response - The CBI and supermarkets have told us that independence would push up
costs for consumers. We believe them over the Party who would do and say anything to get
independence.

What, the CBI that actually officially registered itself as part of the No campaign, before backtracking
and somehow managing to extricate itself on a technicality, while still making it absolutely clear that
it opposed independence? Were not aware of a single supermarket chain whose official position is
that independence would push up costs for consumers. Once again, none are cited in support of
the claim. It appears to be another lie.

The reality is that separation would cost our businesses 11 times more than their competitors in
England if we do not share a currency. It would cost every company in Scotland 1,229 compared to
only 109 per business in the rest of the UK.

- 96 -

Source: NONE

The UK is Scotlands biggest trading partner; it accounts for over two thirds of all of Scotlands
exports. Sharing an economy supports and strengthens this trading relationship. Separation would
put it at risk.

Another empty assertion unsupported by a shred of evidence. The UK and Scotland would continue
to be trading partners whether Scotland was independent or not, just like both of them currently
trade with hundreds of other nations that arent part of the UK. Why would anyone currently trading
between the two stop?

10. SNP Statement - We can continue to charge students from the rest of UK tuition fees.
Truth Team Response - The experts say that this would be discriminatory and therefore illegal.
Removing tuition fees for rest of UK students would cost Scottish universities at least 100 million a
year, who would fund this?

More un-named experts. The reality is that its a matter to be negotiated with the EU. Exceptions
exist in EU law which provide for the rule not to be applied, and even in the worst-case scenario
universities could simply admit students from elsewhere instead.

11. SNP Statement - Starting up an independent Scotland would cost about 250 million.
Truth Team Response - John Swinney has previously told Cabinet colleagues it would cost more than
600 million to set up a separate tax system these numbers clearly dont add up.

Flat-out, barefaced lie. The 600m figure quoted by Swinney was the annual cost of RUNNING a tax
system, not the cost of setting one up, as noted by Professor Patrick Dunleavy of the London School
of Economics just a week ago.

The UK Treasury has published analysis which warns that becoming independent could cost Scotland
over 1.5bn. Unsurprisingly, the SNP has refused to breakdown their estimate.

The UK Treasurys 1.5bn figure was disowned in the Financial Times last week by the economist
cited as its source, Professor Robert Young of Western Ontario University. Its yet another lie.

12. SNP Statement - Our oil fund will secure Scotlands wealth for the future.
Truth Team Response - Even including our oil revenues, an independent Scotland would still be in
debt. How can a country in debt save money for the future? Do the SNP propose to raise taxes or
increase our debt to pay for this?

Ever met anyone with a mortage and a savings account at the same time? Or to put it another way,
does the UK spend what it raises? Or does it borrow to make up the shortfall? And in fact, had it
borrowed over 1.4 trillion now to cover that shortfall?

13. SNP Statement - People employed in Scotland by companies based in the rest of the UK will not be
affected.
Truth Team Response - The reality is that we know a number of companies are considering relocating
their headquarters if Scotland becomes independent. This would impact on jobs. The best way to
safeguard Scottish jobs with companies based primarily in the rest of the UK is to vote no.

Its not clear any company HAS actually said that, and once again were given no names and no
evidence. But even if they did, in the corporate world relocating your headquarters actually just
means a change of nameplate and letterheads. It makes no sense for companies to go to the
incredible expense and upheaval of moving the physical location of thousands of jobs for nothing.

- 97 -

14. SNP Statement - Interest rates would still be set by Bank of England so would remain the same.
Truth Team Response - Newly independent countries, with no credit history, face higher interest
rates. Sharing risk across a larger economy helps to keep interest rates low.

Another assertion without evidence or reasoning.

15. SNP Statement - We will get rid of Trident and make Scotland a nuclear weapon free zone.
Truth Team Response - The reality is that removing Trident could take up to 25 years, would result in
thousands of job cuts and be an astronomical cost.

This is a particularly bizarre stream of nonsense. The UKs Trident submarines arent even currently
scheduled to LAST another 25 years in fact, they were built to operate until the mid-2020s, which is
why the UK is currently planning to spend 100bn replacing them. A report by CND found that the
warheads could be safely removed from Scotland within 24 months.

The UK Ministry of Defence stated in 2012 that only 520 jobs directly depend on Trident (and in fact
most of them arent even located in Scotland in any meaningful sense). And the cost of moving the
weapons would indeed be likely to be very high, but it wouldnt be Scotlands problem, since they
wouldnt belong to Scotland.

16. SNP Statement - We will share an electricity and gas market with the UK.
Truth Team Response - This would have to be agreed with the rest of the UK. The SNP cant leave the
UK but pick and choose what they would like to keep as an independent country.

The UK needs Scottish renewable energy to have the remotest chance of meeting its carbon-
reduction commitments. A deal is in everyones interests.

17. SNP Statement - We will share embassies with the UK in countries where Scotland does not have
one.
Truth Team Response - Why would it be in the rest of the UKs interests to bear the costs of this? The
SNP cant leave the UK and choose what benefits of being part of the union they want to keep.

Another bizarrely petulant outburst. One would imagine that Scotland would PAY if it wanted to
share UK embassies, and that it would therefore REDUCE the costs to the UK of running the facilities,
not increase them. But in any event, were not sure anyone ever has actually claimed that Scotland
would share UK embassies. Under EU law, any member state must provide assistance to the
citizens of any other member state.


Scotland could arrange to share embassies with whoever it wanted, and even if it chose not to have
any at all in some countries, Scottish citizens would still be entitled to help from any EU embassy or
consulate.

- 98 -


18. SNP Statement - All cross-border medical services will remain, including use of rest of UK organs for
organ donation.
Truth Team Response - Scotland currently benefits from a reciprocal arrangement because we are
part of the UK. By wanting provision of these health services to remain the same, the SNP are
highlighting one of the many benefits of being part of the UK. Separation means uncertainty because
these current arrangements would have to be re-negotiated.

Another unequivocal lie. Scotland benefits from reciprocal arrangements because the Scottish NHS
and the other health services of the UK set up reciprocal arrangements, NOT because we are part of
the UK. The health services of the four member states of the UK are already completely
independent and always have been. (Well, since 1969 for NHS Wales.) There would be no need
whatsoever for anything to be renegotiated - nothing would have changed.

19. SNP Statement - We will provide childcare for every child aged 1 to school age.
Truth Team Response - We are still waiting for the SNP to deliver on the last promise they made
about childcare back in 2007. The SNP is still to say how much this would cost. The reality is, even if
every mother with children in this age group in Scotland used this childcare to return to work, they
would still need 40,000 more mothers to pay for this policy.

This seems to be a party policy issue, not a referendum one.

20. SNP Statement - We will get the Government we choose.
Truth Team Response - A lot of people in Scotland did not vote for the SNP but are now faced with 7
years of SNP Government. Labour wants to work with those in the rest of the UK that share our
values to oust the current government at the next election; not make it easier for the Conservatives
to be re-elected.

A fundamental misunderstanding of the word we, there. In any electoral system, whether in
Scotland or the UK or if the entire world united into one giant global government, some people get a
government they dont vote for. The issue here is that the Yes movement regards Scotland as a
country, and countries not individual people are the units of measurement of national
democracy. Labours point, therefore, can only be that Scotland is not a country, but merely a region
of one. It just lacks the courage to say it out loud.

Almost all the above arguments rear their ugly heads from time and time despite having been demolished
time and time again.


Scotsman
Following on from the cybernat mud-slinging and Vote No Borders dodgy website, the Scotsman introduces
us nicely to their undeclared bias for the union - With crushing predictability, the Scotsman today ran a vile
cybernats story based around last weeks big thing, the fake-grassroots Vote No Borders campaign
group. See here

The Scotsman is a unionist paper through and through with only a few token articles supporting
independence to try to maintain a facade of impartiality. However, its clear to see that, like the other
mainstream media news outlets, they are very kind to unionist stories (little confirmation of claims,
numbers, etc) and very harsh to independence stories (always spinning an independence story in a negative
light, no matter how ridiculous it seems, see here).

Daily Record
While its obvious the Daily Record is pro-unionist, sometimes even it outdoes itself with twisting a story to
make it sound much worse than it really is see here. And on the 2
nd
June there was apparently an 8-page
article on Gordon Brown and his unionist opinions. Have you or will you ever see the equivalent from a
- 99 -

senior independence supporter? Unlikely. And this article here does a good job of addressing what was said
in that article.

Another outlandish story was written by Torcuil Crichton here in the Daily Record arguing that Irelands
history since independence should be a warning to anyone thinking that socialism would survive in an
independent Scotland. Torcuil is a well known unionist and this article is littered with errors, wrong
assumptions and mistakes that would make a Modern Studies school pupil blush. This article here
demolishes Torcuils arguments thoroughly and comprehensively and essentially shows that Scotlands and
Irelands histories leading up to independence have been completely and utterly different and there is no
reason to believe that Scotland wouldnt choose a left-leaning government after independence. Thats
assuming there are any left given the SNP could fragment after finally realising their only unifying policy
(independence) and that the Red Tories (Labour) would have to return to their left-wing roots.

There had also been another story appearing in the Daily Record regarding someone recently placing a huge
bet on a No vote (200,000 apparently). Or maybe not, as the story appears to have been lifted from a story
on the William Hill website that had been published in June 2013, around a year ago. As this article asks, one
can speculate for themselves why the Record has chosen to run whats obviously an old story in an attempt
to make it look like people are putting their money on a No vote.

There have many more instances of media bias and in fact theres even a Facebook page dedicated to the
bias in the BBC alone (only because as licence payers youre forced to fund them and in return they should
be impartial). If you want to read more from the pro-independence writers (and who dont pretend to be
impartial) then youll need to go online to read their articles. The main sites that dominate are:
http://wingsoverscotland.com
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/
http://derekbateman.co.uk/
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/
http://www.wealthynation.org/
http://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/

However, there are a lot more listed on those sites, especially on Wings Over Scotland.


Shared History
Given that the pro-independence movement has been about the future of Scotland, not its past within the
UK or even before it, a section on Scotlands history wasnt planned. However, with many unionist
campaigners and politicians trying to play the history card to persuade Scots to stay in the union, particularly
given the centenary celebrations of the First World War, there is no choice but to address this argument.

Unionists claim many things with Scotlands shared history with England (or rUK if you prefer), mainly that
its been to Scotlands advantage to be part of that union. What they completely ignore is firstly why it ended
up being in Scotlands interest and secondly what has happened to Scotland since then.

Firstly, why did Scotland join a union with England? This is quite a complicated area and is a lengthy article in
itself but the main points are summarised here. The unionists claim that the Darien expedition in 1695
bankrupted Scotland and England then bailed out Scotland. However, as this in-depth article here describes,
while many Lairds were badly affected by the Darien expedition, the expedition itself completely financed by
the private sector i.e. mainly those Lairds. The Scottish budget, in 1707, was actually in surplus while England
was heavily in debt. This was this reason that England wanted to acquire Scotlands resources, to pay off its
own debt so far from England bailing out Scotland, Scotland actually bailed out a bankrupt England (sounds
familiar?).

Why did the Scots undertake the Darien expedition in the first place? Again, many reasons can be attributed
to this (and are mentioned in this article) but some include Scotland losing her only colony Nova Scotia in
- 100 -

1632, the English Navigation Act of 1651 which forced colonial development into lines favourable to England,
and stopped direct colonial trade with the Netherlands, France, Scotland and Spain. This article fails to
mention the Alien Act of 1705 where Scottish nationals in England were to be treated as aliens (foreign
nationals), and estates held by Scots would be treated as alien property, making inheritance much less
certain. It also included an embargo on the import of Scottish products into England and English colonies
about half of Scotland's trade, covering goods such as linen, cattle and coal. (see here) but this would have
impacted greatly on Scots who owned land in England. Therefore, it wasnt difficult to persuade those
land-owning Lairds to sell out Scotland for a handful of gold.

But was the general population, who couldnt vote because they held no land, for the union? The author
Daniel Defoes first reports were of vivid descriptions of violent demonstrations against the Union A Scots
rabble is the worst of its kind for every Scot in favour there is 99 against. Sir George Lockhart, the only
member of the Scottish negotiating team who opposed the Union, noted that The whole nation appears
against the Union and Sir John Clerk, an ardent pro-unionist and Union negotiator, observed that the treaty
was contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom. Public opinion against the Treaty
as it passed through the Scottish Parliament was voiced through petitions from shires, burghs, presbyteries
and parishes. The Convention of Royal Burghs also petitioned against the Union and not one petition in
favour of an incorporating union was received by Parliament.

So the treaty of union was passed by a small number of land-owning Lairds who had most to lose by
opposing the treaty and most to gain by agreeing to it, while the general population rioted against the treaty.
But what then happened after the union of parliaments in 1707?

Well, as this article points out in 1746 Prince William the Duke of Cumberland (Infamously known as The
Butcher) was sent to Scotland by the British establishment to quash the Jacobite rebellion before and after
the Battle of Culloden. This gave the excuse and carte blanche approval for acts of murderous genocide to be
inflicted upon the Scottish people, which included the brutal rape and murder of women and children,
whether they were Jacobite or not. The few survivors that remained were sold into slavery and shipped to
the Caribbean.

In 1747 The Act of Proscription was introduced which was to ban the wearing of tartan, the teaching of
Gaelic, the right of Highlanders to gather, and the playing of bagpipes in Scotland. Introduced at the same
time, The Heritable Jurisdictions Act forced Highland landowners to either accept all English rule or else
forfeit their lands. Many Highland landowners and Clan chiefs moved to London.
- 101 -

This was swiftly followed in the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth century by the Westminster approved and
condoned highland clearances. Moving onto the 20
th
century
and the First World War, the Scots battalions were (as were
many other colonial battalions) treated as cannon fodder with
Scottish troops suffering a casualty rate of 26.5% compared to
Englands rate 11.8%, less than half. In nearly every battle, the
Scots made up 50% of the front line in the battle of Loo's for
instance, the Scots made up 35 out of the 69 battalions to front
the massive allied attack, and suffered a casualty rate of 44%.
Similar higher casualty rates for Scottish troops compared with
English troops were also seen in WW2 and pretty much any
battle and war the British Empire has fought, right up to
Afghanistan and Iraq, all in the name of defending the
Empire/England:

Even during WW2, while the UK government was preaching
that the UK was stronger, safer and better together,
Westminster conspired to sacrifice Scotland to save London:















- 102 -

And what about those who claim Scotland has been subsidised by England all these years? Well, for the years
we have figures for, the 1900 to 1921 figures were (already mentioned above):

The difference was described as Imperial Services (see here). The official GERS figures from the UK
government also show that since 1980, Scotland has contributed more tax to the UK Exchequer than has
been spent within Scotland for every year except one.

So when Better Together tell you about that glorious past, remember that it wasnt so glorious for Scotland.
After all, with poverty levels and life expectancy in some parts of Scotland being the worst in the EU and
even Africa, its a hard sell that Scotland has gained anything from the union since it began. In some areas of
Glasgow, life expectancy is less than in around 60% of Africa because of a combination of deprivation, lack of
prospects, rising prices and falling benefits:



Who says so? Yes campaign? Or the SNP? No, its Oxfam who are making this claim (see here). Some other
thoughts from Oxfam regarding the UK as a whole, which Better Together would like Scotland to continue to
be a part of:

- 103 -






Scotlands Forgotten People: Scotland is home to the sickest city of the UK - Glasgow. A city where poverty
and deprivation has resulted in the life expectancy in some schemes that has been compared unfavourably to
Iraq. But now Scotland has a new and unwanted accolade it is been revealed that people in North Korea
have a longer life expectancy that the than the good folk of Craigneuk in Lanarkshire. see here

Another article on the myth of the most successful union in the Herald is worth reading, as is this one here
Westminster and the 400 year Better Together Deception.

And finally, if the United Kingdom is the most successful union the world has ever seen (as many unionists
like to claim), why do we not have a day to celebrate it?

- 104 -

What Happens If You Vote No?
Better Together , and unionists in general, try to claim that independence will bring change and uncertainty,
while staying in the union will bring certainty and consistency. However, this is another lie from BT, as there
is NO such thing as the status quo voting Yes will change things but so will voting No. For example, the
Scottish budget will slashed by at least 4 billion (see The Scotsman, Sunday Post, Herald, Newsnet),
retirement age increased to 67, the NHS privatised, poverty continuing to increase, nuclear weapons
stationed on the Clyde and a low life expectancy are the only certainties with staying in the union. Scotland is
in a poor state at the moment and staying with the UK will only make it worse.

UK ministers are not going to fall into the trap of acting against Scotland UNTIL Scotland decides to stay in
the UK- Blair McDougall, Campaign Director for Better Together



There Will Be Cuts See here
Osborne's war on the public sector: Police, nurses and teachers lose automatic pay rises and 145,000
more civil service posts slashed as Chancellor unveils extra 11.5bn in cuts see Daily Mail
Austerity to last until 2020: expect hard times for a decade, say think tanks See The Independent
and BBC News
UK forecast to remain in grip of austerity until 2020 see the Financial Times
David Cameron: no end in sight for austerity see the Telegraph
George Osborne warned 'hugely challenging' public service cuts still to come see the Telegraph
Labour Won't Reverse Tory Public Spending Cuts, Miliband Will Announce See Huffington Post
(archived)
Ed Miliband rules out borrowing to reverse spending cuts See Financial Times
We won't reverse Coalition cuts, says Balls See The Independent
IFS: more than half of George Osborne's planned cuts still to bite See The Guardian
No vote at the referendum will ensure the Tories win the next UK election See The Daily Record
Conservatives promise to scrap Human Rights Act after next election see The Guardian
U.K. pay falls fastest in developed world see CNN
- 105 -

Tory Minister Esther McVey defends lapdog over claims that poor Scots welcomed having their
benefits cut see The Daily Record
Worst UK cuts to hit Scotland by 2016 see The Scotsman
Mark Carney is having some sleepless nights see here
UK's child poverty goals unattainable, says report: Child poverty commission points to 'credibility
gap' at heart of the government's child poverty strategy see The Guardian
Poorest families will miss out on tax cuts promised by all three main parties see The Independent
Iain Duncan Smith targets poor pensioners with plans to scrap free bus passes and winter fuel
allowance see The Mirror
UK Wealth Divide widens, with inequality heading for most unequal country in the developed
world. see here
New Government cuts could see a million state jobs go See the Telegraph


What about EU membership?
British people favour leaving the European Union, according to poll: Opinium found a total of 48%
would definitely or probably vote to leave under present rules, while 37% said they would definitely
or probably vote to stay in. see the Guardian

And is Britain becoming more of a police state?
Britain's first secret trial: this way lies trouble see the Guardian and First trial to be held in
secret: Closed terror case branded 'outrageous assault' on open justice... and it's only thanks to a
free Press you know it's happening at all see Daily Mail
Russell Brand 'Con-Dems' Mainstream Media blackout of 50,000-strong anti-austerity march see
RT, reinforcing the view that the UK government controls the BBC to some degree.

Whilst predictions of Yes-doom regularly feature in headlines, few outlets have pursued what might happen
if Scots vote No. So what does await Scotland in the aftermath of a No vote? The latest animation from
Duggy Dug seeks to answer this very question. This final animation here in the series sees a sleeping Duggy
transported to a future Scotland which has voted No.



Theres a great video of Elaine C Smith here saying why we need to vote for independence, including the
statement above.

- 106 -

If you think having 1 in 5 people and 1 in 4 children in Scotland currently living in poverty and pushing even
more into poverty as a result of Tory austerity and welfare policies is being Better Together with the UK, or
think that its just a fabrication of the pro-independence campaign, then watch this video of a food bank
worker giving testimony at a Scottish Parliament committee.




Food bank charity told to stop criticising benefit system or face shut-down by the government see here
and here The chair of the Trussell Trust has said that the charity made a decision to tone down its
criticisms of the benefit system after someone in power warned them that they could get shut down and
Foodbank charity threatened with closure by Government official for criticising welfare reform see The
Mirror. In fact, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) made changes to the way in which
impoverished benefit claimants were referred to food banks just a month after threats were allegedly made
to shut down Britains main provider of the service. see The Independent

Furthermore, The Charity Commission is being "used as a front" by government trying to silence charities, it
has been claimed following Oxfam investigation see Third Force Network

More Scots resorting to food banks see The Scotsman

- 107 -

Remember when schools only asked for food for the poor living in Africa? Now
school children to donate food to foodbanks in Scotland (see here):




Poverty hits twice as many British households as 30 years ago see The Guardian

DWP demand access at random to your home and documents see here

All this happening while large multinationals avoid paying their tax Taxman accused of letting Vodafone
off 8 billion see The Telegraph





- 108 -




This video here of Labours shadow work and pensions secretary Rachel Reeves on The Sunday Politics,
shows her angrily rejecting Andrew Neils suggestion that Labour isnt determined to slash spending on the
poorest and most vulnerable in society, and identifies 165m of extra welfare cuts (to be taken from the
young and the elderly) that Labour are committed to, over and above the billions of pounds the coalition
government has already cut from the state safety net and the billions more it plans to cut in the future. So
Labour will be just as bad, if not worse than the Tories.

Is this UK a country you really want to live in?
Highest infant mortality in Western Europe
Some of the worst child poverty in the industrialised world
Least happy children in the developed world
Europes greatest regional inequality
2nd worst levels of fuel poverty
Lowest pensions in the EU and 2nd lowest in the OECD
A wealth gap twice as wide as any other EU country
2nd lowest wages in the OECD with wages falling faster than all but 3 other countries
Brits work the 3
rd
longest hours in Europe
3
rd
highest housing costs in Europe
Highest rail prices in Europe
- 109 -

Childcare costs much higher than most other European countries
3
rd
most unequal society in the developed world
Wealth gap twice as wide as any other EU country
Top 5% have got richer in past 5 years while the majority have become poorer
70% of the UK population only own 25% of the wealth

Scotland is even worse in a few of those categories and no doubt some others not listed e.g. life expectancy.
Heres a YouTube video showing how the UK is one of the most unequal countries in the developed world.
And of course there are those comments from Oxfam mentioned previously.

UK child death rate among worst in western Europe, say experts see here. Note that most of the
countries with the lowest child mortality rate are all small countries, so size is not relevant here.



Under the supposed protective umbrella of the Union, average living standards in Scotland have fallen in
each of the past six years. See Wealthy Nation

The scariest scare story ever told see here for a post-No vote scenario.

The British public dramatically underestimate what the poorest pay in tax and wrongly believe the richest
face the biggest tax burden. This article in the Guardian reports that the poorest 10% of households pay
eight percentage points more of their income in all taxes than the richest 43% compared to 35% despite a
poll that found nearly seven in ten people believe that households in the highest 10% income group pay
more of their income in tax than those in the lowest 10%.

The poorest households in the UK are closer to the poorest in former Eastern bloc countries Slovenia and
the Czech Republic than in Western Europe. This is despite the fact that the OECD estimates average
incomes in the UK ($25,828) are similar to Denmark ($25,172) and the Netherlands ($25,697). The UKs
average is inflated by the incomes of the top 20% of households at around $54,000, the third highest in
the EU. In Belgium, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries, the top 20% make between $44,000 and
$49,000. If the UKs total income of around 1 trillion was divided in the same way as total incomes in
- 110 -

Denmark or the Netherlands, 99% of UK households would be better off by around 2,700 per year. see
here and here

A report from the Glasgow Centre for Population Health attempted to discern why Scotland, and particularly
Glasgow, has such low life expectancies compared to the rest of the UK and found that Scotland hasnt
always been the sick man of Europe. Scottish health took two notable downturns relative to the rest of the
UK one in 1950 and one in 1980. The first in particular is remarkable, because it dates almost exactly from
the formation of the NHS, though it also marks the rise to electoral prominence in Scotland (and especially
Glasgow) of the Labour Party (the comments section of this review points out that the National Covenant
was signed by two million Scots wanting Home Rule in 1949 but was ignored so this fall could be related to
this).

And while the arrival of Mrs Thatcher in 1979 saw things get worse for the poor everywhere in the UK,
Scotland suffered more than comparably deprived parts of England. As the Feeble Fifty Scottish Labour
MPs stood by uselessly as the Tories ripped the heart out of industrial communities, Scots despaired of their
powerlessness against an alien political culture. The bottom line is that faced with decades of neoliberal
governments they didnt elect, and plagued by impotent Labour MPs and councils, Scots sought refuge from
depression in unhealthy lifestyle choices and drank or ate themselves to death (from the review of the report
here)



Middle classes will disappear in next 30 years warns Government adviser See the Telegraph

Bank of England policymaker: rise in interest rates 'sooner rather than later' see the Guardian

- 111 -

What about house prices? Do you think its good that houses becoming 25% more expensive while wages
grow by just 0.7% (see Guardian)? Is this a benefit of staying in the union, that itll cost an extra 23,000 for
the average house? This, incidentally, was reported in the Scottish Sun (and Scotsman) and is another
example of twisting a story to be against independence, regardless of how ridiculous it becomes.



Is this really Better Together? Do you honestly think things could be worse than this if Scotland was in
control of its own affairs?

The neo-liberal experiment, with its relentless privatisations of public services, has been a complete failure.
Specifically, it has been a failure for the majority of the population. The top 10% of the wealthiest in society
have done extremely well out of this system and when the next recession hits, those people are always able
to move their wealth out of the country. The UK is not a well-functioning state. It is now the 3rd most
unequal developed country in terms of income inequality; it has the 2nd lowest minimum wage in the
developed world, one of the least generous pensions in Europe and some of the highest childcare costs.
According to the Scottish Parliaments Welfare Reform Committee there has been a staggering 400% rise in
people using food banks in 2013/14 compared to 2012/13 in Scotland. The Westminster Governments
reaction: denial of the problem. Societies with high levels of inequality are not known for being pleasant,
harmonious places to live in. On the contrary, inequality breeds anger, often at other groups of vulnerable
people who are not to blame. See here for the full article this was taken from certainly worth a read.

There has not been a single positive reason for Scotland to stay in the union. However, it seems obvious the
reason for a lack of a positive reason from Better Together is there isnt one, for all the reasons given above
staying in the union is just more of the same budget cuts, austerity policies, poverty, etc, which is hardly a
positive message. All they can come out with are scare stories about border posts, invasions from other
nations or even space, splitting families (as if independence will cause the UK equivalent of North and South
Korea).

However, there are plenty of positive reasons for England, mainly London, for Scotland to stay in the union.
If Scotland stays in the union it will be contributing around 10% of the values of the following projects:
High Speed 2 Line - 80 billion
High Speed 3 Line - ??? (see BBC News)
Crossrail 2 - 15 billion
Hinckley Point Nuclear power - 16 billion
3rd Heathrow runway - 10 billion
London super sewer - 5 billion
Trident replacement around 100 billion
Houses of parliament repair bill - 4 billion (see Daily Mail)

Total is 230 billion, which would costing Scotland around 23 billion for no direct benefit. If youre happy to
pay for this while 1 in 5 people in Scotland currently live in poverty and Scotland cant afford to upgrade the
A9 to dual carriageway, then vote No. This is on top of the greater contribution Scotland makes to the UK
than it receives.

A question that has been asked is by supporters of the union is What happens when the oil runs out if we
DONT vote for independence?. Because the implication is that when Scotland is no longer sending all its
- 112 -

vast North Sea revenue to the Treasury, and more besides, London will generously INCREASE the money
spent in Scotland to make up for the big hole that oil will leave in Scotlands economy (particularly north of
the Central Belt). Westminster, were asked to believe, will start pumping billions of pounds north out of the
kindness of its heart so that Scotland doesnt become an economic wasteland. (see here)

Or maybe you should consider how England, or more specifically, the London-centric media and politicians
really think of Scotland? A pound spent in Croydon is far more of value to the country than a pound spent in
Strathclyde and Youd create more jobs in Strathclyde by investing in London Boris Johnson (see interview
on Youtube with Boris Johnson ). This view certainly agrees with the fact that 80% of all UK jobs created in
2013 were created in London see e.g. The Guardian, HR Grapevine and Channel 4 News.










Scotland has been indulged for too long see the Telegraph. This is just a tiny selection of various
derogatory comments you can read in the mainstream newspapers in the UK. Try reading the comments on
these pages, or on even Better Together Facebook pages, and they can be much worse. In fact, you dont
even need to go as far as London to see how some people see the Scots Nine out of ten Scots 'are a burden
on the state' (and that's the suggestion of Scotland's Tory leader)
- 113 -


The opinion of David Starkey, BBC historian, on Scotland (as well as Wales and Ireland)? If we decide to go
down this route of an English national day it will mean we become a feeble little country just like the Scots
and the Welsh and the Irish see YouTube clip of Question Time. This is just a very small sample of the
many derogatory comments from those in England.

Are these the politicians you want to run your country and control your life, and the people you want to be
some kind of political and economic family with? And will there be a backlash in England against Scotland if
it votes to stay in the union? There are already calls to slash Scotlands block grant by abolishing the Barnett
Formula (see the Telegraph, this article that refers to the 2010 LibDem manifesto (source here) and their
2012 recommendation on federalism (source here)), above and beyond the 4 billion cuts that George
Osbourne will inflict. And instead of gaining more powers for Scotland (if you believe the unionist politicians
empty promises), the Scottish Parliament could be slowly but surely stripped of all meaningful powers:

When Yes loses, as it will, its supports should not be awarded the consolation prize of additional
powers for Holyrood. That will simply keep the argument open and continue the slide away from the
Union. Losers should lose. The dream consequence of this loss should be a steady erosion of
Holyroods powers until it can be abolished and the previous efficient unitary form of governance
restored. Michael Kelly, ex-Labour leader of Glasgow City Council (see here)
Once we get our No vote in 2014, well rip so many powers from those Neo Natz that they might as
well meet once a month above a pub, for all theyll have left to talk about Ian Davidson, Scottish
Labour MP for Glasgow South West (see here)
Devolution, the Calman Commission, the Scotland Bill, the Edinburgh Agreement, all of this and
more you have, is because Westminster parties are scared of the SNP. If you vote NO you massively
change the balance of power and they will not only give you nothing, but will probably take powers
away from the Scottish Parliament as quoted from Andrew Neil, not exactly a fan of independence
(see here)

I am absolutely convinced that unless we are independent the Scotland we see now is only going to get
worse. More poverty, more unemployment, lower horizons, lower ambitions, more food banks, more payday
loan companies feasting on the poor Jim Sillars


- 114 -





- 115 -

What Happens If You Vote Yes
Firstly,


There is a tendency to see the Yes campaign preaching that every will be rosy and rich in an independent and
while some of the above might have suggested this, its not likely to happen, not initially. Scotlands
problems are ingrained and will take many years to address. No country, not even Norway, is without its
problems. However, only through independence can there even be a chance of addressing the inequalities in
society that grew under New Labour, are growing worse under the Tories, and will continue under the next
UK government, whether New Labour or the Tories. The UK government has abjectly failed to address these
issues and in fact will only make them worse with the austerity and inequality measures from both the Tories
and Labour.

Will Scotland regret going independent? Possibly with but around 140-odd countries becoming independent
since 1945, and not a single one looking to rejoin its imperial master, I doubt it.

Only with independence can Scotland get the government the social and economic policies that it votes for.
And only with independence can it finally use its abundant and embarrassing wealth of resources to help its
own population instead of providing tax breaks for the rich.

We should be investing in the future of our kids instead of nuclear weapons See Daily Record

Scottish independence: nuclear free promise for constitution BBC News

Scotland has shown it can go it alone The Scotsman

5 Reasons Why An Independent Scotland Will Be One Of The Worlds Wealthiest Nations

40 reasons to support Scottish independence

Economic case for Scottish independence: the economic facts

Scottish independence is fast becoming the only option. Even to a unionist like me, an Alex Salmond-led
government is preferable to one that rewards greed and corruption see The Guardian

Voting YES in the independence referendum does not mean I hate England or the English people, it does not
mean I love Alex Salmond and it does not mean I want to paint my face blue, don a kilt and shout freedom
- 116 -

whilst running around the highlands. The reason I will vote yes for an independent Scotland is simple. Being
independent will meant the people who care most about Scotland the people who live in Scotland will be
taking the decisions about our future. The people of Scotland have the greatest stake in making our nation a
success. That means we are more likely to make the right choices for our economy. (unknown source but I
thought it summed up the core reason for voting Yes).




- 117 -




- 118 -

Finally...
Well done if youve managed to get this far and have read all of the above- its a long read but its arguably
eye-opening. I find it difficult to believe any intelligent, rational person would continue to support unionism
unless all they saw was the propaganda from the BBC and werent aware of the full facts.

Its disappointing to see how so many Scots lack the self-confidence and dont believe that those in Scotland
could govern at least as well, if not better, than those politicians in Westminster who have been shown to be
so corrupt so many times. Is the self-esteem of so many Scots so poorly that they would rather be ruled by
another country?



Finally, its bad enough to be taken as a fool but its much worse to be willingly taken as a fool.


Food for Thought

On the left, all the parties, groups and organisations campaigning for an independent Scotland. On the right,
the parties, groups and organisations fighting to keep Scotland in the union:


- 119 -




- 120 -



Is Scotland a real place? Is democracy the best form of government? Answer Yes to both of these
questions? Then you have to vote Yes on September 18th. In case that wording is problematic, let us ask you
the same questions again less emotively. Is Scotland a distinct political unit? Is the best way to run a political
unit to have the people within that unit agree between them how it should be run? See? The games a bogie.
There is no logical way to vote No unless you answer No to at least one of those questions. There is no
coherent argument for a No vote that does not question either our political reality or our fitness for
democracy or both. see here for full article

Of course, the cumulative effect of scaremongering about an independent Scotland is to induce fear. We live
in fearful times. Virtually every pillar of society has been found wanting. Those who want a return to the
good old days when citizenship demanded no more than compliance crave certainty. But others have
realised the British model of top-down governance and trickle-down economics has failed and we must move
on. Scots may have convinced themselves the nation is not ready for independence and stability is found
dancing to the tune of an increasingly grim, dog-eat-dog UK which may soon be out of the EU and part-run by
Ukip. They may prefer to trust a British political class which has stopped at nothing to extinguish hope in
Scotland and portray the nation as a basket case set for decline, creeping senility and dependency. See
Lesley Riddoch in the Scotsman

How can a person love their country but think it isnt worthy of running its own affairs? If you deny your
country the right to be recognized as a nation with its own government like all the others, you diminish your
country, no matter how much you love it. Derek Bateman

Independence is not separation. It is about talking to ourselves and the world without going through an
intermediary Murray Pittock

Remember the referendum question would you like your independence and to run your own country, make
your own decisions and decide your own political priorities? No thanks

I cant promise youll get everything you want. But I can promise nothing will change if you dont try

Would you rather stay on a sinking ship for fear that the lifeboat wont work? Mhairi Black (see YouTube
video)

I Am Not a Nationalist but I Will Be Voting YES in the Independence Referendum see here To me, voting
Yes is not anti-English. Wanting to change an unfair society and broken political system is not anti-English.
This debate has never been about England or even Scotlands relationship with England. It is not about
separation or divisiveness. This debate is only to decide whether the political union that Scotland has with the
Westminster should be dissolved.

- 121 -

Scotland Should Go It Alone in The Oxford Student well worth reading from a non-Scot, non-Brit point of
view with some well written points e.g. Thus, as a Yes voter, I dont view myself as breaking Britain. The
truth is Britain is already broken. We live in a state with a deepening chasm of inequality the top 1% of
earners now own 10% of the wealth, compared to 7% in the 90s, while the bottom 50% own just 18%. We live
in a state where one in six children grow up in poverty and where the number of people using food banks has
increased 400% over the past year. And we live in a state where an inward-looking and racist nationalist
party just won the European elections on the back of popular discontent at the professional political class.
This is a state where over a quarter of MPs went Oxbridge, and where even a catastrophic financial crisis
wasnt enough to loosen the stranglehold of the city of London on the economy.

You see, the Yes campaign isnt a blood-and-soil nationalism fueled by hatred of the English. Rather, it is civic
nationalism, driven by fury at the Westminster elite and its regime of austerity, by a desire to create a more
equitable, internationally-minded Scotland. No wonder then a recent poll found 64% of Scots Asians are
planning to vote yes. Compare the open-minded pro-immigration Yes campaign to the unionists. British
nationalism is not a cuddly, conveniently neutral identity just look at EDL marches, or UKIP, or the BNP, or
the Orange Walks that flood the city of Glasgow each and every summer weekend.

Another article worth reading, this time from a mothers point of view can be found here. An excerpt worth
quoting An independent Scotland free from the chains of Westminster, free from a government we NEVER
voted in. I look around myself and all I see is the devastation of welfare reform, parents struggling to feed
their children, people with a disability being forced back to work.

The Myths: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4PoQbgUiA
The Fundamentals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6GsEKrCvgw
The Economics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W8cKHcZn60
The Potential: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6xuNrAeQgQ

Have you ever wondered what Hell is like?
The No Campaign Fails The Blank Sheet Of Paper Test
The Disunited Kingdom
Top 10 unionist myths


- 122 -



- 123 -






- 124 -

Finally...

- 1 -

This addendum was included because the writer sums up so well the reasons for choosing independence,
and the chance of a better future, after experiencing what being Better Together in the union really meant.
Its likely this will be familiar to many who read this.

Thanks to Alan N McPhail

A SCOTSMAN'S DREAM originally posted on Facebook

I love Scotland, because I was born there, went to school there, worked there, my children were born there,
and I met the love of my life there. Someday, my ashes will be scattered there too. However, I had no easy
start in life being born in 1947 in the East End of Glasgow in a Bridgeton slum with an outside toilet shared by
the neighbours. I shared that one roomed flat (single end) with my brother and parents for four years. Like
so many poor working class people who endured bad conditions in the Glasgow slums, my family succumbed
to the dreaded Glasgow disease TB. My father, brother and me were shipped to sanatoriums, only my
mother escaped. I spent a year in hospital from the age of four. The reason I share this with my F.B. friends is
to highlight the fact that many Scottish people have suffered hardships in the past because this Union we are
locked into has maintained an iron grip on Scotland and limited our ability to change our lives.

Hardship and poverty is therefore not a new thing for Scottish families, it has been going on for years and
years, and it is still going on today. When I was a child there was no food banks for the poor, everyone had to
make the best of it, difficult as it was. At School I was made to stand in a line at school meal times with the
other children who had free meal passes until the paying kids were served and then we were allowed to be
fed. I remember the humiliation I felt then as though it was yesterday. Consequently, I can empathise with
those Scots who now rely on food banks to feed their family. A small child knows nothing of its surroundings
and adapts better than adults do, but that is no excuse to allow child poverty to continue and escalate in
Scotland today. Neither is it pertinent to point out that there are poorer people elsewhere in the world as if
that makes the level of poverty we have in Scotland acceptable.
Back then when I was a boy there was no established SNP, no vision of escape from the system that kept us
locked into the situation we found ourselves in. Nevertheless, there burned a resentment for change in the
breasts of many and I was one of them, young as I was. I had a great teacher at school whose eloquence and
pertinacity to teach Scottish history introduced me to my country's past. I learned then that my people had
been suffering long before my own humble beginnings and had suffered much greater hardships, even death
at the hands of our supposed partner in this unholy Union of Unequals. The seed was sown then in my young
mind and has grown steadily ever since for Scottish independence.

I left school at fifteen, and got a job in engineering, but throughout my working life I saw one great
manufacturing company in Scotland close, one after the other.

We had the devolution referendum in May 1979 under the Callaghan Labour government and all the
Westminster parties promised new powers for Scotland if we voted No. I remember how excited I was as a
young man of 32 with a young family that at last Scotland would have a political wedge between us and
London. Despite winning 52% of the vote we were denied devolution by Westminster when a Labour MP
George Cunningham, a Scot from an English constituency proposed the unprecedented 40% rule that the
Labour government eagerly accepted. This stipulation had never been employed in British government
elections before, but they used it on Scotland. They moved the goalposts on us because they could, such is
the power of Westminster.

The Tories under Lord Hume had promised to address the concerns of Scots if they voted No and devolve
more powers to the Scottish Secretary, the de-facto Governor General of Scotland. But his pledge wasn't
honoured when Thatcher came to power months later after she deposed Ted Heath. The lesson learned
from 1979, was that we Scots cannot trust Westminster promises to Scotland, and we must never forget it.
Scotland then endured 18 years of hell when Thatcher systematically destroyed the industrial heart of our
country. I remember when Rootes of Linwood closed in 1981; people thought it would never happen
because it was so big. But it did. 13,000 lost their jobs as a direct and indirect consequences of the closure
because Westminster wanted to cease car manufacturing in Scotland, and offered no help. There was no
- 2 -

Scottish devolved government then to save the plant like Alex Salmond did with the Grangemouth refinery in
2013.

After Linwood, many more institutions that were bastions of employment in Scotland were destined to
follow suit. Thatcher demonised the miners as the "Enemy Within" because they had the audacity to
challenge her authority in trying to save their industry. The coal industry was destroyed in an act of
vengeance against the miners for what they inflicted on the Tory government in 1972 &1974. But Thatcher
was only getting started. When Scott Lithgow closed in Greenock, it paralysed that town and the
neighbouring Port Glasgow, because it employed so many of their citizens; the place was like a ghost town
for years afterwards. But, the yards of the Lower Clyde were not to be alone. The Upper Clyde shipyards
soon followed, and one after another the shipyards that had made Glasgow and created so many iconic ships
closed. Thousands of our skilled men and women were thrown on the ever rising scrap heap of
unemployment.

Lots of other areas of Scotland followed Glasgow's fate at the hands of the English Tories who continued to
rule over us. Irvine, Bathgate, and Methyl all suffered, as did Uddingston in 1987 when the giant Caterpillar
tractor plant closed, with the loss of 1200 jobs. Thatcher didn't raise a finger to save any of them. I was
around to see them all turned into rubble. Our fishing community was also decimated when Thatcher traded
the Scottish waters to the EU in exchange for her rebate. The fisherman might hate the EU these days, but it
was the Westminster Tories that sold their industry down the river and removed their birthright.

But Westminster was not finished with destroying what was left of our engineering heartland. They turned
their eyes to the profitable Ravenscraig Steelworks, the only steel producer in Scotland. Despite having a
world reputation for quality and the longest strip mill in Europe, Westminster decided on a whim to shut it
down and concentrate steel production in Wales. Ravenscraig had a buyer, but Westminster didn't want
competition for British Steel, so the offer was declined. The jewel in the crown of Scottish engineering was
closed courtesy of Westminster, and like all the rest, turned into rubble. It was then Lanarkshire's turn to
suffer the blight of mass unemployment. Once again we Scots were expendable in Westminster's eyes,
something that will never change.

I was made redundant like all my friends and every member of my family in Thatcher's purges and with all
the closures it was hard to find a job. Like many men I had to leave my home to find work at a cost of a
normal family life. My kids were still in primary school and I had a mortgage to pay, so I had no choice. This is
a scenario still familiar to many Scottish families today with the bread winners quest to find a job becoming
harder, and harder.
We had to wait another 20 years before we gained devolution and only the rise in support for the SNP
delivered it, but the Labour Party in government gave it the dismissive title, "The Scottish Executive," as
though it was no more than a quango. They didn't want the Scots to get above themselves with delusions of
government. Since the SNP took control of Holyrood and showed the Scots how they could govern well even
with their limited resources, the seeds of independence were sown in the minds of a new generation of Scots
the length and breadth of Scotland.
The de-industrialisation of Scotland has left an open wound that will never fully heal, making long term
unemployment a way of life for many. Our people have been forced to take zero hours contracts with no
guaranteed wage or lose their benefits, something that wasn't around in my day. Many working people still
cannot make ends meet which is an irrelevance to the Tory led Westminster government. Because
Westminster still favours Thatcher's monetarism policy over manufacturing we have seen London grow into
a city state to the detriment of every other region of the UK, and to the steady decline of industry. To finance
London's rise, Westminster used North Sea oil revenues, which also provided tax breaks for the rich. In
parallel to London's rise a new generation of poor grew up with little likelihood of escape or change of
attitude from Westminster. The ghost of the past was returning to haunt us.

The Tories now call the poor and disadvantaged on welfare, scroungers, such is their empathy and lack of
humanity. The fact that Westminster policies have created the feeling of hopelessness and lack of
opportunities for many Scots escapes them and is something that never ceases to anger me. It is why I hate
the Tory Party and everything they stand for, and I make no apologies for that. The best cure for
- 3 -

unemployment is not welfare but jobs and government investment in industry. But, the Tories would rather
swell the ranks of the unemployed than invest in our national industries. To emphasise the point only last
year Westminster allowed a shipyard in Portsmouth to close making 1200 skilled workers redundant, and
forced the redundancy of another 800 Scottish shipyard workers in Glasgow. Cameron's government then
went on to place a multi-million pound order for Royal Navy auxiliary ships in South Korea using taxpayer's
money that those same men made redundant contributed to. Pounds before people is always the Tory way.
Never forget that, because it will never change.

Westminster have systematically lied to Scots about the value of our oil for the past forty years and they are
still doing it today. They don't want us to realise its true worth and potential. That is why only government
sponsored quangos predict a negative viewpoint on oil values and longevity than those of the industry and
academic experts. It is so obvious why they are doing it, because they need the revenue for their own
grandiose plans down South. We must not be fooled by it. Oil will make Scotland very rich; just look at the
other oil producing nations in the world if you doubt it. Better Together is the greatest lie in a long list of lies
perpetrated on the Scottish people. We must stop believing these Westminster's lies, and believe in what we
can do, not what they try to convince us we cannot do.
The Labour Party has been complicit in this duplicity as much as the Tories, and these days it is hard to tell
them apart. The Scottish people have been conned by the Scottish Labour Party for years as they continue to
masquerade as the party of the underprivileged. In reality they are only the voice piece of the London Labour
Party and do what they are told by their London leader. When we had a Scottish Labour Prime Minister, and
a Scottish Labour chancellor who did nothing to redress the London-centric policies of Thatcherism to the
detriment of Scotland, it is madness for Scots to continue to support them. Success in England is more
important than fighting for the Scottish people, that is why they do what they do. When Scots wake up to
the fact that voting Labour won't help them, like it didn't help the men and women of my generation we
might get somewhere. Only the SNP fights for Scotland and only Scotland, and all Scots should recognise that
by now.

The present Labour MP's and MSP's are a sorry bunch, as they collude with the Tories and their Lib. Dem. lap
dogs to talk Scotland down. When the odious Scottish Labour leader Lamont, admits on national TV that we
Scots are not genetically programmed to make political decisions, everyone with half a brain must realise
what voting Labour really means for Scotland; a wasted vote. They and their Tory friends are this generations
parcel of rogues selling out Scotland.

For someone who has endured hard times in my life it pains me greatly to read that so many young Scots are
suffering poverty when I know we should be a rich country. We have the resources, the brains and leaders
with political acumen to match anyone in Westminster. The litany of Scottish achievements would fill
volumes of books, and we are recognised the world over as an inventive, industrious, and caring people. But,
what we don't have in abundance is courage and the belief in ourselves. Countless years of being told what
to do by our political masters in London has left an indelible inferiority complex in the minds of many Scots.
They believe the negativity and lies perpetrated from London by Westminster's friends in the media and the
national mouthpiece known as the BBC.

Like many others, I believe the only way to reverse the problems that face Scotland is if we take control of
our own country. Westminster is no friend to the Scottish people and the past has proven that beyond
doubt. Sadly, throughout our long history there has always been Scots who favour London's rule in Scotland
regardless of what they do, and these days are no different. The reason these CEO's, and London based
politicians support a No vote is because they have a vested interest in maintaining the London system of
control in Scotland. The same can be said for foreign politicians that have answered Cameron's call to
denounce Scotland's independence. None of them care about the welfare of our people, all they care about
is their own selfish interest.

Those ordinary Scots who intend to vote No, have just given up on Scotland. They think it is acceptable to
continue letting the people of England choose who governs Scotland whether it be Tory or UKIP, and that we
should just submit to London's rule regardless. If they are successful they will have to watch when
Westminster turns the screw on Scotland after the 2015 election and cuts our budget by billions. The Tories
- 4 -

will then set out to finish what Thatcher had started, and the No voters will be responsible for that. Their
supine subservience to Westminster rule makes them the saddest people of all.

I won't apologise for rambling on about the past, because I lived through it and don't want to see our young
folk being made to suffer at the hands of English Tories like I did. They don't care about the Scottish people,
they only want to suck us dry for their own benefit. A No vote is a sure fire way to turn the clock back instead
of going forward and it will be the biggest mistake in our country's history if we don't vote for our
independence. With UKIP on the rise in England the situation is becoming critical for Scotland. 307 years ago
the Scottish people had no vote regarding joining this Union, but now we have, and we must not waste it. A
No vote is a Tory vote, and we should all be clear about that, because it is the only way the sneering Tories
will get their dirty, greedy hands on Scotland again.

I am retired now and a pensioner, so my days of struggling to get a job are over. However, I never lost sight
of my dream. I still want to see Scotland flourish. I don't want to see anymore English Tory governments
riding roughshod over my country, treating my fellow Scots with indifference. I want to see Westminster
humbled by removing their nuclear weapons from Scotland for ever. I want to see the unelected House of
Lords never again legislating on Scotland. I want to see Scotland gaining benefits from our oil and gas
revenues for the first time in forty years, and see the gravy train to London stopped for good. I want to see
jobs created not destroyed to give our young folk a better start in life. I want to see poverty eradicated with
decent housing for all our citizens. I consider child poverty in our country in this day and age an obscenity. I
want to see a stop to unfettered military spending when our people endure the lowest pensions in Europe. I
want Scotland to have a properly funded NHS and welfare system that will be the envy of Europe. If we are in
control of all our finances and resources and stop paying for Westminster excesses, we can afford to do it all.
I want Scotland to be a land of opportunity not of despair, and if the English government wants to be our
enemy after independence we should rise to that challenge like our ancestors did. Scotland will prevail.

But most of all my friends, I want to see Scotland become a free and independent country for all time, and
for all its citizens to have a better life than those who went before them.

Alan N McPhail